1
Pookie's Toons / Re: Today's Toons 5/22/24
« Last post by Polly Ticks on Today at 12:00:34 pm »Thanks, Pookie.
Recent Posts
2
Jokes and Humor / Re: The Official TBR Silliness Thread---2024
« Last post by Slide Rule on Today at 11:45:10 am »
3
General Discussion / Video: This Is Criminal – Look At These Lazy EMT Wokies In New York… “Helping” A Stroke Victim
« Last post by American Girl on Today at 11:44:13 am »Any first responder employment should require staff to maintain peak physical fitness or look for another job.
Tired of these out-of-shape lazy people being unable to perform the very basic, fundamentals of their job due to weight problems.
Also, they deserve some jail time for doing this!
https://conservativeus.com/video-this-is-criminal-look-at-these-lazy-emt-wokies-in-new-york-helping-a-stroke-victim/
Tired of these out-of-shape lazy people being unable to perform the very basic, fundamentals of their job due to weight problems.
Also, they deserve some jail time for doing this!
https://conservativeus.com/video-this-is-criminal-look-at-these-lazy-emt-wokies-in-new-york-helping-a-stroke-victim/
4
Climate Change / Climate Research Paper Finds Tropical Storm Variability Linked Mostly To Oceanic Cycles
« Last post by rangerrebew on Today at 11:09:16 am »Climate Research Paper Finds Tropical Storm Variability Linked Mostly To Oceanic Cycles
By P Gosselin on 21. May 2024
It’s the oceans, stupid (not CO2)!
The latest climate information video released by the Germany-based European Institute for Climate and Energy (EIKE) presents a recent paper by Huang et al appearing in the journal Geophysical Research Letters: “Contrasting Responses of Atlantic and Pacific Tropical Cyclone Activity to Atlantic Multidecadal Variability”
The paper examines the influences of Atlantic Multidecadal Variability (AMV) on global tropical cyclones (TCs)
The north Atlantic undergoes approximately 60-year cycles of warmer and colder than normal sea surface temperatures. These changes in thermal surface energy play a role on modulating climate globally, especially in combination with other oceanic cycles.
https://notrickszone.com/2024/05/21/climate-research-paper-finds-tropical-storm-variability-linked-mostly-to-oceanic-cycles/
By P Gosselin on 21. May 2024
It’s the oceans, stupid (not CO2)!
The latest climate information video released by the Germany-based European Institute for Climate and Energy (EIKE) presents a recent paper by Huang et al appearing in the journal Geophysical Research Letters: “Contrasting Responses of Atlantic and Pacific Tropical Cyclone Activity to Atlantic Multidecadal Variability”
The paper examines the influences of Atlantic Multidecadal Variability (AMV) on global tropical cyclones (TCs)
The north Atlantic undergoes approximately 60-year cycles of warmer and colder than normal sea surface temperatures. These changes in thermal surface energy play a role on modulating climate globally, especially in combination with other oceanic cycles.
https://notrickszone.com/2024/05/21/climate-research-paper-finds-tropical-storm-variability-linked-mostly-to-oceanic-cycles/
5
Climate Change / The Guardian is Confused, 1.5°C of Warming is Not Catastrophic
« Last post by rangerrebew on Today at 10:59:00 am »The Guardian is Confused, 1.5°C of Warming is Not Catastrophic
By
Linnea Lueken
May 20, 2024
A recent article at The Guardian, “Brutal heatwaves and submerged cities: what a 3C world would look like,” claims that 1.5°C of warming, while not the end of the world, still will have many catastrophic effects on the planet, including the death of tropical corals, intense storms, and ice sheet collapse. This is false. There is no evidence that 1.5°C will have any of these effects, this is mere fearmongering.
The article is somewhat confused in its presentation, claiming at once that passing the 1.5°C limit will lead to “catastrophic heatwaves, floods, and storms,” while also saying it is not a “cliff-edge leading to a significant change in climate damage.” Catastrophe certainly sounds like “significant change,” and later comments further confuse the point. It’s important to note that, according to the E.U.’s climate and weather agency Copernicus, the average annual temperature has already exceeded 1.48°C the pre-industrial benchmark. Also, data from the longest continuously running temperature network indicates that Europe has already exceeded a 2.0℃ temperature rise with no appreciable negative climate impacts.
In an interactive graphic in the center of the article, the 1.5°C warming “benchmark” is claimed to be the point at which “heatwaves and storms intensify, tropical corals die off and tipping points for ice sheet collapse and permafrost thawing may be triggered.”
There are no citations or sources given for these claims. Luckily, Climate Realism has dug into the available data in previous posts on all of the mentioned subjects.
https://climaterealism.com/2024/05/the-guardian-is-confused-1-5c-of-warming-is-not-catastrophic/
By
Linnea Lueken
May 20, 2024
A recent article at The Guardian, “Brutal heatwaves and submerged cities: what a 3C world would look like,” claims that 1.5°C of warming, while not the end of the world, still will have many catastrophic effects on the planet, including the death of tropical corals, intense storms, and ice sheet collapse. This is false. There is no evidence that 1.5°C will have any of these effects, this is mere fearmongering.
The article is somewhat confused in its presentation, claiming at once that passing the 1.5°C limit will lead to “catastrophic heatwaves, floods, and storms,” while also saying it is not a “cliff-edge leading to a significant change in climate damage.” Catastrophe certainly sounds like “significant change,” and later comments further confuse the point. It’s important to note that, according to the E.U.’s climate and weather agency Copernicus, the average annual temperature has already exceeded 1.48°C the pre-industrial benchmark. Also, data from the longest continuously running temperature network indicates that Europe has already exceeded a 2.0℃ temperature rise with no appreciable negative climate impacts.
In an interactive graphic in the center of the article, the 1.5°C warming “benchmark” is claimed to be the point at which “heatwaves and storms intensify, tropical corals die off and tipping points for ice sheet collapse and permafrost thawing may be triggered.”
There are no citations or sources given for these claims. Luckily, Climate Realism has dug into the available data in previous posts on all of the mentioned subjects.
https://climaterealism.com/2024/05/the-guardian-is-confused-1-5c-of-warming-is-not-catastrophic/
6
Politics/Government / Video: This Was The Crowd Biden Drew In New Hampshire Tonight – Paint Drying Could Do Better Than T
« Last post by American Girl on Today at 10:55:08 am »This is absolutely pathetic for a sitting President.
The “most votes in history!”
The question is, whose gonna stop the steal of the election? Republicans didn’t stop it last time and I doubt they’ll stop it this time.
https://www.rightjournalism.com/video-this-was-the-crowd-biden-drew-in-new-hampshire-tonight-paint-drying-could-do-better-than-this/
The “most votes in history!”
The question is, whose gonna stop the steal of the election? Republicans didn’t stop it last time and I doubt they’ll stop it this time.
https://www.rightjournalism.com/video-this-was-the-crowd-biden-drew-in-new-hampshire-tonight-paint-drying-could-do-better-than-this/
7
Climate Change / EVs are the most expensive vehicles to operate over 1,000 miles, according to iSeeCars
« Last post by rangerrebew on Today at 10:53:43 am »EVs are the most expensive vehicles to operate over 1,000 miles, according to iSeeCars
Worries about range and charging, along with a higher purchase price likely played a role
CHRIS TEAGUE
May 2nd 2024 at 3:05PM
It’s no secret that charging an electric vehicle is often less expensive than fueling a gas car, but many don’t think about the higher purchase prices. A recent iSeeCars study showed that people tend to drive EVs much less, making their cost per mile much higher than that of internal combustion vehicles.
iSeeCars’ research looked at the costs to operate various fuel types between November 2022 and April 2023, finding that EV owners not only drove far fewer miles than gas owners, but their average costs to operate those vehicles over 1,000 miles were much higher. People drove EVs an average of 10,256 miles during that period, seeing costs of $5,108 per 1,000 miles. In contrast, owners drove gas vehicles 12,813 miles, averaging $3,123 over the same distance. The costs per 1,000 miles for other fuel types in the study include:
Hybrids: $3,056
Gas Cars: $3,123
Plug-In Hybrids: $4,351
EVs: $5,108
EV owners may worry about range and spotty charging infrastructure, which could contribute to the smaller number of miles driven. The higher purchase price of each vehicle is spread over fewer miles, making them significantly more expensive to drive. iSeeCars’ study found an average EV price of $52,387, compared to the $40,009 gas buyers paid.
https://www.autoblog.com/article/evs-are-the-most-expensive-vehicles-to-operate-over-1000-miles-according-to-iseecars/
Worries about range and charging, along with a higher purchase price likely played a role
CHRIS TEAGUE
May 2nd 2024 at 3:05PM
It’s no secret that charging an electric vehicle is often less expensive than fueling a gas car, but many don’t think about the higher purchase prices. A recent iSeeCars study showed that people tend to drive EVs much less, making their cost per mile much higher than that of internal combustion vehicles.
iSeeCars’ research looked at the costs to operate various fuel types between November 2022 and April 2023, finding that EV owners not only drove far fewer miles than gas owners, but their average costs to operate those vehicles over 1,000 miles were much higher. People drove EVs an average of 10,256 miles during that period, seeing costs of $5,108 per 1,000 miles. In contrast, owners drove gas vehicles 12,813 miles, averaging $3,123 over the same distance. The costs per 1,000 miles for other fuel types in the study include:
Hybrids: $3,056
Gas Cars: $3,123
Plug-In Hybrids: $4,351
EVs: $5,108
EV owners may worry about range and spotty charging infrastructure, which could contribute to the smaller number of miles driven. The higher purchase price of each vehicle is spread over fewer miles, making them significantly more expensive to drive. iSeeCars’ study found an average EV price of $52,387, compared to the $40,009 gas buyers paid.
https://www.autoblog.com/article/evs-are-the-most-expensive-vehicles-to-operate-over-1000-miles-according-to-iseecars/
8
Climate Change / Another day on the road to Green Energy Ruin, and the posterchild of Green Manufacturing collapsess
« Last post by rangerrebew on Today at 10:49:27 am »Another day on the road to Green Energy Ruin, and the posterchild of Green Manufacturing collapsess
By Jo Nova
It’s just another signpost on the way to the Great Green Economy Downunder
We’re watching the renewable bubble pop around us. Tritium was the wonder-child Australian technology business that built fast chargers for electric vehicles. It took 20 years to create, and only two years to unravel into receivership. At its peak in 2021, it launched on the NASDAQ and was worth $2 billion, now it is insolvent.
The Driven, explains just how big it was:
The company says it has sold more than 13,000 DC fast chargers in more than 40 countries. At its peak it claimed to be the biggest maker of fast chargers in the US with a 30 per cent market share (unclear if this included the Tesla network), and a 75 per cent share in Australia, and one of the top three in Europe.
When it launched in 2021, shares were selling for $2,500 each. The current price is $1.35.
Tritium Share Price. NASDAQ
Tritium is the perfect emblem for the Technocratic Planned Economy
https://joannenova.com.au/tag/big-government/
By Jo Nova
It’s just another signpost on the way to the Great Green Economy Downunder
We’re watching the renewable bubble pop around us. Tritium was the wonder-child Australian technology business that built fast chargers for electric vehicles. It took 20 years to create, and only two years to unravel into receivership. At its peak in 2021, it launched on the NASDAQ and was worth $2 billion, now it is insolvent.
The Driven, explains just how big it was:
The company says it has sold more than 13,000 DC fast chargers in more than 40 countries. At its peak it claimed to be the biggest maker of fast chargers in the US with a 30 per cent market share (unclear if this included the Tesla network), and a 75 per cent share in Australia, and one of the top three in Europe.
When it launched in 2021, shares were selling for $2,500 each. The current price is $1.35.
Tritium Share Price. NASDAQ
Tritium is the perfect emblem for the Technocratic Planned Economy
https://joannenova.com.au/tag/big-government/
9
Climate Change / Re: Dutch Farmers Triumph Over Ideological Climate Policies: A Victory for Practicality and Reason
« Last post by rangerrebew on Today at 10:42:50 am »10
Climate Change / Is Beef Production A Major Contributor To Climate Change?
« Last post by rangerrebew on Today at 10:40:07 am »Is Beef Production A Major Contributor To Climate Change?
May 20, 2024/ Francis Menton
Undoubtedly, by this time in your life you have read a hundred times, or maybe a thousand, that beef production is a “major contributor” to climate change. It’s one of those narratives that has become a continuous drumbeat in the progressive press. Probably, you have had no reason to question it. Without thinking about it, you likely assume that this narrative is probably true.
But there is good reason to think critically about this one. Among the various scare stories used to take further control of your life, this is one of the more important. With the war against fossil fuels, there is at least the pretense that their use can be reduced or eliminated without major effect on your lifestyle — i.e., just replace the energy from fossil fuels with “cheap” electricity from wind and sun. There is no such pretense with the war on beef. The end game is unabashedly to reduce your standard of living by taking away one of the most important and best parts of your diet.
So is it true that beef production is a major contributor to climate change? If you give the subject a moment’s critical thought, you will quickly realize that the proposition is wrong. And you will come to that conclusion even if you fully accept that methane gas in the atmosphere is a major contributor to climate change, and that cattle raised to produce beef emit large amounts of methane gas. There is an obvious logical flaw in the reasoning that is used to accuse beef production of being a major contributor to climate change.
But before getting to that, let’s look at one of my lists of the usual fools (and power-hungry government functionaries) repeating the narrative:
https://www.manhattancontrarian.com/blog/2024-5-20-is-beef-production-a-major-contributor-to-climate-change
May 20, 2024/ Francis Menton
Undoubtedly, by this time in your life you have read a hundred times, or maybe a thousand, that beef production is a “major contributor” to climate change. It’s one of those narratives that has become a continuous drumbeat in the progressive press. Probably, you have had no reason to question it. Without thinking about it, you likely assume that this narrative is probably true.
But there is good reason to think critically about this one. Among the various scare stories used to take further control of your life, this is one of the more important. With the war against fossil fuels, there is at least the pretense that their use can be reduced or eliminated without major effect on your lifestyle — i.e., just replace the energy from fossil fuels with “cheap” electricity from wind and sun. There is no such pretense with the war on beef. The end game is unabashedly to reduce your standard of living by taking away one of the most important and best parts of your diet.
So is it true that beef production is a major contributor to climate change? If you give the subject a moment’s critical thought, you will quickly realize that the proposition is wrong. And you will come to that conclusion even if you fully accept that methane gas in the atmosphere is a major contributor to climate change, and that cattle raised to produce beef emit large amounts of methane gas. There is an obvious logical flaw in the reasoning that is used to accuse beef production of being a major contributor to climate change.
But before getting to that, let’s look at one of my lists of the usual fools (and power-hungry government functionaries) repeating the narrative:
https://www.manhattancontrarian.com/blog/2024-5-20-is-beef-production-a-major-contributor-to-climate-change
Page created in 0.024 seconds with 14 queries.