aenyc, pay attention you may be seeing the future here in chit chat zone.(you may want to take notes)
Lets not put the cart before the horse.
Especially if doing so will harm billions of people.
Can Solar & Wind Fix Everything (e.g., Climate Change) with a battery break-through?
- Thread starter svetz
- Start date
Lets not put the cart before the horse.
Especially if doing so will harm billions of people.
TommySr
Solar Enthusiast
aenyc, but, but, but isn't culling the human population, agribusiness and bill fucking gates a strawman argument with this topic?
what comes around goes around
Daddy Tanuki
Solar Wizard
I put bill gates right in ther with baby hitler and Hillary Clintonaenyc, but, but, but isn't culling the human population, agribusiness and bill fucking gates a strawman argument with this topic?
what comes around goes around
Last edited:
TommySr
Solar Enthusiast
Ken, must have been a long day for you, you forgot a few.
Soros worked for Hitler and admitted it. He is Special
Checkthisout
Solar Wizard
- Joined
- Nov 14, 2021
- Messages
- 4,948
Checkthisout
Solar Wizard
- Joined
- Nov 14, 2021
- Messages
- 4,948
Checkthisout
Solar Wizard
- Joined
- Nov 14, 2021
- Messages
- 4,948
Officials share remarkable before-and-after images of lake as water nears record levels following drought: 'This level of the lake is great for us'
In the shadow of global drought crises, Big Bear Lake has seen a remarkable rise in its water levels.
www.thecooldown.com
Bob B
Emperor Of Solar
- Joined
- Sep 21, 2019
- Messages
- 9,039
According to these scientists .... there is a relationship between temperature and CO2 .... Ice core samples show that the rise in CO2 follows the rise in temperature.
wattsupwiththat.com
New Greenland Ice Sheet study Shows Why It’s Called “Climate Idiocy”
A new study reports that Northwest Greenland was ice free 400,000 years ago when the atmospheric CO2 level was an estimated 286 ppm.
wattsupwiththat.com
Last edited:
They mis-named them on purpose ice land is green and green land is ice. Long bs story. Basically all white
svetz
Works in theory! Practice? That's something else
The problem with getting "science" from a site with an agenda is the slant they put on it, WUWT is a well known propaganda site with a denier agenda: But sure, let's look at it.... for more check these three myths as the explanations are from smarter people than me: |
First, to give people an idea as to why Greenland losing ice is alarming, it's because of how far north it is, most of it is above 72°N and how much ice there is. |
| Iceland is a little higher than the lowest point of Greenland, but thanks to the AMOC enjoys slightly warmer weather. Greenland has a loop of colder artic water called the Greenland Current so it is less affected by the AMOC and more resistant to climate change. | 
|
Primary claim: Despite CO2 being 400 ppm Greenland is still a barren wasteland
It's not a barren wasteland, even when Eric settled there. it does have enormous glaciers:
Recent Pictures of Greenland:
Those glaciers are melting rapidly, alarmingly so:
- Greenland is becoming a 'green' land as melting ice is replaced with vegetation
- Greenland has lost 532,520 gigatons (Gt) of ice since 1972 ref
- The mass loss has increased sixfold since the 1980s. ref
| Secondary claim: 400,000 years ago it was ice free From this ref, 400,000 years ago Greenland was between 20 to 70% ice free. ref, so that's a lie too. Why go back to 4 climate cycles? The last cycle was hotter and three cycles back when the CO2 levels were higher? Why didn't it melt then? Why did so much ice melt 4 ice ages ago? Because four ice ages ago the "hot" period lasted 29,000 years, giving the ice sheets more time to melt. |
Keep in mind "natural" climate change took 1000s of years, man-made change has primarily been in the last half century.
When you look at the paper they cite (Deglaciation of northwestern Greenland during Marine Isotope Stage 11), it seems to match with the facts I've presented. For example the paper never claims Greenland was ice-free. It's about a place called Camp Century. The paper overall is trying to estimate sea-level rise based on air temperature. The findings are base on flowing water over the ground. However, we also know that water flows under glaciers as they melt ref.
Tertiary Claim: Scientists/Study says Climate change is Idiocy
Thanks for bringing this up though, the paper was interesting and I was happy to see that their conclusion jived with my guess about why it was four ice-ages ago (green text), unfortunately the bottom line was chilling (blue text):
So again, it's quite a lie to insinuate the scientists were claiming in any way climate change was false.
svetz
Works in theory! Practice? That's something else
So the post above is a good example of deniers cherry picking data (going back 4 ice ages), embellishing the truth (from Camp Century being ice free to zero ice over Greenland), and replacing scientific conclusions with their own and attributing them back to the scientists.
Wonder how many deniers will review the actual facts like the post above and go huh? Maybe that web site did mislead me? Maybe there is something to it not just being a conspiracy of scientists and the mysterious them seeking to control you?
Ever wonder why are deniers so vocal and adamant when they are not scientists, and have yet to come up with something that hasn't been debunked (or at least has a more rational explanation?).
I don't know either. But I am pretty sure there will be a slew of posts that violate that forum rules about treating fellow members with respect followed by another slew of phoney denial information. A good place to check when you see fake information is 200 climate myths With Explanations as to why they're wrong. All I can suggest readers is that if you find their BS too much and only want to see the news use /ignore on them.
The plain truth is climate change is an urgent threat and it is man-made. That we're so far behind in this fight we probably can't stop the 1.5°C or probably even the 2°C the Paris Agreement called for and every country (except some like Libya) signed up for. The U.S. is on a 2.5 to 2.9°C trajectory and other countries (e.g., China) are on a 4.0°C trajectory. As Sabine said, we need to get real.
Wonder how many deniers will review the actual facts like the post above and go huh? Maybe that web site did mislead me? Maybe there is something to it not just being a conspiracy of scientists and the mysterious them seeking to control you?
Ever wonder why are deniers so vocal and adamant when they are not scientists, and have yet to come up with something that hasn't been debunked (or at least has a more rational explanation?).
I don't know either. But I am pretty sure there will be a slew of posts that violate that forum rules about treating fellow members with respect followed by another slew of phoney denial information. A good place to check when you see fake information is 200 climate myths With Explanations as to why they're wrong. All I can suggest readers is that if you find their BS too much and only want to see the news use /ignore on them.
The plain truth is climate change is an urgent threat and it is man-made. That we're so far behind in this fight we probably can't stop the 1.5°C or probably even the 2°C the Paris Agreement called for and every country (except some like Libya) signed up for. The U.S. is on a 2.5 to 2.9°C trajectory and other countries (e.g., China) are on a 4.0°C trajectory. As Sabine said, we need to get real.
- How we know Climate Change is not a hoax or wrong
- How we know Climate Change is Man-Made
- How The Greenhouse Gas Effect Works (with atmospheric layers)
- How Climate Change Became Politicized
- 200 climate myths With Explanations as to why they're wrong
Last edited:
Checkthisout
Solar Wizard
- Joined
- Nov 14, 2021
- Messages
- 4,948
You poo poo the person or website before you poo poo the data. And, often, you never poo poo the data.
That is how manipulative people work.
They come one with emotions first and facts second, and often never.
What is so funny is you think your sources has no agenda.
The problem with getting "science" from a site with an agenda is the slant they put on it, WUWT is a well known propaganda site with a denier agenda:
But sure, let's look at it.... for more check these three myths as the explanations are from smarter people than me:
First, to give people an idea as to why Greenland losing ice is alarming, it's because of how far north it is, most of it is above 72°N and how much ice there is.
Iceland is a little higher than the lowest point of Greenland, but thanks to the AMOC enjoys slightly warmer weather. Greenland has a loop of colder artic water called the Greenland Current so it is less affected by the AMOC and more
resistant to climate change.
Primary claim: Despite CO2 being 400 ppm Greenland is still a barren wasteland
It's not a barren wasteland, even when Eric settled there. it does have enormous glaciers:
Recent Pictures of Greenland:
View attachment 215745
Those glaciers are melting rapidly, alarmingly so:
Why hasn't it all melted? Well, it's a pretty darn big ice cube with a high albedo somewhat protected by the Greenland artic current.
- Greenland is becoming a 'green' land as melting ice is replaced with vegetation
- Greenland has lost 532,520 gigatons (Gt) of ice since 1972 ref
- The mass loss has increased sixfold since the 1980s. ref
Secondary claim: 400,000 years ago it was ice free
From this ref, 400,000 years ago Greenland was between
20 to 70% ice free. ref, so that's a lie too.
Why go back to 4 climate cycles? The last cycle was
hotter and three cycles back when the CO2 levels were
higher? Why didn't it melt then?
Why did so much ice melt 4 ice ages ago? Because four
ice ages ago the "hot" period lasted 29,000 years, giving
the ice sheets more time to melt.
Keep in mind "natural" climate change took 1000s of years, man-made change has primarily been in the last half century.
When you look at the paper they cite (Deglaciation of northwestern Greenland during Marine Isotope Stage 11), it seems to match with the facts I've presented. For example the paper never claims Greenland was ice-free. It's about a place called Camp Century. The paper overall is trying to estimate sea-level rise based on air temperature. The findings are base on flowing water over the ground. However, we also know that water flows under glaciers as they melt ref.
Tertiary Claim: Scientists/Study says Climate change is Idiocy
Thanks for bringing this up though, the paper was interesting and I was happy to see that their conclusion jived with my guess about why it was four ice-ages ago (green text), unfortunately the bottom line was chilling (blue text):
So again, it's quite a lie to insinuate the scientists were claiming in any way climate change was false.
You are too blind to see that they do.
svetz
Works in theory! Practice? That's something else
Biden imposes huge tariffs on EVs & batteries
China vows 'resolute measures' after Biden's new tariffs
DeSantis signs bill scrubbing 'climate change' from Florida law
Opinion: yep, he finally signed it and it's law. Now we get to pay for having text changed. Oh, also outlaws offshore wind turbines because they're... hmm... doesn't actually say.
China's Car Exports skyrocket as Electrified cars approach 50% market share
What's behind Wall Street's flip-flop on climate?
Hearing held on Capitol Hill examines climate change and its impacts on national security
Jellyfish thrive with Climate Change
Carbon-capture batteries developed to store renewable energy
Opinion: Gambling? The idea of stopping inexpensive imports from China so we can create local manufacturing isn't a bad idea, but do we have time given the urgency? Will the next administration destroy any progress? Or is it all election grandstanding? Perhaps I should stop posting until after the election and give the deniers a break? ; -)
China vows 'resolute measures' after Biden's new tariffs
DeSantis signs bill scrubbing 'climate change' from Florida law
Opinion: yep, he finally signed it and it's law. Now we get to pay for having text changed. Oh, also outlaws offshore wind turbines because they're... hmm... doesn't actually say.
China's Car Exports skyrocket as Electrified cars approach 50% market share
What's behind Wall Street's flip-flop on climate?
Hearing held on Capitol Hill examines climate change and its impacts on national security
There are over 100 solutions we can implement now
Jellyfish thrive with Climate Change
Carbon-capture batteries developed to store renewable energy
No, what's funny is you think that and yet have zero evidence of anything to the contrary. What's worse, you think my source is worse... but it was the source that the deniers used. I just pointed out how they misquoted and otherwise lied about it.
Last edited:
I put bill gates right in ther with baby hitler and Hillary Clinton
Dont forget that these people are only lieutenants. They follow orders of international oligarchy/banker families
Corruption, everywhere you look at the cLIEmate change agenda
wattsupwiththat.com
Michigan Government: Stacked Top to Bottom with Donor-provided Climate Activist “Staff”
Michigan Government: Stacked Top to Bottom with Donor-provided Climate Activist “Staff”
With Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel filing the “climate” lawsuit that campaign supporter Michigan LCV had lobbied her to file against energy companies, and the UM law school faculty putting …
wattsupwiththat.com
More proof that this is all about control.
The PROVE IT Act (S. 1863) is not a benign information collection bill on the carbon intensity of domestic and foreign goods. Instead, it would put in motion the creation of carbon taxes: a carbon tax on imported goods and a domestic carbon tax. It would also help the Biden administration as it works with the EU to impose carbon taxes on imported metals. Here’s why:
The PROVE IT Act would make carbon taxes a reality. If legislators genuinely oppose carbon taxes, then why even take the risk of facilitating their enactment and implementation by building the administrative framework and lobbying base for such taxes? And this would be a huge risk given that many bill supporters would use the reconciliation process to impose carbon taxes once they have the PROVE IT Act information.
Why the PROVE IT Act Would Result in Carbon Taxes
The PROVE IT Act (S. 1863) is not a benign information collection bill on the carbon intensity of domestic and foreign goods. Instead, it would put in motion the creation of carbon taxes: a carbon tax on imported goods and a domestic carbon tax. It would also help the Biden administration as it works with the EU to impose carbon taxes on imported metals. Here’s why:
- Congress has already demonstrated what will happen with PROVE IT Act information. Just over a year ago in the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), which was a partisan reconciliation bill, Congress took information collected under the EPA’s greenhouse gas reporting program to create a methane tax. The Senate passed the IRA on a 51-50 party-line vote with Vice President Kamala Harris casting the tiebreaker.
- Many bill supporters have shown they would replicate what happened with the methane tax. In the Senate EPW Committee markup of the bill, all Committee Democrats voted to kill an amendment that would have helped block the future use of reconciliation to impose a carbon tax on imported goods or a domestic carbon tax based on PROVE IT Act information. Chairman Tom Carper (D-DE) opposed the amendment precisely because it “prohibits any revenue measure based on the greenhouse gas emissions associated with commodities or products.”
- When PROVE IT Act supporters argue the bill is a way to hold foreign countries accountable, they reveal that the legislation is about more than information. Supporters, including lead sponsors Sens. Kevin Cramer (R-ND) and Chris Coons (D-DE), have argued that the PROVE IT Act is a way to hold other countries accountable for their emissions. Merely providing information cannot hold any country accountable. Their arguments are a tacit admission that the bill will be used to impose carbon taxes on imports, at a minimum.
- Bill supporters openly acknowledge that the PROVE IT Act is intended to lead to more taxes. Many of the bill supporters are expressly admitting that the legislation will mean carbon taxes of some kind. Sen. Coons (D-DE) has said about the bill, “figuring out a fair process for imposing tariffs on countries that don’t have any transparency around their emissions is also going to be a complex part of any border carbon adjustment mechanism.” The European Union (EU) has created the first and only carbon border adjustment mechanism (CBAM) and it includes both a carbon tax on imports and a domestic carbon pricing scheme. Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) has said the bill will “help us construct a carbon border adjustment of our own.” Since 2021, about half of the sponsors of the PROVE IT Act have sponsored bills imposing carbon taxes on imports, with many of these bills also imposing domestic carbon taxes. Senator Coons, a lead sponsor of the PROVE IT Act and two co-sponsors, Sens. Whitehouse and Martin Heinrich (D-NM), sponsored the Clean Competition Act, which uses carbon intensity data to impose carbon taxes on imported goods and a domestic carbon tax.
- The bill helps to collaborate with the EU on its harmful climate policy. Senator Cramer has repeatedly argued for working with the EU on climate policy. He wrote: “We have an opportunity to counter Putin’s playbook with a bold initiative consistent with European priorities… One aspect of that initiative could be a joint trade mechanism between the United States and the European Union that levels a common carbon fee on imported goods.” Instead of fighting and rejecting the EU’s disastrous climate policy, the PROVE IT Act embraces what the EU is doing. Many supporters advocate for a CBAM similar to the EU’s, and seek to create a “carbon club” of countries that join together to impose carbon taxes in some fashion.
- The PROVE IT Act will help the Biden administration in its negotiations with the EU to tax the carbon intensity of metals. The Biden administration and EU are working on the Global Arrangement on Sustainable Steel and Aluminum that would impose taxes on imported metals based on their carbon intensity. This is part of the Biden administration’s broader plan as USTR explains to “use trade tools to decarbonize our economies.” The PROVE IT Act would legitimize these efforts and help the Biden administration reach an agreement with the EU on carbon taxes by pointing to this domestic effort to develop carbon taxes. It would also provide the Biden administration the data necessary to try and unilaterally impose carbon taxes on imports, such as under Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Action of 1974.
- Creating a carbon tax on imported goods leads inexorably to a domestic carbon tax.1) To be part of a “carbon club” with the EU, as many bill supporters want, the US would logically need to have a system like the EU CBAM that includes a domestic carbon pricing mechanism. Not surprisingly, the PROVE IT Act helps to create the framework to implement an EU-type system.2) The US would sooner or later impose a domestic carbon tax if it imposes a carbon tax on imports. This is not simply due to trade law obligations but also because environmental groups and others would not stay silent as domestic industries failed to meet similar greenhouse gas reduction commitments. 3) The PROVE IT Act is a way to build a lobby for a carbon tax on imports that can then be used to secure a domestic carbon tax. Domestic manufacturers would oppose a domestic carbon tax absent a corresponding tax on imports to “level the playing field.” Therefore, the PROVE IT Act is a political solution for domestic carbon tax supporters: The bill will lead to carbon taxes on imports, which will lead to a domestic carbon tax.
The PROVE IT Act would make carbon taxes a reality. If legislators genuinely oppose carbon taxes, then why even take the risk of facilitating their enactment and implementation by building the administrative framework and lobbying base for such taxes? And this would be a huge risk given that many bill supporters would use the reconciliation process to impose carbon taxes once they have the PROVE IT Act information.
The Mask is coming off
Comedy environmentalist Jim Dale and Dale Vince have both suggested that climate ‘denial’ should be a criminal offence. It gets them clicks and attention on cable and mainstream news, and it plays into a wider push by green billionaire-funded lawfare outfits using the courts to enforce Net Zero industrial shutdown. But it begs the question: what are the climate ‘deniers’ actually denying? Dale is a climate campaigner who points to bad weather as evidence that the climate is collapsing before our very eyes. But the evidence suggests no such thing. Data since 2000 show that there has been no increase in extreme weather, no increase in loss of life and no increase in economic costs.
The Emergency Events Database (EM-DAT) is a U.S. Government-supported tracker of mass disasters as well as health and economic impacts. It lists 26,000 disasters worldwide from 1900 to the present day. Dr. Matthew Wielicki, a former Geology Professor, has compiled data from this source and they provide no evidence to support the claim that ‘extreme’ weather is on the rise.
Dr. Wielicki suggests that the recent decrease in perceived climate urgency and importance among the American public, especially young adults, as shown by the recent Monmouth University poll “may be influenced by an observable lack of escalation in the direct impacts of climate change”. Such data can lead to scepticism or reduced concern, he adds.
It seems that the lack of evidence drives the alarmists further and further away from scientific reality in their desperation to promote Net Zero. Last week’s absurd survey of 380 “top scientists” by the Guardian found climate modeller Ruth Cerezo-Mota wailing that it was almost impossible not to feel “hopeless and broken” after all the flooding, fires and droughts of the last three years. Biologist Camille Parmesan was so fearful she almost gave up what she called climate science 15 years ago to become a nightclub singer. Now she says all the scientists she works with are at the end of their rope “asking what the fuck do we have to do to get through to people how bad this really is”. Engineering Professor Jonathan Cullen states the climate emergency is already here because just 1°C of heating has “supercharged the planet’s extreme weather”. Millions of people have “very likely” died early as a result, he claimed. Lorraine Whitmarsh is an ‘environmental psychologist’ at the University of Bath, and worries about the future her children are inheriting since climate change is an “existential threat” to humanity.
The Guardian article was written by Damian Carrington, one of the green billionaire-funded lobby group Covering Climate Now’s three journalists of the year in 2023. This operation pumps out ready-to-publish climate catastrophe copy to media outlets worldwide. Carrington polled over 800 lead authors or review editors of all reports from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) since 2018. He received replies from 380 authors, but as with all IPCC (and Guardian) reports, the definition of ‘climate scientists’ is very broad. Carrington describes Professor Lisa Schipper as an “expert on climate vulnerability”. Schipper notes that she is “particularly interested in socio-cultural dimensions of vulnerability including gender, culture and religion, as well as structural issues related to power, justice and equity”. Ralph Sims of Massey University says extreme weather events will escalate and there will be environmental refugees by the millions. Sims’s first job in academia was as a lecturer in agricultural machinery.
Meanwhile, back to the science, and the problem – the giant elephant in the room no less – is that the IPCC gives almost no credence to talk of a climate crisis based on observable bad weather patterns in the past and looking forward to the end of this century.
The above table published in the latest IPCC assessment report reveals this clearly. It shows there is little or no evidence that the following have been, or will be by 2100, affected by human-caused climate change: river floods, heavy rain and pluvial flooding, landslides, droughts (all types), fire ‘weather’, severe wind storms, tropical cyclones, sand and dust storms, heavy snowfall and ice storms, hail, snow avalanche, coastal flooding and erosion, and maritime heatwaves.
Far from living in a time of climate collapse, we appear to be enjoying a benign spell in an interglacial period. A little extra carbon dioxide, rescuing the Earth from possibly dangerous denudation, and a gentle rise of 1°C in temperature from the Little Ice Age, has boosted plant growth around the world. Evidence continues to be produced showing substantial CO2 greening of the planet including desert areas. A recent paper Chen et al. 2024 found that CO2 greening had actually accelerated over the last two decades.
The people spinning the tale of climate collapse – some of them advocating jail time for dissenters – are hysterical, but deadly serious. Ask Gianluca Alimonti, an Italian Physics Professor, whose paper stating a climate emergency was not supported by the available data, was recently retracted by Springer Nature after a year-long campaign by activist scientists and journalists, including Graham Readfearn of the Guardian. The Alimonti paper, which also included the work of two other physics professors, found that rainfall intensity and frequency was stationary in many parts of the world, and the same was true of U.S. tornadoes. Other meteorological categories including natural disasters, floods, droughts and ecosystem productivity showed “no clear positive trend of extreme events”.
Only a fool would consider arguing that climate contrarian scientists should be sent to jail, as Dale did with Andrew Doyle last Sunday on GB News’s Free Speech Nation. Alas, the transcript of Dale’s comments does little to clarify his argument – it’s just word salad gibberish for the most part. But his intention is clear. Time for ‘deniers’, whatever they are supposed to be denying, to be marched off to jail. The sad thing is that he is not alone – Dale says it is “common sense”, which, as Doyle observed, is the refrain of every tyrant in history who’s wanted to jail his opponents.
Fanatics Call for Climate ‘Deniers’ to Be Jailed
Comedy environmentalist Jim Dale and Dale Vince have both suggested that climate ‘denial’ should be a criminal offence. It gets them clicks and attention on cable and mainstream news, and it plays into a wider push by green billionaire-funded lawfare outfits using the courts to enforce Net Zero industrial shutdown. But it begs the question: what are the climate ‘deniers’ actually denying? Dale is a climate campaigner who points to bad weather as evidence that the climate is collapsing before our very eyes. But the evidence suggests no such thing. Data since 2000 show that there has been no increase in extreme weather, no increase in loss of life and no increase in economic costs.
The Emergency Events Database (EM-DAT) is a U.S. Government-supported tracker of mass disasters as well as health and economic impacts. It lists 26,000 disasters worldwide from 1900 to the present day. Dr. Matthew Wielicki, a former Geology Professor, has compiled data from this source and they provide no evidence to support the claim that ‘extreme’ weather is on the rise.
Dr. Wielicki suggests that the recent decrease in perceived climate urgency and importance among the American public, especially young adults, as shown by the recent Monmouth University poll “may be influenced by an observable lack of escalation in the direct impacts of climate change”. Such data can lead to scepticism or reduced concern, he adds.
It seems that the lack of evidence drives the alarmists further and further away from scientific reality in their desperation to promote Net Zero. Last week’s absurd survey of 380 “top scientists” by the Guardian found climate modeller Ruth Cerezo-Mota wailing that it was almost impossible not to feel “hopeless and broken” after all the flooding, fires and droughts of the last three years. Biologist Camille Parmesan was so fearful she almost gave up what she called climate science 15 years ago to become a nightclub singer. Now she says all the scientists she works with are at the end of their rope “asking what the fuck do we have to do to get through to people how bad this really is”. Engineering Professor Jonathan Cullen states the climate emergency is already here because just 1°C of heating has “supercharged the planet’s extreme weather”. Millions of people have “very likely” died early as a result, he claimed. Lorraine Whitmarsh is an ‘environmental psychologist’ at the University of Bath, and worries about the future her children are inheriting since climate change is an “existential threat” to humanity.
The Guardian article was written by Damian Carrington, one of the green billionaire-funded lobby group Covering Climate Now’s three journalists of the year in 2023. This operation pumps out ready-to-publish climate catastrophe copy to media outlets worldwide. Carrington polled over 800 lead authors or review editors of all reports from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) since 2018. He received replies from 380 authors, but as with all IPCC (and Guardian) reports, the definition of ‘climate scientists’ is very broad. Carrington describes Professor Lisa Schipper as an “expert on climate vulnerability”. Schipper notes that she is “particularly interested in socio-cultural dimensions of vulnerability including gender, culture and religion, as well as structural issues related to power, justice and equity”. Ralph Sims of Massey University says extreme weather events will escalate and there will be environmental refugees by the millions. Sims’s first job in academia was as a lecturer in agricultural machinery.
Meanwhile, back to the science, and the problem – the giant elephant in the room no less – is that the IPCC gives almost no credence to talk of a climate crisis based on observable bad weather patterns in the past and looking forward to the end of this century.
The above table published in the latest IPCC assessment report reveals this clearly. It shows there is little or no evidence that the following have been, or will be by 2100, affected by human-caused climate change: river floods, heavy rain and pluvial flooding, landslides, droughts (all types), fire ‘weather’, severe wind storms, tropical cyclones, sand and dust storms, heavy snowfall and ice storms, hail, snow avalanche, coastal flooding and erosion, and maritime heatwaves.
Far from living in a time of climate collapse, we appear to be enjoying a benign spell in an interglacial period. A little extra carbon dioxide, rescuing the Earth from possibly dangerous denudation, and a gentle rise of 1°C in temperature from the Little Ice Age, has boosted plant growth around the world. Evidence continues to be produced showing substantial CO2 greening of the planet including desert areas. A recent paper Chen et al. 2024 found that CO2 greening had actually accelerated over the last two decades.
The people spinning the tale of climate collapse – some of them advocating jail time for dissenters – are hysterical, but deadly serious. Ask Gianluca Alimonti, an Italian Physics Professor, whose paper stating a climate emergency was not supported by the available data, was recently retracted by Springer Nature after a year-long campaign by activist scientists and journalists, including Graham Readfearn of the Guardian. The Alimonti paper, which also included the work of two other physics professors, found that rainfall intensity and frequency was stationary in many parts of the world, and the same was true of U.S. tornadoes. Other meteorological categories including natural disasters, floods, droughts and ecosystem productivity showed “no clear positive trend of extreme events”.
Only a fool would consider arguing that climate contrarian scientists should be sent to jail, as Dale did with Andrew Doyle last Sunday on GB News’s Free Speech Nation. Alas, the transcript of Dale’s comments does little to clarify his argument – it’s just word salad gibberish for the most part. But his intention is clear. Time for ‘deniers’, whatever they are supposed to be denying, to be marched off to jail. The sad thing is that he is not alone – Dale says it is “common sense”, which, as Doyle observed, is the refrain of every tyrant in history who’s wanted to jail his opponents.
cLIEmate change/AWG/CAWG is hoax. Dont believe the shills.
THERE WILL BE DISASTROUS CONSEQUENCES FOR THE POOR, PEOPLE WORLDWIDE, FUTURE GENERATIONS AND THE WEST IF FOSSIL FUELS, CO2 AND OTHER GHG EMISSIONS ARE REDUCED TO “NET ZERO”
SCIENCE DEMONSTRATES FOSSIL FUELS, CO2 AND OTHER GHGs WILL NOT CAUSE CATASTROPHIC GLOBAL WARMING AND EXTREME WEATHER
THERE WILL BE DISASTROUS CONSEQUENCES FOR THE POOR, PEOPLE WORLDWIDE, FUTURE GENERATIONS AND THE WEST IF FOSSIL FUELS, CO2 AND OTHER GHG EMISSIONS ARE REDUCED TO “NET ZERO”
- CO2 is Essential to Our Food, and Thus to Life on Earth
- More CO2, Including CO2 from Fossil Fuels, Produces More Food.
- More CO2 Increases Food in Drought-Stricken Areas.
- Greenhouse Gases Prevent Us from Freezing to Death
- Enormous Social Benefits of Fossil Fuels
- “Net Zeroing” Fossil Fuels Will Cause Massive Human Starvation by Eliminating Nitrogen Fertilizer
SCIENCE DEMONSTRATES FOSSIL FUELS, CO2 AND OTHER GHGs WILL NOT CAUSE CATASTROPHIC GLOBAL WARMING AND EXTREME WEATHER
- Reliable Science is Based on Validating Theoretical Predictions With Observations, Not Consensus, Peer Review, Government Opinion or Cherry-Picked or Falsified Data
- The Models Predicting Catastrophic Warming and Extreme Weather Fail the Key Scientific Test: They Do Not Work, and Would Never Be Used in Science.
- 600 Million Years of CO2 and Temperature Data Contradict the Theory That High Levels of CO2 Will Cause Catastrophic Global Warming.
- Atmospheric CO2 Is Now “Heavily Saturated,” Which in Physics Means More CO2 Will Have Little Warming Effect.
- The Theory Extreme Weather is Caused by Fossil Fuels, CO2 and Other GHGs is Contradicted by the Scientific Method and Thus is Scientifically Invalid
Similar threads
