Leaderboard

All the more reason to rely on a transition to natural gas in developing nations.

It appears that the time for reasonable discussion and debate is over, as leading climate agiitators have insisted on throwing down the gauntlet. https://oilprice.com/Energy/Crude-Oil/Saudi-Arabia-Resists-Renewing-Fossil-Fuel-Phase-Out-Pledge-at-COP29.html “It is now clear that the Cop is no longer fit for purpose. We need a shift from negotiation to implementation,” they wrote." These self-styled climate "experts" (Ban Ki-moon, Mary Robinson, Christiana Figueres, and Johan Rockström) have no patience for the slow progress of science and are insisting on radical methods and authoritarian governments forcing them through.

Golf carts use lead-acid, too.

Speeding is far more likely to cause injury, death, and property damage than shoplifting. Yet the wealthy -who can pay tickets easily- downplay it. You never speed in your gas guzzler?

You've never committed a crime yourself? Apples don't fall far from trees. We were young and stupid too.

Nobody said they should change the laws... that's in your head. Poverty increases crime due to the will to survive. They need more affordable housing and social support systems. What would you propose as a solution, put them all in jail? Incarceration, or worse, hospitalization costs far more money than social support systems.

Of course I don't want that. San fran has a huge homeless problem and it's not just because of the state government. Way too many millionaires per capita distorts prices; the geography hinders the building market; and the winters are mild so the homeless choose to live there. Hippies have long flocked there. "peace"

The alt-right use much more violence. NRA gun nuts, "Proud boy stand by" and of course the deaths caused by the capitol riot. Watch history unfold and you will continue to see you side with the losers. The vast majority do not agree with you, and that is all that matters. Making fun of California, the richest state in the USA...

Climate change deniers are far right politically, what a surprise (not). Thankfully for the planet the alt-right people are losers with no power. The world will carry on without listening to them.

Do you still think governments need to balance their budgets? https://www.usdebtclock.org/

So like slowly boiling a frog? You did, for all intents and purposes, accept that a 120ppm increase in CO2 will increase global temp by at least 0.24K. So letting CO2 run wild is still not really acceptable. The planet cares not about politics.

Glad you finally read the paper. You also agree that: 1) there is warming 2) some of the warming is from anthropogenic CO2 emissions. No need to "argue" any further - welcome to the bright side! The exact magnitude of the changes we now agree upon will continued to be measured instead of predicted.

If you do the home thermostat experiment you might notice that a 3.3K change from your normal room temp has a larger effect on your life than your 1.29% suggests. Please try it, the people you live with, if any, won't notice such a trivial difference! The difference between ice and liquid water is less than 1K. Clearly the same! Do you like skim milk? It tastes exactly the same as 1% or 2%, trust me. Tap water with 0.01% lead will kill your family. Your use of percentages to "understand" life and the environment is foolish. Poor logic makes you prefer small percentages of large numbers over larger percentages of small numbers - even when they represent the same magnitude of change. Overuse of percentages is almost always an attempt by crappy "statisticians" to deceive.

I really like that you think 10% is nothing. We could implement 10% carbon tax and you wouldn't care! 90% of the gas cost is from the fossil fuels! You should also turn your thermostat up by 3.3K. It's only represents a tiny fraction of the difference between a normal room temperature and absolute zero!

You're learning. At least you now understand they were not discussing any other of your other nonsense so you should not bring that up when using that data set and conclusions. They certainly do believe in greenhouse warming and 3.3K (10%) of the increase is from CO2.

So the baseline is now wrong, as I predicted you would say.

If you won't read your own reference I can't help you.

It says the warming is due to greenhouse effect, it does not talk at all about any other causes of warming. So, in this paper, all the total warming equals the portion from greenhouse warming. Get it? If you don't agree with that -and want to confound their data with your BS- then you are discrediting your own reference. "It has long been accepted that the “greenhouse effect”, where the atmosphere readily transmits short wavelength incoming solar radiation but selectively absorbs long wavelength outgoing radiation emitted by the earth, is responsible for warming the earth from the 255K effective earth temperature, without atmospheric warming, to the current average temperature of 288K.

How would you know then? You don't do climate research.

Keep posting that paper, it doesn't mean what you think it means. I like it.

That is not what the paper says. It says 3.3K of the 33K warming. They don't even mention all your other theories.

Wrong again it says 10% of the temperature change not 10% of the greenhouse effect. You are trying to confound the situation with other variables to downplay your error.

10% is huge. Give me 10% of your money it's just a tiny part.

The authors of your favourite paper sure make it sound like there is an established consensus. "It has long been accepted that the “greenhouse effect”, where the atmosphere readily transmits short wavelength incoming solar radiation but selectively absorbs long wavelength outgoing radiation emitted by the earth, is responsible for warming the earth from the 255K effective earth temperature, without atmospheric warming, to the current average temperature of 288K. It is also widely accepted that the two main atmospheric greenhouse gases are H2O and CO2."

I'm done for now, you've got nothing except for evidence against your claims. Try harder.

Your point? Fact remains 10% is a lot. Continue wasting ten percent of your income as it doesn't matter because 90% is spent on useful stuff. Faulty logic.

Generally looking for p<0.05. You "proved" nothing. You found a paper that was wrong, that is not evidence of anything. Remember you believe most papers are wrong.

We are discussing science.

Pyrolysis is very old technology.

Study shows food and housing are the dominate strains on household budgets. Ecocharger then interprets that as "Buying cigarettes has an insignificant effect on fiances. Therefore, continue wasting money. Food and housing are the real problem."

Post it again, it clearly showed CO2 as a driver. Saying it is "less significant" than water is not the same as no effect. PS the word "significant" has special meaning in science. Do not toss around "insignificant" when you do not understand p values. Why would I cry? You are the one supporting losers. Personally I like winners. I must be painful for you living in a world where no one listens to you.

No you haven't. Certainly not "successfully" as the consensuses remains intact! Show me a winner. The one paper you reposted many times as evidence actually said CO2 is increasing temperatures.

Where has this been exposed? Not because you say so, or one or two cherry picked papers, or crazy alt-right website.

Plenty of "No" listed in the "higher than 2019 column." Canada is No, No, No.

A lot of those "increases" are just covid recovery. People haven't travelled much in years so there will be a temporary jump in travel as people finally go on delayed trips.

QFP

Eyes closed won't look at oil related wars, chaos, death, and destruction.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exxon_Valdez_oil_spill https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalamazoo_River_oil_spill This can go on forever...

Eyes closed won't look at oil related wars, chaos, death, and destruction.

Those were actual fires, people died. Those people had loved ones; not really a joke. Do better than a reused meme. Try harder, fail harder, or just learn.

https://www.cnbc.com/video/2019/06/21/video-shows-explosion-at-philadelphia-oil-refinery.html https://www.rferl.org/a/explosion-siberian-oil-refinery-russia/32178063.html

The young care more about the environment and are more left leaning. Young adults who have advanced education also tend to lean left. It is very clear that the young, educated youth have vastly different views from the old and uneducated. "Overall, about 53 percent of U.S. adults believe that global warming is mainly caused by human activity. However, there is a great disparity between political beliefs where 83 percent of people who identified as Liberal Democrats believe in anthropogenic climate change, in comparison to that 18 percent of identified Conservative Republicans were in agreement." https://www.statista.com/statistics/492507/concerns-about-climate-change-united-states-by-age-group/ "Democrats enjoy a 27-percentage-point advantage among Millennial voters (59% are Democrats or lean Democratic, 32% are Republican or lean Republican)." https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2018/03/20/1-trends-in-party-affiliation-among-demographic-groups/ https://www.politico.com/interactives/2022/midterm-election-house-districts-by-education/

Radical changes may be required, and as I said, the youth are not afraid of change - they demand it.

Go preach your view to the masses. See if your ideology can gain any traction.... It won't. You are the one stuck to old ideologies ("fossil fuels cause no harm"). You are also wrong about how scientific paradigm shifts occur. They are not caused by convincing others or even the evidence. The lasting change occurs when the old guard dies off and is replaced with young, fresh, open minds. Plank, a legendary scientist, understood this: "A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it ... An important scientific innovation rarely makes its way by gradually winning over and converting its opponents: it rarely happens that Saul becomes Paul. What does happen is that its opponents gradually die out, and that the growing generation is familiarized with the ideas from the beginning: another instance of the fact that the future lies with the youth. — Max Planck, Scientific autobiography, 1950, p. 33, 97" I assure you the younger generation will not be convinced of your climate misinformation, and your death will occur relatively shortly, and with it some ignorance. Go talk to the youth and listen! The future will be increasingly liberal and electric regardless of the fossil-human's opinions. Remember when racism, homophobia and sexism were completely acceptable? I'm sure YOU do, and probably think of it as the "good old days." The young will not tolerate that anymore.

No, that is your fantasy. Meanwhile in reality...

Do you believe "[nobody has denied anthropogenic climate change]"? Don't defend outright outright stupid statements like that. PS the wiki page provided references.

Even more production cuts to make artificial scarcity https://www.msn.com/en-ca/money/topstories/oil-up-6th-week-on-saudi-cuts-gambit-charts-show-overbought-market/ar-AA1eNFpv?rc=1&ocid=winp1taskbar&cvid=b0c625e621874930ab1386a38696efc6&ei=20

So the vast majority of emissions remain after 8 years of trying.... 3.6% per year.

"On the supply side, Saudi Arabia announced additional voluntary cuts of 1 MMb/d in July and August, Russia announced 500Kb/d voluntary output cuts on top of the 500Kb/d pledged in March." "The number of active rigs has continued to decline m-o-m to 616 during June (down by 83 since the start of 2023)." Why the production cuts? Why reduced investment in new shale oil rigs? The exact same article but you cherry pick what you want to see.

You keep posting that. It clearly says CO2 is causing 3.3K increase. We only need to stop a handful of degrees increase ya know? It's not like we can reduce water.