You better choose your words wisely, otherwise Frankfooter will accuse you of genocide to the entire human race
COP29 2024 was a disaster and a failure
- Thread starter Shaquille Oatmeal
- Start date
I dont know if it is impossible.
But it is certainly not possible in the short term.
If someone finds a way to make it happen, I am happy to support.
But until then we need fossil fuels.
Perhaps you misread my comment.
That is what am saying too.
People care about putting food on the table first.
The majority of the developing world depends on fossil fuels.
For them economic prosperity is number 1.
'Climate anxiety' etc is a 1st world luxury.
Income of $5000 (per month?)? Many developing countries GDP per capita per annum is HALF of that.
No wonder they dont care.
frankfooter ?
he is comic relief,
A stooge who is unable to recognize that he is the court jester
an exceptionally untrustworthy individual
shame on you for not doing your homework
just to be clear
how can you help others move to renewable sources if it not possible right now ???
That's akin to
Hi
We are environmentalists
we are here to help you move , pack up you things and get on the truck
Poor people
Where are you moving us to?
environmentalists
we do not know yet
do not ask me short term questions
I am a long term thinker
inexpensive, reliable energy on demand is the elusive holy grail of inventions.
anyone who succeeds in delivering inexpensive, reliable energy on demand would become my hero as he / she would enable billions to escape from abject poverty
Nuclear is the closest thing , but alas the environmentalists rejected that idea decades ago
besides shipping thousands of modular nuclear plants to dirt poor countries has a lot of scary risks
let see how they make out with ICE driven tractors and ICE driven water pumps first
yes
and very likely for the entirety of your grandkids children's lives
Last edited:
No I did not.
Climate goals are primarily led by western nations.
Developing nations dont care.
You are not going to get developing countries to set aside their economic goals for climate initiatives without being compensated for it.
If developing nations have to reduce their dependency on fossil fuels, then they have to have access to an alternative energy source to sustain their economic goals (which is #1 for them).
The west will have to help fund that transition if they want to climate goals met.
Hence the payments.
Do I think we should pay for it? No.
Do I think it should even be number 1 even on our list of things to do? No.
But as long as the west pushes for climate goals, there is going to be money flowing from here to the developing world.
Your position here is that climate goals are BS, and should not even exist.
And we shouldn't be paying anything to anyone.
But I am not debating this position of yours.
I am explaining why the payments exist in the first place and will continue to exist in the near future.
So your responses to me should not really be a debate.
There is nothing to debate here with me.
They do care about how much more climate reparation money
they can coax the west to pay them. $300 billion is not enough.
They want trillions. Of course they will continue burning fossil
fuel to improve their living standard.
.
it is absurd to have goals over what you can not control
people can care for their environment but can not and will never be able to control the climate
it is absurd to expect anyone to anyone to to set aside their economic goals for
This climate nonsense is not #1 for the vast majority of the population
an alternative energy source is a mythical unicorn
the climate goals are absurd
hence the shakedown
Wealth re-distribution if you prefer
finally something sensible
i am not against some foreign aid to help 3rd world development , however more than concerned the money gets used for other thing ie enriching despot leaders, buys weapons, funnelled to religious nutters etc
the so called science behind climate change propaganda has been perverted
efforts to silence / cancel scientists with opposing views were a huge red flag.
co2 is absolutely essential for all life and these clowns have demonized it
climate science propaganda is all based on computer models that have a brutal track record and are not at all representative of how our extremely complex, chaotic climate evolves
they are filled with parametrizations ( wild assed guess)
A good programmer can make an elephant fit into a 1 liter box if given 4 parameters to manipulate
he can make the elephant wiggle his trunk if given a 5th
another sensible position
wrong
figure out a position and be consistent
one other very important point is the climate alarmists have diverted time and money away from real environmental problems that need to be addressed
ie dumping pollution into waterways
for chists sakes we have indigenous communities without access to clean drinking water.
not a dime should be sent overseas before that is fixed
Last edited:
note
current climate models can not model cloud formation or rainfall so they don't
they also do not have a clue how to model large volumes of turbulent air movements (jet streams Hadley cells , etc)
they instead parametrize (Wild assed guess) the energies involved
they wind up with too much energy or not enough to satisfy conservation of energy and call the difference a radiative forcing
radiative forcing is a term coined by climate science in the late 1970s
They also grossly underestimate the heat transfer via molecular collisions into kinetic energy and subsequent convection and the energies involved in phase changes i.e. condensation
they assume a 1:1 ratio of excited absorbing molecules with a subsequent emission of a new photon
the proof is in the comical output of the models. What a mess
current climate models can not model cloud formation or rainfall so they don't
they also do not have a clue how to model large volumes of turbulent air movements (jet streams Hadley cells , etc)
they instead parametrize (Wild assed guess) the energies involved
they wind up with too much energy or not enough to satisfy conservation of energy and call the difference a radiative forcing
radiative forcing is a term coined by climate science in the late 1970s
They also grossly underestimate the heat transfer via molecular collisions into kinetic energy and subsequent convection and the energies involved in phase changes i.e. condensation
they assume a 1:1 ratio of excited absorbing molecules with a subsequent emission of a new photon
- the half life of the excited state co2 molecule is 1/2 second
- at standard temperature and pressure gas molecules undergo billions of of energy transferring collisions in the same time frame
- the ratio of these two events is 1: 50,000
- photon emission is quantized ie a minimum energy is required for a molecule to re-emit a photon
- 99.9% of all the long wave energy is absorbed within the first 10 meters from the surface and the vast majority is transferred via molecular collisions into kinetic energy and transported upward towards space via subsequent convection
- ,climate scientists have long been looking for significant emissions of photons in the troposphere (hot spots/ signatures), but so far nada
- meanwhile these emission of photons have all but petered out much closer to the surface of the planet, with their exited radiative energy converted to kinetic energy and transported towards space, cooled of by natural convection and condensation.
- water is natures universal temperature regulator
- it is the only molecule which naturally occurs in all three states (solid, liquid, gas)
- the blue planet is 2/3 covered in water
- CO2 is not the control knob for climate
the proof is in the comical output of the models. What a mess
Last edited:
