Thankfully it’s now clear: climate denier and Trump cultist. — Mikie

:rofl:

Now degenerated into full-blown Trump cultist. What a shocker. :lol: — Mikie

Mikie, I am not, and never have been, a big fan of Donald Trump.

I also do not watch Fox News. And I never have.

You are wrong once again. :scream:

There is no EV mandate. There was no EV mandate. Effectively or otherwise. — Mikie

A rose by any other name would smell as sweet.

Do you understand that Mikie?

In case you don't understand it, I will explain it to you.

It doesn't matter what name you use to describe what the Biden administration and the EPA did. The important thing is that President Trump got rid of it.

It’s not a mandate, nor an effective mandate — Mikie

Have you ever seen the advertisement for Claytons, a non-alcoholic, non-carbonated beverage coloured and packaged to resemble bottled whisky. Since is has zero alcohol the punch-line in the advertisement is "the drink that you have when you're not having a drink".

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) rule that required auto manufacturers to cut greenhouse gas emissions is "the mandate that you have when you're not having a mandate".

Hey Mikie, how do you keep an idiot in suspense?

You can still buy combustion engine cars all you want. No one is forcing anyone to buy an EV. The entire “mandate” bullshit...] — Mikie

The effective EV mandate would make gasoline-powered automobiles much more expensive than EV's (the opposite of the current situation). This would effectively price gasoline-powered automobiles out of the market in favour of EVs.

Mikie, you seem unable to understand the clear statement made by President Trump. Here it is again. I will carefully explain it to you in language that an idiot can understand. I have underlined the parts that you should pay attention to.

To eliminate the “electric vehicle (EV) mandate” and promote true consumer choice
- by removing regulatory barriers to motor vehicle access
- by ensuring a level regulatory playing field for consumer choice in vehicles
- by terminating, where appropriate, state emissions waivers that function to limit sales of gasoline-powered automobiles
- by considering the elimination of unfair subsidies and other ill-conceived government-imposed market distortions that favor EVs over other technologies
- the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) rule (this is the the effective EV mandate) that required auto manufacturers to cut greenhouse gas emissions by half in new light- and medium-duty vehicles beginning in 2027 and effectively mandate the purchase of EVs by individuals, private businesses, and government entities alike by rendering other types of vehicles unaffordable;

Can you understand that?

There has never been an EV mandate. True, that’s hard to believe for climate denying idiots who cite Donald Trump as a source. — Mikie

Mikie, if you had the ability to "think before acting" and to "consider the complexity of a situation before making a choice" (both of which fruit flies can do :scream: ), then you would make less mistakes.

A mandate is "an official order or commission to do something".

The Environmental Protection Agency rule that required auto manufacturers to cut greenhouse gas emissions by half in new light- and medium-duty vehicles beginning in 2027 IS THE MANDATE.

The EPA has estimated the rule would force auto manufacturers to build electric vehicles for about 30% to 56% of their new light-duty vehicles by 2032 and 20% to 32% of new medium duty vehicles.

This is similar to the Britain mandate which says that automakers' EV sales must account for 22% of overall sales this year, rising to 25% in 2025, 33% in 2026, 38% in 2027, 52% in 2028, 66% in 2029, 80% in 2030 and 100% in 2035.

The British mandate is based on sales figures whereas the USA mandate is based on greenhouse gas emissions.

So you are wrong (as usual). There was an EV mandate in the USA but Trump eliminated it just hours after taking office.

there has never been an EV “mandate” in the US. Never. — Mikie

Mikie, you seem to live in a world of your own. Why don't you try getting out of your mother's basement occasionally.

In an earlier post I said:

There are EV mandates (or effective mandates) in Europe, UK, China, and Australia. America had an EV mandate until Trump eliminated the electric vehicle (EV) mandate just hours after taking office. — Agree-to-Disagree

Try googling "ev mandate america us usa". Here are some results:

This first one is from The White House (the whitehouse.gov domain). I think that they will know about EV mandates if anybody does.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/unleashing-american-energy

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, it is hereby ordered:
Section 2. Policy. It is the policy of the United States:
(e) to eliminate the “electric vehicle (EV) mandate” and promote true consumer choice, which is essential for economic growth and innovation, by removing regulatory barriers to motor vehicle access; by ensuring a level regulatory playing field for consumer choice in vehicles; by terminating, where appropriate, state emissions waivers that function to limit sales of gasoline-powered automobiles; and by considering the elimination of unfair subsidies and other ill-conceived government-imposed market distortions that favor EVs over other technologies and effectively mandate their purchase by individuals, private businesses, and government entities alike by rendering other types of vehicles unaffordable;

RANDY FEENSTRA - Proudly serving the 4th district (the house.gov domain)
https://feenstra.house.gov/media/op-ed/president-bidens-electric-vehicle-mandates-are-costly-and-unrealistic
President Biden’s Electric-Vehicle Mandates are Costly and Unrealistic.
On March 20th, President Biden authorized the largest government mandate of electric vehicles in American history.
But President Biden didn’t stop his attacks on liquid fuels there. Just nine days after he approved his electric-vehicle mandate on American families, he authorized another EPA rule that would impact eight different classes of trucks and require a growing share of trucks – including semis – to be electric over the next decade.
As is commonplace with this administration, President Biden has his priorities misplaced. By forcing mandates on our families while inflation continues to rise, he is increasing costs for Americans at a time when they can least afford it.

Energy & Commerce - Chairman Brett Guthrie (the house.gov domain)
https://energycommerce.house.gov/posts/e-and-c-republicans-lead-to-stop-the-biden-harris-de-facto-ev-mandate
Energy and Commerce Republicans are leading to stop the Biden-Harris administration from imposing unaffordable electric vehicle mandates that will jeopardize our auto industry and hand China the keys to our energy future.

USA Today
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2025/01/20/trump-executive-order-day-1-electric-vehicle/77835683007
Trump ends 'electric vehicle mandate,' withdraws US from Paris climate agreement
The orders include eliminating the so-called "electric vehicle mandate," Trump's phrase for a Environmental Protection Agency rule that required auto manufacturers to cut greenhouse gas emissions by half in new light- and medium-duty vehicles beginning in 2027.
The EPA has estimated the rule would force auto manufacturers to build electric vehicles for about 30% to 56% of their new light-duty vehicles by 2032 and 20% to 32% of new medium duty vehicles.

EV “mandates.” Lol.

The climate denial idiocy continues on… — Mikie

Mikie, I am not surprised that you are ignorant about EV mandates. A little bit of googling would have educated you.

There are EV mandates (or effective mandates) in Europe, UK, China, and Australia. America had an EV mandate until Trump eliminated the electric vehicle (EV) mandate just hours after taking office.

In Britain automakers' EV sales must account for 22% of overall sales this year, rising to 25% in 2025, 33% in 2026, 38% in 2027, 52% in 2028, 66% in 2029, 80% in 2030 and 100% in 2035. In the EU a roughly similar program to outlaw ICE vehicles is defined by fleet carbon dioxide emissions.

In Britain failure to meet these requirements forces manufacturers to either purchase certificates from others who exceeded their targets or face fines of £15,000 per non-compliant vehicle.

Here is the title of an article that I found, "Europe’s Wobbling EV Mandate Will Force Hard Choices".

China’s EV mandate, announced last week (this was published on October 3, 2017), is part of an effort to reach 20% EV sales, or 7 million vehicles, in 2025, Yunshi Wang of the China Center for Energy and Transportation, UC Davis, told the event.

While the Australian emission standard does not mandate EVS the government knows full well that the only way that most brands will meet the target is by selling battery cars to offset the regular petrol and diesel cars. It's an EV mandate by the back door.

I’ve given your recommendation exactly the amount of attention it deserves: none. As with most climate deniers.

I get that you’re too stupid to understand why — but others do. — Mikie

Here is a news report from Fire and Rescue NSW (FRNSW):

Fire and Rescue NSW recording Lithium-Ion battery fires at a rate of five a week - NSW
Published: 15 Mar 2024 11:48am

Fire and Rescue NSW (FRNSW) has expressed concerns about the rising rate of Lithium-Ion battery fires as crews responded to four separate incidents yesterday.

- Nine fire trucks rushed to an address in Apprentice Drive at Berkeley, on the state’s Central Coast, just after 5pm yesterday when an electric vehicle charging station caught alight. Crews established a defensive perimeter around the business, fearing multiple Lithium-Ion truck batteries were at risk of catching fire. Firefighters extinguished the blaze without further incident.

- Around 4pm yesterday, a tradesman drove to the Tingira Heights Fire Station at Lake Macquarie, alerting firefighters that his toolbox was on fire. The maintenance worker told the crew he was driving when he noticed a large amount of smoke in his rear vision mirror. When he stopped his ute and opened the large toolbox, he found an unattached battery for his hedger ablaze. The man covered the flames in dirt and drove to the nearby fire station. Firefighters opened the toolbox and observed the dirt bubbling as the battery had entered a process, known as ‘Thermal Runaway; whereby the cell was off-gassing and threatening to explode. They submerged the battery in a container of water until the danger had passed.

- In a third incident around 12.45pm yesterday, a fire broke out in the rear of a garbage truck travelling along Derby Street at Silverwater, in Sydney’s west. The driver stopped the truck and tipped the burning rubbish onto the roadway. FRNSW crews arrived and found one battery amongst around 150 Lithium-Ion cells had entered ‘Thermal Runaway’ and was on fire. The battery was submerged in water, preventing a chain reaction, and the scene cleaned up.

- In a fourth Lithium-Ion battery-related blaze, an e-bike caught fire on the third floor of a 10-storey apartment block at Bankstown, in Sydney’s south-west. Residents were evacuated from the French Avenue address around 6.30am, as 25 firefighters and four trucks responded to the scene. Sprinklers were activated and suppressed the flames. The fire crews extinguished the fire and ventilated the building. An occupant suffered a superficial burn when he tried to remove the burning e-bike.

FRNSW has recorded 63 Lithium-Ion battery fires to date in 2024 (this report was published on 15 Mar 2024), subject to review, at a rate of 5.7 blazes a week.

Seven people have been injured in the fires.

There were 272 Lithium-Ion battery-related fires in 2023, at a rate of 5.2 a week.

Thirty eight people were injured last year.

FRNSW is reinforcing its public messages to households and businesses to use extra caution around Lithium-Ion batteries and related devices.

Mikie, do you think that Fire and Rescue NSW (FRNSW) is stupid?

Remember, these problems are only going to get worse as the number of EVs on the road increases.

So it is not the site to look for a balanced view of EVs as a practical means of transport, never mind as a way to contribute to stabilising the climate. — unenlightened

Do EV evangelists provide a balanced view of EVs? MGUY is providing the "other side" from EV evangelists.

I agree with you that MGUY is a bit of a petrol-head. But as I said before, MGUY is not totally against EVs. He says that they are great in certain circumstances. For example, if you do short trips, if you have off-street parking, if you can charge your EV at home, etc.

MGUY is very against EV mandates because EVs are not great in all circumstances. He wants people to be able to choose the type of car that is right for them.

MGUY provides links to where he gets his information from, so you can check that he providing true information. For example, in his video called "UK Fire Chiefs issue STARK warning on EVs" he provides the following links:

FRNSW position statement: https://m-g.uy/onl
- Fire and Rescue NSW (FRNSW) is the State Government agency responsible for the provision of fire, rescue and hazmat services in cities and towns across New South Wales. FRNSW is one of the world’s largest urban fire and rescue services and is the busiest in Australia. FRNSW's position statement includes the following:
- FRNSW consider EVs and EV charging stations to be special hazards...
- A failure event within an EV battery (such as mechanical, thermal abuse, rapid discharge, or internal cell failure) has the potential to lead to a thermal runaway event within the EV battery, which may pose significant challenges for the building structure, the building occupants, and for firefighters in the management of the incident.
Is this information incorrect because it is in MGUY's video?

Express article: https://m-g.uy/mgr
Here are some extracts:
- Electric cars can 'explode' and the public must be warned say worried UK fire chiefs.
- Fire chiefs say the public must be told about the huge fire risks posed by electric vehicles, as the Government presses ahead with a ban on new petrol and diesel cars.
- Damaged vehicles could burst into “explosive” flames and fires could resume days after they appeared to have been extinguished according to the National Fire Chiefs Council, the professional voice of the UK fire and rescue service.
- Blazes could also release toxic fumes and even the water used to put out electric vehicle fires could become poisonous and pollute the environment.
- Thermal runaway can lead to the creation of toxic vapours and gases such as (not exhaustive) carbon monoxide, hydrogen fluoride and hydrogen chloride.
- Fire water that is contaminated with chemicals from battery fires is dangerous to the environment.
Is this information incorrect because it is in MGUY's video?

Have I upset you Mikie?

Let's ignore the “windmills kill birds!” issue at the moment. You have introduced it as a distraction. But since you have raised the issue...

If you ask Google the question "what type of birds do wind turbines farms kill", The AI overview says:

Wind turbines most often impact large birds of prey, waterfowl, and nocturnally migrating birds.
Birds that are most impacted
- Large birds of prey: Eagles and hawks are more likely to fly into turbine blades
- Waterfowl: Swans, geese, and ducks are more likely to collide with turbines
- Nocturnally migrating birds: Passerines that migrate at night are more likely to collide with turbines

The fact that "windmills" kill large birds of prey is of particular concern.

Never mind that fossil fuels are subsidized by governments and are far more costly, even when externalities aren’t added — Mikie

Renewable energy is highly subsidized by governments. If fossil fuels are far more costly than renewables then why are developing counties using fossil fuels to help lift themselves out of poverty? If renewable energy was really cheaper then they would be queuing up to use renewables.

after all, he comes highly recommended by an Internet forum’s resident climate denier, and fellow intellectual fruit fly — who refuses to spend a second reading anything relevant on the topic, but would like you to spend the time watching his stupid bullshit. — Mikie

I have told you many times Mikie that I accept that global warming is happening. I accept that humans are responsible for most of the increase in the CO2 level above 280 ppm. I accept that this will cause some problems. We need to be careful that in trying to solve global warming that we don't end up causing bigger more serious problems. That is why you should be looking at things like MGUY's videos. You shouldn't be pretending that there are no problems with our "solutions" to global warming.

If you pull the blankets over your head in bed, then the monsters can't get you. :scream:

But some idiot on YouTube has something to say about it that we should all pay attention to — Mikie

I would be interested to hear from other people on this thread what they think about MGUY's videos.
https://www.youtube.com/@mguytv

Are MGUY's videos "stupid bullshit" as Mikie is claiming?

Some of the information on the map that you reference seems "odd".

North-Central USA / Jan 2020-Jan 2021 / wet to dry
Why does this have the impact of flooding

Northern and Central Europe / Jan 2018-Jan 2019 / wet to dry
Why does this have the impact of flooding

Pacific Southwest / Oct 2022-Oct 2023 / dry to wet
Why does this have the impact of wildfire

Southern Chile and Argentina / Dec 2016-Dec2017 / dry to wet
Why does this have the impact of wildfire

Southeast Australia / Dec 2019-Dec2020 / dry to wet
Why does this have the impact of wildfire

The way that the date ranges are different for each region makes it look like they are cherry-picking. They vary in starting month and starting year. The starting year varies from 2016 to 2023.

Also the date ranges vary in length. Most are MMM YYYY to MMM (YYYY+1).
But West Africa is Jun 2020-Sep 2020
East Africa is Sep 2023 to Dec 2023
Southern China is Jun 2022 to Sep 2022
Iran, Pakistan and Eastern Arabian Peninsula is May 2022-Aug 2022

Why didn't they give results for the same date range and date range length?

Yes, I would like renewable/sustainable/green energy efforts to succeed. But I think that most people don't know about, or don't want to acknowledge, the many problems that there are with the current efforts. I could list many examples of these problems, but MGUY does a much better job of this than I can. I strongly recommend that you look at his videos.
https://www.youtube.com/@mguytv

Mikie, are you going to look at any of MGUY's videos?

https://www.youtube.com/@mguytv

No kidding. Neither are you. Which is why it’s strange you’re in a climate change thread. — Mikie

Solar power, wind power, EVs, lithium batteries, etc. are relevant to climate change. If you don't know that then you should expand your world view beyond your little self-imposed echo chamber.

Some advice for you Mikie. When in a hole, stop digging. Remember that everybody reading the thread can see how ridiculous you are.

An engineer is as much a climate scientist as a lawyer. But it’s hilarious you think it’s important I “left it out.” — Mikie

An engineer knows more about solar power, wind power, EVs, lithium batteries, etc. than a climate scientist.

MGUY is not talking about climate science. He is talking about engineering problems.

For your information Mikie, engineers apply scientific principles to analyze, design, invent, code, build, and create, to solve all sorts of problems and make the world a better place.

do we ignore all that, select a YouTube lawyer — Mikie

Why did you fail to mention that MGUY is also an engineer?

Could it be Mikie, that you are biased and ignore the qualifications of any person that disagrees with you?

MGUY puts links to the places where he gets information from. For example in his YouTube video called "UK Fire Chiefs issue STARK warning on EVs", he puts the following links in the description of the video.

FRNSW position statement: https://m-g.uy/onl
Express article: https://m-g.uy/mgr

You can check that what he is saying is true. Not that you would ever follow the links Mikie. You don't even see the links if you don't go to any of MGUYs videos Mikie. :scream:

Are you really over the age of 11? — Mikie

No, I am not. I will be 8 on my next birthday.

I recently bought a used Nissan Leaf. I love it. I plug it in when I get home and never have to worry about gas. It's also much easier to maintain. — RogueAI

MGUY is not totally against EVs. He says that they are good in certain circumstances. For example, if you do short trips, if you have off-street parking, if you can charge your EV at home, etc.

MGUY is against EV mandates because EVs are not great in all circumstances. He wants people to be able to choose the type of car that is right for them.

It is good that your Nissan Leaf is great for you. But not everybody is in the same situation as you.

So he cites a YouTube guy. — Mikie

As usual Mikie gives a knee-jerk reaction based on his narrow-mindedness.

If Einstein had a YouTube channel would you refuse to accept his views?

Did you even look at any of MGUY's videos?

MGUY is a British engineer and lawyer, now a Sydney based YouTuber.

What are your qualifications Mikie?

This presents me with a difficult choice. Should I trust Mikie, or a qualified engineer?

If you want to know the truth about net zero, solar power, wind power, EVs, lithium batteries, etc., then check out this YouTube channel.

MGUY Australia
https://www.youtube.com/@mguytv

you will be told all the time that a supercomputer says that you are totally wrong — Eros1982

This has already happened. This example does not involve a "supercomputer", but it shows what can go wrong when some people believe that everything that comes out of computer system must be correct.

This happened in real life and a TV drama series was made about it. The real legal case is called "Bates & Others v Post Office Ltd", and the TV drama series is called "Mr Bates vs The Post Office".

Here is a brief summary of what happened.

Subpostmasters are self-employed business operators who run Post Office branches under contract to the state-owned Post Office. In 1999 the Post Office rolled out new electronic point of sale and accounting software called Horizon (produced and maintained by Fujitsu) to its network of over 11,000 branches. Soon after the installation of Horizon, subpostmasters started to experience unexplained shortfalls in the accounts, which, under the terms of their contracts, they were expected to make good with their own money, leading to debt and, on occasion, bankruptcy. The Post Office terminated contracts and pursued subpostmasters through the civil and criminal courts over shortfalls generated by Horizon. Between 1999 and 2015, over 900 subpostmasters were wrongly prosecuted for false accounting and theft. The majority of those prosecutions were private prosecutions brought by the Post Office rather than the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS).

The subpostmasters claimed to “have been subjected to unlawful treatment by the Defendant (Post Office Ltd) causing them significant financial losses (including loss of their business and property), bankruptcy, prosecutions, serving community or custodial sentences, distress and related ill-health, stigma and/or reputational damage”. The Post Office denied the claims, and submitted a counterclaim.

The Common Issues trial examined the contract between the subpostmasters and the Post Office and found largely in favour of the claimants. The Horizon Issues trial found that Horizon, the Post Office's accounting software, contained bugs, errors and defects that could cause shortfalls in the subpostmasters' accounts.

This problem started in 1999 when the Post Office rolled out Horizon. The court case ended in 2019. It took 20 years for the subpostmasters who were still alive to get justice, and it ruined many people's lives (including a number who lost their lives in tragic circumstances after being accused). All because the Post Office believed that the Horizon system couldn't make a mistake.

the earth is flat. But I’m not a flat earther. — Mikie

Mikie, what have you been smoking?

Is that the powerful windmill-industrial complex? — jorndoe

Big Climate Change is pushing the idea of net zero. It tries to demonize fossil fuels. It promotes solar energy and wind energy over other more reliable types of energy. It is trying to affect what forms of energy developing counties can use. It is trying to get everybody into EV's and stop people using fossil fuel vehicles. It is trying to affect what people eat. It funds science that supports its goals. Because of this climate scientists seem to be trying to outdo each other by coming out with more and more extreme claims and predicted catastrophic disasters.

Big Climate Change is using public money (e.g. money from taxes, etc.) to try and control what the public is allowed to do. According to the Climate Policy Initiative, the global "climate change industry," encompassing climate finance, reached an average of approximately $1.3 trillion annually in 2021/2022. This is close to the GDP of Indonesia.

why do you consistently call others alarmists and scaremongers? — jorndoe

I call people "alarmists" because they are warning people about a dangerous situation. They a raising an alarm about the consequences of continuing to use fossil fuels.

The definition of the word "alarmist" is "a person who tends to raise alarms, especially without sufficient reason, as by exaggerating dangers or prophesying calamities". So "alarmist" can have a negative connotation, but not necessarily so. If the "alarmist" is warning people about a real dangerous situation, and they are not exaggerating the dangers, then using the word in this situation does not have a negative connotation.

If you weren't called denier, what you call them? — jorndoe

I think that the best substitute for "alarmist" is "activist". The word "activist" can have positive or negative connotations, often positive. Also, it is short and ends with "ist" (meaning a person who practices, is interested in, or believes in something).

In absence of anything better, I'll go by the (large) consensus among subject matter experts. — jorndoe

You are welcome to go by the (large) consensus. I try to look at the data and draw my own conclusions.

A consensus is not always correct. There can be groupthink (where dissenting opinions are suppressed, e.g. climate scientists influencing journal editors). There can be pressure to conform within a group. There can be financial considerations (the need to agree with the consensus in order to get funding etc.). Climate change is now a huge self sustaining industry (Big Climate Change, like there is Big Oil and Big Pharma, etc.).

Doesn't seem plausible that they're all in on some conspiracy or whatever, but people have ridiculously believed worse. Any ulterior motives would largely be financial in fossil fuel sectors — jorndoe

It doesn't need to be a conspiracy. Scientists (including climate scientists) have also got a number of motives (e.g. financial motives). The scientists who work for Big Oil, Big Pharma, Big Tobacco, etc. are often seen (possibly incorrectly) as being paid to produce requested scientific results. Are climate scientists immune from the same thing? Do you believe that all climate scientists are "knights in shining armour"?

What I find hilarious is that it’s not just “alarmist,” which we’d all understand— he has to, each time, type out “climate change/global warming alarmist.” — Mikie

That is because alarmists keep changing the name.
- global warming
- climate change
- climate crisis
- climate emergency
- climate breakdown
- climate collapse
- climate chaos
- climate whiplash
- global heating
- global boiling
- global weirding
- planetary fever
- planetary warming
- global meltdown
- global melting
- scorched Earth

I didn't want to type out "global warming/climate change/climate crisis/climate emergency/climate breakdown/climate collapse/climate chaos/climate whiplash/global heating/global boiling/global weirding/planetary fever/planetary warming/global meltdown/global melting/scorched Earth alarmist"

When you have the intellect of a fruit fly… — Mikie

Here is Google's AI Overview when asked the question "how intelligent are fruit flies?"

Fruit flies are surprisingly intelligent, capable of complex behaviors like forming memories, making decisions based on gathered information, and navigating their environment, demonstrating cognitive abilities that were previously thought to be only present in mammals, even though their brains are much simpler compared to humans; research suggests they can "think before they act" and consider the complexity of a situation before making a choice.

Thank you for the compliment Mikie. Another scientific topic that you know nothing about. :rofl:

From what I can see, Mikie doesn't have the ability to "think before acting" or "considering the complexity of a situation before making a choice". What is it like to be outsmarted by a fruit fly Mikie.

why do you consistently call others alarmists and scaremongers? — jorndoe

Why do alarmists consistently call anybody who doesn't totally agree with them "deniers"?

People like Mikie will never stop calling other people "deniers". There seems to be no middle ground between Mikie and reasonable people.

So he cites the Cato Institute. — Mikie

This is a typical climate-change/global-warming alarmist response to an inconvenient truth. Ad hominem. If they don't have any way of disproving a statement then they resort to attacking the person who made the statement.

Respond to the statement Mikie, not the person who made the statement.

P.S.

Another common tactic used by climate-change/global-warming alarmists when cornered is to go silent.

which would amount to about 0.55 degrees Celsius by 2012. The warming that occurred was about 0.39 degrees Celsius.

If somebody promised you $55,000 but only gave you $39,000, would you be happy?

The difference between the projected 0.55 degrees and the observed 0.39 degrees is because of natural fluctuations

Every prediction is accurate if you attribute the difference to natural fluctuations.

I have been banging on for ages about sea level rise as a major factor that will affect us — unenlightened

Sea levels have been slowly rising since the end of the Little Ice Age around 1850. Coastal cities have not disappeared though, because in the normal course of constantly rebuilding structures and infrastructures, we have been elevating them. For the most part, this is not a piece of some grand master plan (other than building codes for new structures), but the basic fact is that “new” cities are constantly being built on top of “old cities,” a practice that has gone on for at least a few thousand years. — The Global Warming Apocalypses That Didn’t Happen

Santa suggests you cut back on the meat a bit. — unenlightened

What do you think Santa does with the reindeer that get too old to pull his sleigh? Apparently reindeer burgers are very tasty. If you look at the size of Santa's belly he is obviously not vegan or vegetarian.

Also, it is too cold to grow vegetables at the North Pole. Does Santa have to get his vegetables flown in?

Or, as climate denying idiots would say: “No climate predictions have come true!” — Mikie

I enjoy being insulted by climate-change/global-warming alarmists because it shows that they are desperate, irrational, and have no scientific rationale. :scream:

You are so very stupid, you cannot read your own evidence. I cannot help you. — unenlightened

You obviously can't prove that my evidence is not true. Resorting to personal insults shows that you have no scientific rationale.

P.S. I don't want help from an alarmist idiot. :scream:

People have been saying silly things and getting predictions wrong for as long as they have been talking. But to do it deliberately, as you do, is fortunately much rarer — unenlightened

What makes you think that your predictions and claims are any better than mine? I present evidence to support my claims. For example:

- the report in the Popular Mechanics magazine published in March 1912.The brief note in the New Zealand newspaper from some 113 years ago was based on this report

- the quote from an Associated Press report published in The Washington Post on Nov. 2, 1922

Both of these items show that climate-change/global-warming alarmists have been scaremongering and warning of impending doom for well over 100 years. Can you prove that my evidence is not true?

Come back in another century and sneer about failed doomsday cults. — unenlightened

That is a foolish thing to say since I won't still be alive in another century.

You probably won't be around in another century to see that your predictions were wrong. In fact almost everyone alive now will not be around in another century. It is easy to make predictions for things that are predicted to occur after you are dead. You won't be around for people to laugh at.

Climate-change/global-warming alarmists have made many predictions which turned out to be wrong.

In 1982, Mostafa Tolba, executive director of the UN’s Environment Program, pointed to the possibility of widespread devastation in less than 20 years. He cited “an environmental catastrophe which will witness devastation as complete, as irreversible as any nuclear holocaust.”

On June 30, 1989, the Associated Press squeezed decimation into a tight, 11-year window, with an ominous article, “Rising Seas Could Obliterate Nations,” containing a jaw-dropping opener: “A senior UN environmental official (Noel Brown) says entire nations could be wiped off the face of the Earth by rising sea levels if the global warming trend is not reversed by the year 2000.”

In 1990, aware the apocalypse was stalled, Mostafa Tolba, doubled down: “We shall win or lose the climate struggle in the first years of the 1990s. The issue is as urgent as that.”

In February 1993, Thomas Lovejoy, assistant secretary for Environmental and External Affairs at the Smithsonian Institution, stressed the world had one remaining decade of opportunity to avoid calamity. “I am utterly convinced that most of the great environmental struggles will be either won or lost in the 1990s and by the next century it will be too late.”

The 1990s was a steady chain of doomsday assurances, but the heaviest hyperbole was yet to be unleashed.

Cannibals, Toast, and Chaos

In 2006, former vice-president Al Gore projected that unless drastic measures were implemented, the planet would hit an irreversible “point of no return” by 2016. Game over.

Rajendra Pachauri, head of the UN Climate Panel, one-upped Gore in 2007, insisting 2012 was the year of irreversibility. “If there is no action before 2012, that’s too late. What we do in the next two to three years will determine our future. This is the defining moment.”

In April 2008, media mogul Ted Turner provided far more detail than either Gore or Pachauri, emphasizing the consequences of climate inaction. “Not doing it will be catastrophic. We’ll be eight degrees hotter in ten, not 10 but 30 or 40 years and basically none of the crops will grow. Most of the people will have died and the rest of us will be cannibals. Civilization will have broken down. The few people left will be living in a failed state like Somalia or Sudan, and living conditions will be intolerable. The droughts will be so bad there’ll be no more corn growing.”

The acclaimed godfather of global warming, James Hansen, drew a line in the sand testifying before Congress in June 2008, on the dangers of greenhouse gases: “We’re toast if we don’t get on a very different path. This is the last chance.”

A year later, in July 2009, then-Prince Charles chimed in, asserting the planet had 96 months to avoid decimation: “…irretrievable climate and ecosystem collapse, and all that goes with it.”

Only three months later, UK prime minister Gordon Brown urged nations to pull a historical handbrake ahead of a climate conference: “There are now fewer than 50 days to set the course of the next 50 years and more. If we do not reach a deal at this time, let us be in no doubt: once the damage from unchecked emissions growth is done, no retrospective global agreement, in some future period, can undo that choice. By then, it will be irretrievably too late.”

In 2014, French foreign minister Laurent Fabius upped Brown’s 50 days to 500. “We have 500 days to avoid climate chaos.”

Twelve years to 2031. In January 2019, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez put her chips on 2031 as the potential end of days. “Millennials and people, you know, Gen Z and all these folks that will come after us are looking up and we’re like: ‘The world is gonna end in 12 years if we don’t address climate change and your biggest issue is how are we gonna pay for it? And, like, this is the war—this is our World War ll.”

Eleven years to 2030. Echoing Ocasio-Cortez in March 2019, but shaving off a year, UN General Assembly President Maria Garces declared an 11-year window to escape catastrophe: “We are the last generation that can prevent irreparable damage to our planet.”

In June 2019, then-presidential candidate Joe Biden threw his support behind Ocasio-Cortez’s dozen-year projection: “Science tells us that how we act or fail to act in the next 12 years will determine the very livability of our planet.”

Full circle back to 2023, and the UN’s latest “time-bomb,” released March 20, as described by the Associated Press: “Humanity still has a chance close to the last to prevent the worst of climate change’s future harms…”

In step with near annual UN declarations from the past 50 years, Secretary-General Guterres once again sounded the alarm: “The climate time-bomb is ticking.”

But therein lies the beauty of doomsday predictions: When one fails, make another. — Chris Bennett

Yeah, we knew about fossil fuel burning producing CO2 and that CO2 was a greenhouse gas back in the 19th century. — Mikie

Yes, we have known about global warming for a long time.

The Arctic Ocean is warming up, icebergs are growing scarcer, and in some places the seals are finding the water too hot. Reports from fishermen, seal hunters, and explorers all point to a radical change in climate conditions and hitherto unheard-of temperatures in the Arctic zone. Exploration expeditions report that scarcely any ice has been met as far north as 81 degrees 29 minutes. Within a few years it is predicted that due to the ice melt the sea will rise and make most coastal cities uninhabitable.” — from an Associated Press report published in The Washington Post on Nov. 2, 1922.

This was published over 100 years ago. :rofl:

Climate-change/global-warming alarmists have been scaremongering and warning of impending doom for well over 100 years. Like most doomsday cults, when the predicted disaster doesn't happen when it was predicted they just shift the date of disaster to some time in the future.

Brief note in a New Zealand newspaper from some 113 years ago: — jorndoe

The brief note in the New Zealand newspaper from some 113 years ago came from a report in the Popular Mechanics magazine published in March 1912. The quote is the caption under a picture in the report. The quote in the New Zealand newspaper correctly matches the caption in the report.

However, the brief note in the New Zealand newspaper from some 113 years ago is only a small part of the report, which is called "Remarkable Weather of 1911". It sounds like the weather in 1911 was even more extreme at 300.6 ppm of CO2 than it was in 2023 and 2024 at 419.3 ppm of CO2. Here are some quotes from the report.

========== Beginning of quotes ==========

THE year 1911 will long be remembered for the violence of its weather. The spring opened mild and delightful, but in June a torrid wave of unparalleled severity swept over the country. The cities baked and gasped for breath, while the burning sun and hot winds withered the corn and cost the farmers a million dollars a day. A little later England was scorched and France and Germany sweltered. The mercury went above 100 deg, in western Canada, and whalers brought back reports from the Arctic regions of open water where always before there had been solid ice. The reports from Mexico and Central America would well describe the lower regions, but it is said that the summer in Iceland was enjoyable.

In August the elements took a different turn and the flood-gates of the heavens were opened. Kentucky and the South Atlantic states were deluged, and the Philippines were more thoroughly drowned than they had been before since the time of Noah. Alberta was visited by a killing frost which ruined hundreds of pioneer farmers. A cyclone devastated Costa Rica and a violent gale swept the South Atlantic coast, destroying a great number of vessels. During the later fall, the North Atlantic was tormented by a series of more violent storms than were known to the oldest sea captains. In November the southern states were visited by a killing frost, while December was remarkable for its high temperatures.

Aside from the extreme heat, the frosts of the far North and the sunny South, and the violent storms at sea, the year 1911 was still exceptional. The mean temperature of every month except November was above the average of that of the 40 years covered by the records of the United States Weather Bureau. The average daily excess was from four to six degrees.

With only one month out of twelve below normal, one may well ask if the climate is not changing and getting warmer. There is a general impression among older men that the good old-fashioned winters in which “the snow was fifteen feet deep and lasted six months” do not come any more. In spite of the fact that the year just past was above the average in temperature, there is no clear indication that there is any progressive change in the direction of a warmer climate. The average temperature of the year 1878 was as high as that of 1911. There seem to be moderate changes in a cycle of about 35 years, and it is suggested that this is related to the period of sun-spot activities, which is about one-third as long.

[ added by @Agree-to-Disagree - from 1911 to 2023 is 112 years, which is close to 3 cycles of 35 years ]

========== End of quotes ==========

The report from the Popular Mechanics magazine published in March 1912 can be found here:
https://books.google.co.nz/books?id=Tt4DAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA339&dq=&source=bl&ots=QvdH-SgFLl&sig=WiPUNOIzM6udOSTBm2VXzRQB9K8&hl=en&sa=X&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false

Brief note in a New Zealand newspaper from some 113 years ago: — jorndoe

2 points:

1) the article doesn't say that raising the earth's temperature is a bad thing

2) New Zealand has always been ahead of the rest of the world

Does every generation finally get to the point where they don't recognize the world anymore? — frank

Frank, the answer to your question can be found in a lecture by Michael Crichton called "Aliens Cause Global Warming".

Here is the relevant quote:

Remember, people in 1900 didn’t know what an atom was. They didn’t know its structure. They also didn’t know what a radio was, or an airport, or a movie, or a television, or a computer, or a cell phone, or a jet, an antibiotic, a rocket, a satellite, an MRI, ICU, IUD, IBM, IRA, ERA, EEG, EPA, IRS, DOD, PCP, HTML, internet, interferon, instant replay, remote sensing, remote control, speed dialing, gene therapy, gene splicing, genes, spot welding, heat-seeking, bipolar, prozac, leotards, lap dancing, email, tape recorder, CDs, airbags, plastic explosive, plastic, robots, cars, liposuction, transduction, superconduction, dish antennas, step aerobics, smoothies, twelve-step, ultrasound, nylon, rayon, teflon, fiber optics, carpal tunnel, laser surgery, laparoscopy, corneal transplant, kidney transplant, AIDS. None of this would have meant anything to a person in the year 1900. They wouldn’t know what you are talking about.