Elon Musk says he will leave advisory councils if Trump withdraws from Paris agreement

[Evernessince]

@ScorpionKing: Yes, we're all aware of what CO2 is. No, it doesn't cause a greenhouse planet effect - something the Russians showed us with the Venera landers on Venus decades ago. Insolation barely even penetrates the atmosphere. Venus is hot because it is spinning backwards in the solar charge field, causing magnetic friction (basically). Not because its atmosphere traps heat, but because it is recycling and emitting the incoming radiation from the sun more readily than other planets which spin along the same axis as the sun. Any Astronomy 101 class could have taught you that. The main "source" of greenhouse planet theory has been falsified since the 1990s. CO2 emissions should be chopped simply because it's a pollutant.

@Evernessince: The amount of people believing a hypothesis has absolutely no bearing on its validity. Please form an actual argument.

Regardless, neither these climatologists nor Elon Musk can even tell us what heat is, much less how the Earth generates its heat. Spoiler alert: it generates it in almost the same way as Venus, by recycling and emitting solar charge. The sun, Jupiter, and our position in the galactic plane are the three chief sources of incoming heat. This is why the ice ages occur with usual repetition and time frames. We are currently a bit late for the next one, but well within margins of error.

Can you tell us what heat is, either of you? Let's hear it.

Look up predictions of global warming sometime. Another spoiler alert: they've all failed. Not one of their models is accurate. The Earth may be heating or cooling, but it's due to solar cycles and our proximity to Jupiter, not because people spray aerosol cans.

"The amount of people believing a hypothesis has absolutely no bearing on its validity. Please form an actual argument."

And yet that was never the basis of my argument But yes, when 95% of all scientists agree that Climate Change is helped along by men, the number does matter. Unless you are going to say that the opinion of thousands of experts is worthless. Like I pointed out, go and find a legitimate scientific publication that doesn't agree with climate change and has no political agenda. You know you are wrong when your opinion isn't the same as nearly every expect in the field. Otherwise you are just arguing for arguments sake. If you can find a specific example than state it, don't try to just discredit with a BS blanket statement.

"Regardless, neither these climatologists nor Elon Musk can even tell us what heat is, much less how the Earth generates its heat"

Wrong again

"
The Universe is made up of matter and energy. Matter is made up of atoms and molecules (groupings of atoms) and energy causes the atoms and molecules to always be in motion - either bumping into each other or vibrating back and forth. The motion of atoms and molecules creates a form of energy called heat or thermal energy which is present in all matter. Even in the coldest voids of space, matter still has a very small but still measurable amount of heat energy.
"

Just because it's something you don't know doesn't mean that Climate scientists don't. You seem to have a really high opinion of yourself.

"Look up predictions of global warming sometime. Another spoiler alert: they've all failed. Not one of their models is accurate. The Earth may be heating or cooling, but it's due to solar cycles and our proximity to Jupiter, not because people spray aerosol cans."

Acurate to the t? No. It doesn't change the fact that they are still in the same ballpark and much of what they predicted is occurring. FYI the earth is heating more than cooling

https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/

This should be a no brainier as the additional carbon traps in heat. Same effect on the earth as in the dinosaur era. Are you going to start disputing the effect of Carbon now too?

"The Earth may be heating or cooling, but it's due to solar cycles and our proximity to Jupiter, not because people spray aerosol cans."

There have already been multiple studies on the Sun's Solar Cycle impact on the earth and it has been proven false

https://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/rind_03/

The Solar Cycle at best has a minimal impact on Climate and that is only recently due to the weakened ozone and carbon content of the air thanks to man. So yes in fact spraying aerosol cans DOES impact the climate. I'm going to trust NASA and actual scientists instead of you.

"There is continuing discussion through published peer-reviewed scientific papers, which are assessed by scientists working in the relevant fields taking part in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The scientific consensus as of 2013 stated in the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report is that it "is extremely likely that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century".[236] A 2008 report by the U.S. National Academy of Sciences stated that most scientists by then agreed that observed warming in recent decades was primarily caused by human activities increasing the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.[79] In 2005 the Royal Society stated that while the overwhelming majority of scientists were in agreement on the main points, some individuals and organizations opposed to the consensus on urgent action needed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions had tried to undermine the science and work of the IPCC.[237] National science academies have called on world leaders for policies to cut global emissions.[238]

In the scientific literature, there is a strong consensus that global surface temperatures have increased in recent decades and that the trend is caused mainly by human-induced emissions of greenhouse gases.[239] No scientific body of national or international standing disagrees with this view."

 

[JaredTheDragon]

Again, you use consensus and opinion as an argument. It's a bandwagon fallacy, not an actual point. It doesn't matter how many people believe in something if it's false.

And you failed the heat definition, as well. What is causing the molecules and atoms to move? You're claiming the effect of heat is the cause - circular. You get close with the word infrared, but fail because you don't know what an infrared photon is, obviously. Just like climatologists.

Only dead fish swim with the main stream. Using their answers, you will of course get their opinions, but they're demonstrably false. And to say the sun's cycles cause minimal effect on the Earth's heat is also blatantly false - have you never stepped outside in your life during daylight? The mainstream believes that the Earth's heat is leftover from accretion plus radiation from the various elements, in which case the Earth would have been thousands and millions of times hotter at creation than the sun's corona itself. Preposterous. We have absolutely no evidence that the Earth was hotter than the sun, and every evidence that it was never that hot.

 

[Evernessince]

It's always amazed me how a tech site can have so many people that fall for conspiracies. How can all the logic necessary to create the tech we have today exist, and then people fond of such tech disregard the tenets of how we got here.

CO2 is a greenhouse gas. This is a fact. Pulling Carbon out of the ground, burning it with oxygen in the atmosphere, yields CO2 as a byproduct. This carbon, that was in the ground, is now in the air in the form of CO2. While the entirety of a planet's atmosphere yields huge, yuge even, amounts of data, the principle is the same. We'll make it warmer with added CO2.

The correlations in the climate record show, with absurd certainty, that human's contributions of CO2 have warmed the planet. This stuff is really basic...you can take a Geology 101 class for crying out loud, and go over the data pulled from the ice cores and do your own work. You can't do any work on this, and then come to a logical conclusion that "we don't know why the world's warming.

If you say you've done a lot of research and you find the evidence inconclusive...I'm going to call you out. You didn't do your research.

I'm sure there's lots of paid trolls on the webz, along with armchair warriors that get a dopamine release at "internet debates." But I've never met a real "climate sceptic." Either your a *****, or you have an angle (monetary funds for research coming from oil/etc, enjoying the dopamine drip from internet anger) if you don't understand man made climate change.

I'm sure these people denying man made climate change do read somewhat about climate change but that doesn't say much. It is so easy to spread misinformation, all you have to do is pay a random blogger and boom your article is all over google and facebook and people will eat that stuff up because it confirms their view of things. People get into groups and anchor into that group. It's been widely proven that humans will treat their own group with more leniency almost immediately. I've seen multiple experiments where simply separating the groups into different colored wrist bands was more than enough to enact this human behavior. People would more than likely accuse another group than one of their own wrist band color.

 

[cliffordcooley]

Find a different picture of Trump. Using that picture over and over and over is getting tiresome. You don't have to use the most absurd pictures all the time.

 

[JudasSheep]

It's always amazed me how a tech site can have so many people that fall for conspiracies. How can all the logic necessary to create the tech we have today exist, and then people fond of such tech disregard the tenets of how we got here.

CO2 is a greenhouse gas. This is a fact. Pulling Carbon out of the ground, burning it with oxygen in the atmosphere, yields CO2 as a byproduct. This carbon, that was in the ground, is now in the air in the form of CO2. While the entirety of a planet's atmosphere yields huge, yuge even, amounts of data, the principle is the same. We'll make it warmer with added CO2.

The correlations in the climate record show, with absurd certainty, that human's contributions of CO2 have warmed the planet. This stuff is really basic...you can take a Geology 101 class for crying out loud, and go over the data pulled from the ice cores and do your own work. You can't do any work on this, and then come to a logical conclusion that "we don't know why the world's warming.

If you say you've done a lot of research and you find the evidence inconclusive...I'm going to call you out. You didn't do your research.

I'm sure there's lots of paid trolls on the webz, along with armchair warriors that get a dopamine release at "internet debates." But I've never met a real "climate sceptic." Either your a *****, or you have an angle (monetary funds for research coming from oil/etc, enjoying the dopamine drip from internet anger) if you don't understand man made climate change.

You know what else makes CO2? Human breathing. You know what else makes the world warmer? Building giant concrete buildings, asphalt roads, ect and not planting trees. Deforestation and the reduction of greenery world wide is another factor of global warming no one talks about. Rerouting rivers and streams to send water to over populated cities causes plants to die and land to become arid. I have seen it first hand in California. Larger deserts where there isn't plants to soak up sun and produce oxygen causes areas to get hotter. You don't need to have PhD to see that. Convince people to plant trees and grass, not donate billions to BS pacts that won't actually fix the problem, because it is unstoppable. As the population increases and cities grow this problem will grow. Manufacturing must grow to meet demand and all the byproducts of humanity have to be taken into account. To end global warming completely, we have to go back to pre-industrial life and even then, it would take many generations.
I believe in global warming, but not how the left chooses to sell it.

 

[davislane1]

I'm going to save you all a lot of time and a lot of energy.

When you see someone make a statement like this, you have verifiable proof that they have nothing to add to a conversation. All you will get from them is dogmatic quotations from their religion of choice:

Unless you are going to say that the opinion of thousands of experts is worthless.

This is the type of person who never read about geocentrism in grade school. No matter what you say, no matter what you cite, no matter how rational or consistent your argument is, he will never ever do anything other than make appeals to consensus and authority.

It's adds nothing of value to the discussion and takes up valuable forum space.

Don't. Take. The bait.

 

[JaredTheDragon]

I'm going to save you all a lot of time and a lot of energy.

When you see someone make a statement like this, you have verifiable proof that they have nothing to add to a conversation. All you will get from them is dogmatic quotations from their religion of choice:



This is the type of person who never read about geocenrism in grade school. No matter what you say, no matter what you cite, no matter how rational or consistent your argument is, he will never ever do anything other than make appeals to consensus and authority.

It's adds nothing of value to the discussion and takes up valuable forum space.

Don't. Take. The bait.

*geocentrism

Precisely. Do you remember your history, when everyone thought the Earth was flat? Then that it was the center of the universe? Do you remember Copernicus, Galileo, Newton, Einstein, Maxwell, Tesla, or any other scientists?

They all went against the scientific consensus of their times. Consensus has nothing to do with validity, and every study I've seen (especially Cook's) showing any such consensus regarding AGW was (ahem) cooked, anyway. Cook's especially. It's an ad pop fallacy from out the gate, sir.

I've never once said the climate doesn't change. I'm just pointing out the various logical flaws in your (attempted) argument. CO2 does not necessarily cause greenhouse effects. It doesn't on Venus, which was where the idea initially came from in the first place. Of course you didn't address that argument, because you cannot. You claim I'm a religious zealot, when we're talking about science and polemics. A paltry straw man, since I've not said a thing about religion.

I will, now. It's the concept that there can ever even be a "scientific consensus" that turns science into just another religion, dogmatic and useless.

And of course you couldn't define heat for us, either. Another open goal.

 

[Evernessince]

Again, you use consensus and opinion as an argument. It's a bandwagon fallacy, not an actual point. It doesn't matter how many people believe in something if it's false.

And you failed the heat definition, as well. What is causing the molecules and atoms to move? You're claiming the effect of heat is the cause - circular. You get close with the word infrared, but fail because you don't know what an infrared photon is, obviously. Just like climatologists.

Only dead fish swim with the main stream. Using their answers, you will of course get their opinions, but they're demonstrably false. And to say the sun's cycles cause minimal effect on the Earth's heat is also blatantly false - have you never stepped outside in your life during daylight? The mainstream believes that the Earth's heat is leftover from accretion plus radiation from the various elements, in which case the Earth would have been thousands and millions of times hotter at creation than the sun's corona itself. Preposterous. We have absolutely no evidence that the Earth was hotter than the sun, and every evidence that it was never that hot.

I gave numerous links to data from official sources. I'm still waiting for your rebuttal.

"And you failed the heat definition, as well. What is causing the molecules and atoms to move? You're claiming the effect of heat is the cause - circular. You get close with the word infrared, but fail because you don't know what an infrared photon is, obviously. Just like climatologists."

No, it's just that you want to grasp at straws and hang on semantics because you know you are wrong.

"As the atoms bounce off of each other they transfer energy back and forth, but the average energy in the system remains constant."

So unless atoms have zero energy they are always moving. Atoms are attracted to each other and this is a perpetual force.

"Only dead fish swim with the main stream. Using their answers, you will of course get their opinions, but they're demonstrably false."

Since when is the scientific communities opinion "main stream"? That's like saying a nuclear engineer's opinion is completely the same as an average person's when talking about nuclear power or anything nuclear related. It's completely asinine.

But Demonstratively false eh? Ok, let's see you demonstrate then. You have yet to provide anything as of yet.

Please do continue though, it's fun watching you concede points that you can't debate and try cherry picking whatever you can, all without having provided any evidence this far.

 

[davislane1]

Since when is the scientific communities opinion "main stream"? That's like saying a nuclear engineer's opinion is completely the same as an average person's when talking about nuclear power or anything nuclear related.

Water is wet. Gravity attracts things. You need lift to fly. Nuclear radiation is dangerous. Light takes a few minutes to get from the sun to here. Stars in the night sky are images of the past. The list literally goes on and on.

Epic fail.

 

[Scorpionking20]

Again, you use consensus and opinion as an argument. It's a bandwagon fallacy, not an actual point. It doesn't matter how many people believe in something if it's false.

And you failed the heat definition, as well. What is causing the molecules and atoms to move? You're claiming the effect of heat is the cause - circular. You get close with the word infrared, but fail because you don't know what an infrared photon is, obviously. Just like climatologists.

Only dead fish swim with the main stream. Using their answers, you will of course get their opinions, but they're demonstrably false. And to say the sun's cycles cause minimal effect on the Earth's heat is also blatantly false - have you never stepped outside in your life during daylight? The mainstream believes that the Earth's heat is leftover from accretion plus radiation from the various elements, in which case the Earth would have been thousands and millions of times hotter at creation than the sun's corona itself. Preposterous. We have absolutely no evidence that the Earth was hotter than the sun, and every evidence that it was never that hot.

There's so much crazy in your posts. Educated people can't put out all the crazy fires you set. It's like Creationism...you come up with 20 crazy things for every one thing somebody informed can put out. Make America Retarded Again, right?

 

[JaredTheDragon]

There's so much crazy in your posts. Educated people can't put out all the crazy fires you set. It's like Creationism...you come up with 20 crazy things for every one thing somebody informed can put out. Make America Retarded Again, right?

Please do continue though, it's fun watching you concede points that you can't debate and try cherry picking whatever you can, all without having provided any evidence this far.

So you two don't know what heat is, don't know that heat escapes planets readily (you know, because of space?), don't know about our missions to Venus and what they revealed, don't know what CO2 is or how quickly it falls out in our atmosphere, don't know what radiation is, don't know what causes the Earth's heat, don't know what causes the ice age cycles, and don't know what polemics are.

But you're certain someone else knows. Got it.

 

[Darth Shiv]

Good riddance. The guy isn't a scientist in any way or form, he's just a celebrity persona. Much like Zucky or Jobs, he's done no actual work in any field, and certainly knows no more about climatology than any schoolchild.

Which coincidently is the same as 99.999% of the US voting public yet everyone seems to be "experts" in climate science.

 

[EClyde]

It's always amazed me how a tech site can have so many people that fall for conspiracies. How can all the logic necessary to create the tech we have today exist, and then people fond of such tech disregard the tenets of how we got here.

CO2 is a greenhouse gas. This is a fact. Pulling Carbon out of the ground, burning it with oxygen in the atmosphere, yields CO2 as a byproduct. This carbon, that was in the ground, is now in the air in the form of CO2. While the entirety of a planet's atmosphere yields huge, yuge even, amounts of data, the principle is the same. We'll make it warmer with added CO2.

The correlations in the climate record show, with absurd certainty, that human's contributions of CO2 have warmed the planet. This stuff is really basic...you can take a Geology 101 class for crying out loud, and go over the data pulled from the ice cores and do your own work. You can't do any work on this, and then come to a logical conclusion that "we don't know why the world's warming.

If you say you've done a lot of research and you find the evidence inconclusive...I'm going to call you out. You didn't do your research.

I'm sure there's lots of paid trolls on the webz, along with armchair warriors that get a dopamine release at "internet debates." But I've never met a real "climate sceptic." Either your a *****, or you have an angle (monetary funds for research coming from oil/etc, enjoying the dopamine drip from internet anger) if you don't understand man made climate change.

Pittsburgh before Paris

 

[EClyde]

Climate change is a hoax

 

[Scorpionking20]

So you two don't know what heat is, don't know that heat escapes planets readily (you know, because of space?), don't know about our missions to Venus and what they revealed, don't know what CO2 is or how quickly it falls out in our atmosphere, don't know what radiation is, don't know what causes the Earth's heat, don't know what causes the ice age cycles, and don't know what polemics are.

But you're certain someone else knows. Got it.

Nice. You don't know how to pee standing up. *insert readily available phrases. See? You don't know anything! Fires, fires everywhere.

Hey...I've got some bigfoot locations. You interested? I'll sell you them real cheap. I got them from the guy from Area 37...you know...the real one.

 

[Evernessince]

So you two don't know what heat is, don't know that heat escapes planets readily (you know, because of space?), don't know about our missions to Venus and what they revealed, don't know what CO2 is or how quickly it falls out in our atmosphere, don't know what radiation is, don't know what causes the Earth's heat, don't know what causes the ice age cycles, and don't know what polemics are.

But you're certain someone else knows. Got it.

Lol, yep. You certainly know more than everyone else including people who do this for a living! You're so knowledgeable that you don't even have to provide links or a valid argument. That puts you on the same level as god, good job.

Pittsburgh before Paris

Paris is just the place that the agreement was formed. FYI, this agreement does help Pittsburgh.

Climate change is a hoax

Prove it

Nice. You don't know how to pee standing up. *insert readily available phrases. See? You don't know anything! Fires, fires everywhere.

Hey...I've got some bigfoot locations. You interested? I'll sell you them real cheap. I got them from the guy from Area 37...you know...the real one.

Give up on that Guy. He's not even on topic with the whole "what is heat" argument. He's like Trump, he's starts a circus to distract. He forget that this article is about Climate change, not the molecular intricacies of energy transfer between atoms. I'm sure next he'll try to say that because scientists can't explain with completely certainty the beginning of the universe that they can't possibly ever be right.

 

[commanderasus]

Donald Trump will do anything for money.

 

[Bubbajim]

The thing with "hoaxes" and "conspiracies" is that (a) they have to be small enough so that the truth won't come out, as people are really, really bad at keeping secrets, (b) they have to be very difficult to falsify, ie. difficult to test, (c) be of benefit to someone: Cui bono?

Climate change being a "hoax" wouldn't satisfy any of these conditions. The data are publically available, largely in the hands of universities, NGOs, governments of all sizes and types, charities, and even just average men and women who can take measurements. Yes, consensus is not the basis of science, but it gives you a goddamn clue which way the truth might be.

Let's take a country like China. It's communistic. It has a vast amount of control over its population, it's powerful across the world, it's wealthy, and is continuing to grow apace. Where's there benefit in giving vast sums of money to the developing world for "a hoax"? Why, in an autocratic, micromanaged country like China, would there be such demand for finding solutions to climate change, including giving away literally billions of dollars? Cui bono?

I can't claim to be an expert on the science involved, but I've learnt enough, from both sides of the argument, and I have to say the arguments and evidence against climate change being a real phenomenon really, really don't stand up to scrutiny. It's why people like Evernessince is able to provide tons of links in support of his argument, but the "er mer gerd it's all a lie" folks just spout platitudinous crap.

There being disagreement on the *exact* rate, or in the best- and worst-case predictions means that you have a margin of error. But stop acting like a margin or error of <5% (say), is the same as 100%. It's just foolish.

Do you know who would be really grateful if climate change were just a hoax? The whole ****ing human race. And, if they were conscious beings, so would tons of the animals and plants who are inevitably going to die out when their species can't adapt quick enough. But I'd best be careful, some of the evolution deniers are probably lurking here too...

 

[IAMTHESTIG]

Ok someone needs to win this argument soon, I'm almost out of beer...

 

[USAvenger]

Global Cooling Global Warming Climate Change

Can any of you acolytes of the Church of Climate Change (CoCC) tell me what I can do to repent for my transgressions against the Earth? Should I sell my gas-guzzling SUV? Purchase carbon credits? Stop farting? Please help.

 

[Scorpionking20]

Global Cooling Global Warming Climate Change

Can any of you acolytes of the Church of Climate Change (CoCC) tell me what I can do to repent for my transgressions against the Earth? Should I sell my gas-guzzling SUV? Purchase carbon credits? Stop farting? Please help.

Google it. You seem to need help, indeed.

 

[CaptainTom]

Musk doesn't understand that he can do far more with a seat on that council than he can by leaving. If he stays he can continue to lobby for many of the accords features and eventually wear them down to the point they might reverse their decision. Quitting is no better than Trumps own "I'll take my ball and go home" mentality.

We will survive Trump's administration but rebuilding afterwards will be painful and very costly. At this point, and sad as it is to say it, the only thing that will lessen the damage would be for him to have a massive stroke and be removed from office .....

I mostly agree, but also put yourself in Musk's shoes.

I am sure many of his libtard friends are giving him **** for staying on this council, and at the end of the day it has done little to influence Trump so far. If you're Musk you are probably thinking that Trump pulling out of the Paris accord means he will never listen to you. And if he will never listen, why stay?

Not to mention leaving would really stir up some criticism against Trump, and he could use the prospect of rejoining as a reward for Trump compromising on something.