Global Warming To Global Cooling And Back To Global Warming

[Rightguide]

It’s what he does when his bullshit gets refuted with actual facts.

Who has presented any facts to refute what I posted? All I've seen are ignorant conclusions about the thread starter instead of the original post. This is what typically happens when the left-wing human chain menagerie reports in with no facts to the contrary.

 

[ll74]

Who has presented any facts to refute what I posted? All I've seen are ignorant conclusions about the thread starter instead of the original post. This is what typically happens when the left-wing human chain menagerie reports in with no facts to the contrary.

You are not a climate scientists. Deciding that you're arguing against climate scientists be a use you believe in nature is entertainment.

Nobody needs to refute the bullshit you post on the topic.

 

[jomar]

Who has presented any facts to refute what I posted? All I've seen are ignorant conclusions about the thread starter instead of the original post. This is what typically happens when the left-wing human chain menagerie reports in with no facts to the contrary.

Fair enough point in this thread. I based my comment on general behavior I’ve observed and experienced.

 

[icanhelp1]

Fair enough point in this thread. I based my comment on general behavior I’ve observed and experienced.

How does this help with global warming;

https://www.reuters.com/world/china...s-planned-new-coal-power-research-2023-04-06/

We’re being played for suckers.

 

[Rightguide]

Fair enough point in this thread. I based my comment on general behavior I’ve observed and experienced.

But again offered no specifics of thought in response to the original point.

 

[jomar]

How does this help with global warming;

https://www.reuters.com/world/china...s-planned-new-coal-power-research-2023-04-06/

It doesn’t. But that’s the kind of source that gets respect.

We’re being played for suckers.

How so? Article shows China to be assholes on the subject.

 

[Rightguide]

It doesn’t. But that’s the kind of source that gets respect.


How so? Article shows China to be assholes on the subject.

It shows you and yours to be idiots.

 

[DeluxAuto]

How so? Article shows China to be assholes on the subject.

That doesn't fit Reichguide's anti-American narrative.

 

[Sean Renaud]

Global Cooling was never an accepted theory, at least not for any reason that would disprove global warming now. People work pretty hard to prove how stupid they are.

 

[jomar]

It shows you and yours to be idiots.

Did you read the article from a reputable source he linked? If so, your big brain must not have understood it since it did not conform to your rwcj talking points.

 

[icanhelp1]

Did you read the article from a reputable source he linked? If so, your big brain must not have understood it since it did not conform to your rwcj talking points.

They’re hoping to peek by 2030. And then what? We buy their shit while we decimate our economy. I could see if we were manufacturing our own batteries, solar panels and whatever else. China and India are not only adding to CO2 emissions but also increasing pollution. So China pollutes the atmosphere and the oceans and we take a back seat.

 

[jomar]

Who has presented any facts to refute what I posted? All I've seen are ignorant conclusions about the thread starter instead of the original post. This is what typically happens when the left-wing human chain menagerie reports in with no facts to the contrary.

Fair enough point in this thread. I based my comment on general behavior I’ve observed and experienced.

But again offered no specifics of thought in response to the original point.

^^^ RG showing off his big brain and what his big brain considers to be critical thinking skills! Your tiny minds can’t begin to comprehend!

 

[jomar]

They’re hoping to peek by 2030. And then what? We buy their shit while we decimate our economy.

Elaborate?

I could see if we were manufacturing our own batteries, solar panels and whatever else. China and India are not only adding to CO2 emissions but also increasing pollution. So China pollutes the atmosphere and the oceans and we take a back seat.

It’s a problem and a race to find and secure more rare earth resources, if possible. One reason Ukraine is important. Dig deeper here?

Can the world apply meaningful pressure to make China conform and reduce CO2? Have the heart to say no to products made there? Help them build nuclear power plants? I dunno. Spitballing. Thoughts?

 

[icanhelp1]

Elaborate?


It’s a problem and a race to find and secure more rare earth resources, if possible. One reason Ukraine is important. Dig deeper here?

Can the world apply meaningful pressure to make China conform and reduce CO2? Have the heart to say no to products made there? Help them build nuclear power plants? I dunno. Spitballing. Thoughts?

We could build nuclear power plants without giving up competitive advantage but tree huggers are against it. Just think if we were still in Afghanistan contracting mining operations for lithium and cobalt. We’re are our biggest obstacle to achieving our ambitions.

 

[ll74]

We could build nuclear power plants without giving up competitive advantage but tree huggers are against it. Just think if we were still in Afghanistan contracting mining operations for lithium and cobalt. We’re are our biggest obstacle to achieving our ambitions.

We should build more nuclear.

 

[jomar]

We could build nuclear power plants without giving up competitive advantage but tree huggers are against it.

That’s because a snail darter might die. On paper plants are safe. Don’t cheap out on the build, though. I‘d be ok with more.

Just think if we were still in Afghanistan contracting mining operations for lithium and cobalt. We’re are our biggest obstacle to achieving our ambitions.

Yeah well, that gets us back to a different conversation, but I don’t disagree about stepping on our dick at times.

 

[Sean Renaud]

Honestly comparing America to China when it comes to CO2 emissions is kinda stupid. In real terms they are doing much better than we are and while it could be better, there really is no reason for us not to just GIVE THEM THE FUCKING TECH. No reason they have to go through the same bullshit we did as a nation.

However they produce just a bit more than twice our CO2 emissions with a few million shy of four times our population. Depending on whom you ask and how you phrase it agriculture is between 25 and 33% of the total CO2 emissions. Just common sense tells you that if we factored in things like restaurants and grocery stores that its much, much higher than that. I mean forget the fridge in your house, a grocery store eats up a lot energy keeping our food cool. I'm sure its the same in China. I mention restuarants because feeding people is carbon expensive.

We focus a lot on transportation because its easier to convince people that we can get better MPGs out of our cars (unless they are Republican, a lot of you have forgotten but Bush literally overrode state rights because. . .really capitalism is only something people like when they are winning) than it is to convince them that maybe its okay if you eat a little more fruit and a little less meat.

REpublicans, Sith Lords that they are think "Hey maybe meatless Tuesday, or maybe eat more poultry and less beef" is actually "They are trying to take away your sirloin! What next? The groins of our children? Its always absolutes with them. So serious politician or even prominent lefty has been trying to force veganism on the country. You will occasionally hear people talk about adding insects to our diets. I don't see it happening in the short term. However I was alive for the 90s and 'Got Milk'. I feel confident that (Even if they didn't really do it or only did it once for the cameras) that years celebs like Ariana Grande, Micheal B Jordon insert whomever will be a huge deal come 2030 and it probably works out. Might be better to see if you could get people try turkey bacon which is similar to actual bacon in flavor. Not indistinguishable but like the REALLY good beyond meat burgers, you would think someone seasoned them odd, not that it wasn't real bacon. I prefer Turkey Sausage to pork, but that's a personal taste not something I would do more than tell people to try.

As for batteries now would be a damn good time for the government to just pump money into research and development on other ways we can store energy.

 

[BabyBoomer50s]

A new paper published by the Norwegian government’s statistical agency, Statistics Norway, concludes that evidence of global warming is not evidence of causes of global warming.

To what extent are temperature levels changing due to greenhouse gas emissions?

Abstract
Weather and temperatures vary in ways that are difficult to explain and predict precisely. In this article we review data on temperature variations in the past as well possible reasons for these variations. Subsequently, we review key properties of global climate models and statistical analyses conducted by others on the ability of the global climate models to track historical temperatures. These tests show that standard climate models are rejected by time series data on global temperatures. Finally, we update and extend previous statistical analysis of temperature data (Dagsvik et al., 2020). Using theoretical arguments and statistical tests we find, as in Dagsvik et al. (2020), that the effect of man-made CO2 emissions does not appear to be strong enough to cause systematic changes in the temperature fluctuations during the last 200 years.
https://www.ssb.no/en/natur-og-milj...594b9225f9d7dc458b0b70a646baec3339/DP1007.pdf

 

[Fuzzy1975]

A new paper published by the Norwegian government’s statistical agency, Statistics Norway, concludes that evidence of global warming is not evidence of causes of global warming.

To what extent are temperature levels changing due to greenhouse gas emissions?

Abstract
Weather and temperatures vary in ways that are difficult to explain and predict precisely. In this article we review data on temperature variations in the past as well possible reasons for these variations. Subsequently, we review key properties of global climate models and statistical analyses conducted by others on the ability of the global climate models to track historical temperatures. These tests show that standard climate models are rejected by time series data on global temperatures. Finally, we update and extend previous statistical analysis of temperature data (Dagsvik et al., 2020). Using theoretical arguments and statistical tests we find, as in Dagsvik et al. (2020), that the effect of man-made CO2 emissions does not appear to be strong enough to cause systematic changes in the temperature fluctuations during the last 200 years.
https://www.ssb.no/en/natur-og-milj...594b9225f9d7dc458b0b70a646baec3339/DP1007.pdf

lol a paper written by an Economist and a Civil Engineer......that says it all. Well that and the fact you had to post it here....

 

[Lazaran]

lol a paper written by an Economist and a Civil Engineer......that says it all. Well that and the fact you had to post it here....

BabyBoobs "tries" and fails… hard.

*nods*

 

[ll74]

I'd be interested to hear peer review on this paper. A simple global CO2 emissions graph with global average temp overlayed is the simplest demonstration I've seen on the matter. If they address that, I'd be impressed.

No time today to read it.

 

[ll74]

A new paper published by the Norwegian government’s statistical agency, Statistics Norway, concludes that evidence of global warming is not evidence of causes of global warming.

To what extent are temperature levels changing due to greenhouse gas emissions?

Abstract
Weather and temperatures vary in ways that are difficult to explain and predict precisely. In this article we review data on temperature variations in the past as well possible reasons for these variations. Subsequently, we review key properties of global climate models and statistical analyses conducted by others on the ability of the global climate models to track historical temperatures. These tests show that standard climate models are rejected by time series data on global temperatures. Finally, we update and extend previous statistical analysis of temperature data (Dagsvik et al., 2020). Using theoretical arguments and statistical tests we find, as in Dagsvik et al. (2020), that the effect of man-made CO2 emissions does not appear to be strong enough to cause systematic changes in the temperature fluctuations during the last 200 years.
https://www.ssb.no/en/natur-og-milj...594b9225f9d7dc458b0b70a646baec3339/DP1007.pdf

Ok. ...just a quick look - the paper doesn't seem to make its own conclusions about climate change but instead spends the entire paper questioning the strength of the case being made about CO2 and it's impact on the environment. I expected a lot more than "I'm not buying it".

The headline here is misleading - it doesn't demonstrate anything about CO2 and it's impact. Instead it seems to just be a peer review on previous studies.

In other words, the results imply that the effect of man-made CO2 emissions does not appear to be sufficiently strong to cause systematic changes in the pattern of the temperature fluctuations. In other words, our analysis indicates that with the current level of knowledge, it seems impossible to determine how much of the temperature increase is due to
emissions of CO2.

 

[DeluxAuto]

I guess boomer doesn't want to talk about air, water, and food pollution caused by man.