But the premise of that is just wrong, the predictions have been quite good from Exxon in the 70's, Hansen in the 80's and the IPCC since. They've all been sadly very close to what we are seeing.
Newsweek - Climate change report puts world on 'fast track' to disaster: U.N.
- Thread starter Moviefan-2
- Start date
A long time ago people were driving cars on roads and thought that was progress and a good thing...that someone decided to asphalt the road to make it smoother and better to drive on...improvements are not a bad thing.
That is a ridiculous argument as absorption of IR radiation is an instantaneous process
CO2 can not store heat
This is due to the flawed premise that CO2 is the control knob for our climate
predictions of climate catastrophe are based on flawed computer models which can not replicate the past and have no chance of accurately predicting the future of our extremely complex, dynamic and chaotic climate system
The impact of a 0.01 % change in atmospheric composition is not heating up the atmosphere (no net change from 30 year average), the oceans and the land
The train is late because the train is not arriving
CO2 is plant food and its increase has increased crop yields
The physics of absorption does not support a delayed effect
in fact due to the logarithmic relationship between absorption energy and concentration incremental additions of CO2 have a diminishing effect
No doubt
They will pay a very high price for the stupidity of thinking we can control our climate by shutting down reliable affordable fossil fuel energy
Last edited:
Too funny
Thinking Co2 controls our extremely complex , dynamic and chaotic climate is as simplistic as it gets
And apparently this is an absolute (incorrect) conclusion as anyone who questions it is subjected to cancel culture
Too bad they do not
Todays political leaders have bought into a false narrative about climate change and made a lot of really bad policy decisions because they are too afraid to question pseudoscience
I do wish the science deniers wouldn't assume that just because something is too hard for them to understand that other, smarter people therefore can't.
yeah, a minor gas that is absolutely vital to the life on Earth is a pollutant. Sound science,
!Do you tell that to the cops when they pull you over for a breathalizer?yeah, a minor gas that is absolutely vital to the life on Earth is a pollutant. Sound science,
That its too small an amount to have an effect on you?
Same with aspirin, antibiotics or poison?
If your science is that bad, I can recommend some night school courses that might help.....
We'll ignore the easy cheap shot about how the guy who doesn't know the difference between a temperature increase and a temperature anomaly is questioning my intelligence.
So, tell us, Prof. Science Expert: What will be the primary source of energy in the year 2100?
And show us what evidence you have to support your answer.
The Trudeau government has just approved the major Bay du Nord oil operation off the coast of Newfoundland.
Ottawa approves major offshore oil project in Newfoundland just days after UN calls new fossil fuel projects ‘madness’
Environmentalists decried the approval of the Bay du Nord project as a breach of Canada’s obligation to fight climate change.
Renewables provide 38% of global electricity generation today.We'll ignore the easy cheap shot about how the guy who doesn't know the difference between a temperature increase and a temperature anomaly is questioning my intelligence.
So, tell us, Prof. Science Expert: What will be the primary source of energy in the year 2100?
And show us what evidence you have to support your answer.
I'd say add in a bit of nuclear, modular nuclear if they figure that out and fission if that's ever practical.
In a 100 years if we are still burning fossil fuels the planet will be at the brink of a thermal maximum.
But that's my guess and I freely admit I don't know as much as the researchers who have really looked into this.
Certainly way more than someone who couldn't even predict the temperature of one year.
Hopefully that means we can get rid of whatever coal we have left, ditch some of the dirty tar sands that are still going and use it to aid transition.The Trudeau government has just approved the major Bay du Nord oil operation off the coast of Newfoundland.
Its estimated that it will increase Newfoundland and Labrador's CO2 output by 2%.
If your looking to me to try and explain or justify anything JT does you have the wrong guy. I think he is an idiot.The Trudeau government has just approved the major Bay du Nord oil operation off the coast of Newfoundland.
Ottawa approves major offshore oil project in Newfoundland just days after UN calls new fossil fuel projects ‘madness’
Environmentalists decried the approval of the Bay du Nord project as a breach of Canada’s obligation to fight climate change.www.thestar.com
Wind and solar only make up 10%. Unless you're anticipating a massive expansion of nuclear power (which isn't currently happening anywhere), fossil fuels will continue to be the dominant source for the foreseeable future.
Wind and solar hit a record 10% of global electricity generation in 2021
All forms of clean, nonfossil fuel energy accounted for a total of 38% of the world’s electricity generated in 2021.
www.fastcompany.com
Fair enough. Still, the decision does suggest the climate issue continues to be mostly virtue signalling.
In 1922, nuclear power plants didn't even exist and most of the world's energy came from coal.
In the year 2022, technological innovations and breakthroughs continue to advance at a greatly accelerated rate. Scientists can't predict with any certainty how AI and robotics will transform our world over the next 10 or 20 years - never mind 100 years from now.
"If we are still burning fossil fuels" in 100 years is a remarkably silly statement.
No one can know how energy will be produced 100 years from now. Given everything we know today, it's entirely conceivable the main energy source 100 years from now will be something that is totally unknown to us in 2022.
I can't see the future. Neither can you. And any climate warrior who claims to know how energy will be produced 100 years from now is peddling science fiction, not science.
Not at all. I do believe that most climate proponents have believe in their positions. Leadership requires balancing many interests and not holding to positions in the face of exigencies that require compromise.
Are there positions climate scientists holding to that require
compromise? I am asking this question in earnest. I have this
presumption of what climate activists meant to tell us that is
world's climate will reach the point of no return if emission is
not capped in a few years according to climate scientists.
If as you said positions of political leaders require compromise
then at least have the decency and integrity of being honest about
the emission target they promised. Say something along the line of
'yes man-made climate change is real but we will be very lucky if
emission by 2030 can be reduced by half.....don't worry we won't be
all dead................it is just a matter of time before emission reduced
to zero....no later than the end of 2200, I guarantee...'
Stop trying to talk for anyone but yourself.
Just because you're not as bright as scientists doesn't mean they can't figure it out.
