Vance Just Missed On His Hotcoldwetdry Answer At Debate

He really should have listened to Realists like me, Tom Nelson, Anthony Watts, and so many more

Vance on carbon emissions and climate change: ‘Let’s just say that’s true’

Republican vice presidential candidate Sen. JD Vance (Ohio) expressed skepticism about the scientific consensus behind climate change in response to a question during Tuesday’s debate.

“One of the things that I’ve noticed some of our Democratic friends talking a lot about is a concern about carbon emissions — this idea that carbon emissions drive all the climate change,” Vance said.

“Let’s just say that’s true, just for the sake of argument, so we’re not arguing about weird science. Let’s just say that’s true,” Vance continued.

There is a scientific consensus that climate change is occurring and is primarily being driven by human activity — largely carbon emissions stemming from the burning of fossil fuels.

Vance, in his answer, said the Trump administration’s climate policy would be to bring more energy production and manufacturing to the U.S. “because we’re the cleanest economy in the entire world.”

First, consensus is not science. Applying the Scientific Method is doing science.

Second, the proper answer is “let’s just say that’s true, for the sake of argument: why is almost every single policy from the Warmists about increasing taxes and fees, increasing the size of government, controlling people’s lives, and taking away their Free Speech and liberty? Oh, and why are you and Harris using so much darned fossil fuels?”

Walz touts EV jobs as he spars with Vance on clean energy in VP debate

(blah blah blah)

Walz specifically mentioned EV jobs growing under the current administration, touting more than 2,000 expected to arrive in Jeffersonville, Ohio. Construction is in progress there for a battery plant to be operated jointly by LG Energy Solution and Honda Motor Co. That facility might benefit from some IRA credits, but it was already in the planning stages before the IRA became law, according to Inside Climate News.

Yet, no one asked Walz if he was driving an EV himself, or if Harris was traveling around in one. JD did a great job coming back at Walz, but, really, Republicans overall need to learn to put Democrats on the spot as climahypocrites.

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at 1800flowers.com. Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

19 Responses to “Vance Just Missed On His Hotcoldwetdry Answer At Debate”

  1. CarolAnn says:

    The first words out of their mouths should be: “Then we would be correct in assuming you alive in a carbon neutral home and own only EV’s”?

  2. Elwood P. Dowd says:

    Mr Teach re-reveals his ignorance: First, consensus is not science. Applying the Scientific Method is doing science.

    Consensus IS science. The scientific method IS applied to reach a consensus. for example, the scientific consensus on tobacco use is that it causes a variety of human cancers (and other maladies). For decades, and today, the tobacco industry financed the opposition to the scientific consensus via groups like the Heartland Institute, American Enterprise Institute, and writers such as Stephen Milloy.

    Scientific consensus is the general agreement of the majority of scientists in a field of study on a particular topic. It’s based on the evidence available to scientists, which they evaluate through scientific papers, conferences, peer review, and debate.

    Scientific consensus: is not a definitive position, but rather an evolving one that can be updated with new research and contrary opinions but IS based on a synthesis of the conclusions of many scientists from different backgrounds and areas of expertise.

    Consensus is achieved through a process that includes peer review, scholarly debate, and replication of results and may be communicated with position statements or publish consensus review articles to communicate the scientific consensus to the public.

    The scientific consensus on climate change is that humans are causing global warming. This consensus is based on evidence from a variety of physical sources.

    • Jl says:

      Too funny-a “consensus” tells one nothing of the correctness of their position. It’s just that a lot of people agree on something. Paraphrasing Einstein’s quote, when his position was disputed by over 100 other scientists, the “100 against Einstein”, his remark was “Why 100? If I’m wrong it only takes one”.

    • fp says:

      Consensus is science. And science is truth. So if everyone who’s anyone agrees on something, then that makes it truth.

      Once upon a time, everyone who was anyone agreed on a geocentric universe, the miasmatic theory of disease, the luminiferous aether, stress theory of ulcers, immovable continents, phlogiston, and a static universe. All were true.

      Because of consensus, the sun really did revolve around the earth. Tectonic plates, along with Pangaea simply didn’t exist. Germs didn’t exist.

      Then, everyone changed their minds. And all of a sudden, reality changed. The earth now revolves around the sun, germs cause disease, and entire continents float over the earth’s asthenosphere.

      Because everyone agreed. Everyone now agrees.

      Consensus is science. And science is truth. Therefore, consensus is truth.

      Vote Biden! Oops, vote Kamala!

  3. Nolan Parker says:

    Pointing out that whatever melted us out of the most recent ice age that had a miles thick ice cap up around New York likely had little to do with our cars is tiresome. Nature makes plenty of CO2. They pump it into hothouse tomatoes. According to satellite data the earth is greener today than when they were first able to study that. The climate is and has been changing,, since the beginning. It’s a frikken scam and the same fools fall for it that vote democrat. So, since they won’t even admit that gun control is a failure, with decades of data showing that where The People are able to defend themselves and innocent others there is Less violent crime, ya gotta Know the likelihood of getting them to understand something they don’t want to understand AND understanding it requires the ability to think straight.
    If we don’t get Trump back, it’s just over.
    And THEY really don’t want to let him back in.

  4. James Lewis says:

    Chicken Little Karen Man

    Consensus IS science. The scientific method IS applied to reach a consensus.

    For a theory to be a Scientific Theory it must past several tests. Foremost among them:

    It must be predictable.

    It must be testable.

    One failure invalidates the theory. (See the Black Swan) See the numerous prediction failures. E.g. Florida is not under water.

    So no. There is no Scientific Theory. So there can be no consensus.

    What you have is called a Observational Theory. The fallacies of these are legendary, starting with a cock crowing causes the sun to come up and the sun revolving around the earth and finding criminals by feeling the bumps on their heads.

    Also, Observational Theories depend on large databases. We are in a long term warming period, just as previously there was a long term cooling period and before that warming, etc., et al. To say that there won’t be a cooling period in the future is laughable. We also know that in the 1000-1100 AD time period there was world wide warming without the presence of petroleum usage. That was followed by the Little Ice Age, 1300 – mid 1800 even though man kind started dumping CO2 into the air due to large population increases who used more peat/coal/wood. But now we have, to believe you, warming caused by OIL.

    You can’t explain the Medieval Warming Period.

    Yet you want to destroy Western Civilization.

    The Left is dangerously stupid.

  5. James Lewis says:

    Chicken Little Karen Man

    This is for you.

    One crisp winter morning in Sweden, a cute little girl named Greta woke up to a perfect world, one where there were no petroleum products ruining the earth. She tossed aside her cotton sheet and wool blanket and stepped out onto a dirt floor covered with willow bark that had been pulverized with rocks.

    “What’s this?” she asked.

    “Pulverized willow bark,” replied her fairy godmother.

    “What happened to the carpet?” she asked.

    “The carpet was nylon, which is made from butadiene and hydrogen cyanide, both made from petroleum,” came the response.

    Greta smiled, acknowledging that adjustments are necessary to save the planet, and moved to the sink to brush her teeth where instead of a toothbrush, she found a willow, mangled on one end to expose wood fibre bristles.

    “Your old toothbrush?” noted her godmother, “Also nylon.”

    “Where’s the water?” asked Greta.

    “Down the road in the canal,” replied her godmother, ‘Just make sure you avoid water with cholera in it”

    “Why’s there no running water?” Greta asked, becoming a little peevish.

    “Well,” said her godmother, who happened to teach engineering at MIT, “Where do we begin?” There followed a long monologue about how sink valves need elastomer seats and how copper pipes contain copper, which has to be mined and how it’s impossible to make all-electric earth-moving equipment with no gear lubrication or tires and how ore has to be smelted to a make metal, and that’s tough to do with only electricity as a source of heat, and even if you use only electricity, the wires need insulation, which is petroleum-based, and though most of Sweden’s energy is produced in an environmentally friendly way because of hydro and nuclear, if you do a mass and energy balance around the whole system, you still need lots of petroleum products like lubricants and nylon and rubber for tires and asphalt for filling potholes and wax and iPhone plastic and elastic to hold your underwear up while operating a copper smelting furnace and . . .

    “What’s for breakfast?” interjected Greta, whose head was hurting.

    “Fresh, range-fed chicken eggs,” replied her godmother. “Raw.”

    “How so, raw?” inquired Greta.

    “Well, . . .” And once again, Greta was told about the need for petroleum products like transformer oil and scores of petroleum products essential for producing metals for frying pans and in the end was educated about how you can’t have a petroleum-free world and then cook eggs. Unless you rip your front fence up and start a fire and carefully cook your egg in an orange peel like you do in Boy Scouts. Not that you can find oranges in Sweden anymore.

    “But I want poached eggs like my Aunt Tilda makes,” lamented Greta.

    “Tilda died this morning,” the godmother explained. “Bacterial pneumonia.”

    “What?!” interjected Greta. “No one dies of bacterial pneumonia! We have penicillin.”

    “Not anymore,” explained godmother “The production of penicillin requires chemical extraction using isobutyl acetate, which, if you know your organic chemistry, is petroleum-based. Lots of people are dying, which is problematic because there’s not any easy way of disposing of the bodies since backhoes need hydraulic oil and crematoriums can’t really burn many bodies using as fuel Swedish fences and furniture, which are rapidly disappearing – being used on the black market for roasting eggs and staying warm.”

    This represents only a fraction of Greta’s day, a day without microphones to exclaim into and a day without much food, and a day without carbon-fibre boats to sail in, but a day that will save the planet.

    Tune in tomorrow when Greta needs a root canal and learns how Novocain is synthesized.

    Above copied from somebody who has an understanding.

    • Elwood P. Dowd says:

      James Lewis is dangerously stupid AND ignorant. N.B. – ignorance is endemic in the American right.

      GEt serious, please.

      Precious few scientists or even activists propose to eliminate all materials, drugs and chemicals derived from petroleum, since these uses are not signficantly contributing to global warming. These plastics ARE ending up in the oceans and as microplastics in all we consume and breath, and only time wlll tell how injurious (if at all) these contaminants are.

      The carbon dioxide that is causing global warming comes mostly from we humans burning coal, gas and oil for transportation, electricity and heating, not from toothbrushes and procaine.

      Just more red herrings. Now, if we only had any alternatives to burning coal, gas and oil…

      • James Lewis says:

        Chicken Little Karen Man

        The problem is that you continually misstate and make false claims. You want to use words like Scientific and consensus yet I have just shown you that there is no consensus because there is no Scientific Theory. I then patiently showed you that you have an Observational Theory with examples of how they are often laughable and pointed out that the Medieval Warming Period and the Little Ice Age, with the return to warming are examples of bumps in a long term trend. When it will start a long term cooling no one knows.

        I am not concerned with scientists and engineers. I am concerned with nitwit Lefties, particularly politicians, who demand, as in CA, that ICE vehicles be banned from being sold in 5 years when anyone with an IQ above room temp knows that will destroy the economy because there is not the electrical grid, and infrastructure to support it.

        Yes. Stupid is as stupid does.

        • Elwood P. Dowd says:

          James Lewis,

          Please stop being childish. If you wish to have a grown-up discussion you know what to do. Otherwise fuck off.

          “Observational Theory” is a made-up term to link scientific theories to nonsense such as “roosters cause sunrise”. Knock it off.

          The theory atmospheric greenhouse gases cause global warming predicts that as atmospheric CO2 increases so will the Earth’s mean temperature. You can refute the theory any number of ways. Convincingly demonstrate that CO2 does not intercept (absorb) and release infrared radiation! Demonstrate that the measurements of CO2 are inaccurate! Demonstrate that the mean surface temperature is NOT increasing! Show that the volumes of Arctic sea ice, glaciers and the great ice sheets of Antarctica and Greenland are not decreasing!

          For years, if not decades, the “opponents” denied that the Earth was warming, instead claiming that scientists were “cooking the books” or misinterpreting the data. Over the years, even some “deniers” (e.g., Tony Watts, Richard Muller, Roy Spencer, Teach, even commenters here) have admitted that based on the data, the Earth is warming. BTW, the most egregious misinterpretation of data came from the UAH ALGORithims calculating the “temperatures” from satellite readings. The systems were devised by Jon Christy and… Roy Spencer. They have since corrected their errors.

          Ignoring the rantings of The Pissant has made my life better!

          • drowningpuppies says:

            Well then you can fuck off and do your job at DJThree Consulting LLC by teaching people how to swindle money from investors by peddling therapeutic drugs that don’t actually work. https://www.thepiratescove.us/wp-content/plugins/wp-monalisa/icons/wpml_bye.gif

          • Elwood P. Dowd says:

            You would make a more solid argument if you supplied the names of the people you accuse of swindling investors.

            After all, truth is the ultimate defense for defamation.

            Please list the names of the swindlers. Thanks.

  6. CarolAnn says:

    The scientific consensus on climate change is that humans are causing global warming. This consensus is based on evidence from a variety of physical sources.

    As usual Elwood twists the facts to meet his pre conceived desires. The scientific consensus on climate change is NOT that humans are causing global warming, rather that humans are contributing to it and at a currently unknown rate or amount.

    The consensus of the vast majority of humanity is the opposite and believes warming is vastly caused by natural occurrences and evolution. Of course the vast majority of humanity does not depend on a paycheck from supporting MMGW. Rather we are the poor bastards who are constantly pushed to do and buy things we don’t want and to pay taxes to mini tyrants who force us to do them.

    • Elwood P. Dowd says:

      CarolAnn,

      You are correct that humans are contributing to global warming by burning fossil fuels, and that this may not be the only contributor! After all, a scientific consensus is always temporary and refutable!! Other contributors have been proposed, including hypotheses about undersea volcanoes, cosmic rays, increases in Sun activity, natural ocean current variability, internal heating changes, decrease in clouds, natural but unknown reasons…

      A scientific consensus is not the same as popularity contest. The “vast majority of humanity” who may or may not believe (2/3rds of Americans favor developing energy alternatives) that warming is “vastly caused by natural occurrences”. I suspect that most in your circles DO believe that.

      The pro-CO2 crowd invoke an international conspiracy of greedy scientists getting rich faking data for that sweet, sweet gubmint money. Beside there being little evidence to support that “idea” (after all, oil companies pay so much better, just ask Steve Milloy!), it also misrepresents how government-funded science is conducted.

  7. CarolAnn says:

    Scientific consensus is achieved by getting enough cash motivated “scientists” (few of which are actual climate experts) to unite in order to bullshit tax money from poor average people after scaring the shit out of them. Oddly their predictions never seem to pan out and they neither apologize nor refund our money.

    Science is currently being used like a cudgel to force normal people to do things they normally would not do. Like buy electric crap cars or wear masks or close their businesses because some politician or bureaucrat says so. IOW, science is now often a weapon used to inflict pain, suffering and monetary costs on the average guy.

    • Elwood P. Dowd says:

      CarolAnn,

      Most scientists could make more money is sales than in lab work. A university scientist, even getting a 2 million NIH grant doesn’t get that as salary! It pays for technicians, university overhead, reagents, lab equipment etc. Scientists developed the interweb, cell phones, computers, electrical infrastructure, televisions, internal combustion engines, plastics, 5G, airplanes, burnt sienna spraytan, vaccines, viral RNA/DNA sequences, medicines, national weather service etc that make your life easier, but sometimes worse.

      What actions have scientists forced you to do that you normally would not do? We realize that science delivers results that challenge beliefs. The Earth is some 4 billion years old. Biological evolution is real. The Earth is warming. CO2 absorbs infrared radiation. Masks slow the spread of respiratory transmitted diseases. Vaccines slow and even stop the spread of disease. Cigarette smoking increases cancer and other diseases.

      The Covid pandemic killed millions around the globe, a million in the US alone. Understand that the medical community was trying to understand the disease at the same time they had to limit its spread. It’s was like building the airplane as they were flying it! Then-president Trump largely accepted the advice of medical experts and supported the development and distribution of the anti-Covid vaccines, likely saving an estimated 2 million American lives! As the medical community learned more it was observed that some of the closures may have been unneeded, but hindsight is 20/20. It’s unfair to blame then-president Trump or people like Governors DeWine or DeSantis for this. 19 of 26 Republican governors issued stay at home orders.

  8. drowningpuppies says:

    Anyway, J.D. Vance mopped the floor with those three knuckleheads. https://www.thepiratescove.us/wp-content/plugins/wp-monalisa/icons/wpml_bye.gif

Pirate's Cove