Climate Change Deniers among our Elected Representatives

[Crick]

People who don’t accept the greenhouse effect are simply not dealing with reality.

The critical truth

 

[Wyatt earp]

That's not quite right. The greenhouse effect was first observed in 1827 and expanded on by many scientist. It was widely acceptable in the early 20th century. The theory simply stated is greenhouse gases, in the atmosphere reflect heat back to the earth thus forming a blanket around the earth. Without these gases the planet would go into a deep freeze. Too much and temperature rises to a point of treating life on the planet.

That isn't quite right either...A greenhouse effect was first thought to have been observed, and was written up in a paper in 1827....shortly afterwards, one professor woods performed a series of experiments and discredited that first paper on the greenhouse effect. He demonstrated that what was thought to have been a greenhouse effect was actually nothing more than blocking of convection by glass panes... The present day climate crisis is based on a failed experiment done in the early 1800's.

No greenhouse effect has ever been observed, or measured in reality...it is all the product of models.


To date, there has not been a single paper published in any scientific journal in which the claimed warming due to our activities has been empirically measured, quantified and ascribed to so called greenhouse gasses. That being the case, exactly where does the certainty that we are altering the global climate come from?

No greenhouse effect has ever been observed, or measured in reality...it is all the product of models.

The Greenhouse Effect is demonstrated and observed in just about ever high school in the country.



Similar experiments have been duplicated many times in large atmospheric chambers containing various concentrations of CO2, methane, water vapor, and trace gases. Temperature changes of course vary by concentrations and mixtures but it always shows increases in temperatures compared to the control.

The results are confirmed by measurements at Mauna Loa and Baring Head. In addition the Greenhouse Effect has been used by planetary astronomers to help explain temperature differences between planets. Furthermore every modern weather forecasting model has a radiative transfer model in its core, which is based on the Greenhouse Effect. People who don’t accept the greenhouse effect are simply not dealing with reality.

There is no way to directly measure temperature change in the atmosphere due to burning fossil fuels, deforestation, agriculture, ocean absorption, or other sources because there is no way to isolate a single source. We can calculate the amount of greenhouses gases produced by various sources and thus determine which sources are of greatest concern. However, due to political and economic reasons reducing the greatest contributor may not be possible. In the end, the most important thing is reducing amount of greenhouse gases. How we do it will be a political decision.

You seriously posted that as fact?

Dude its total bunk..



Climate “Science” on Trial; Confirmed Mythbusters Busted Practicing Science Sophistry











I’ve seen some really stupid attempts at creating scientific experiments to prove CO2 is causing global warming, and when I say really stupid, I mean stupid on an epic scale. After Anthony Watts got finished debunking Al Gore and Bill Nye’s experiment, it is amazing they will show their faces in public. Mythbusters, however, may have topped Al and Bill on the stupidity scale, Mythbusters actually disproves CO2 as the cause by trying to prove just the opposite. Here is another video doing the same experiment. Even the BBC is pushing this nonsense.This is how a real scientist runs an experiment.

First, let’s review the greenhouse gas effect. Incoming visible radiation warms the surface of the Earth. CO2 and other greenhouse gasses (GHG) are transparent to incoming radiation. Incoming radiation has a blackbody temperature 5525ºK. The warmed earth then emits outgoing long-wave infrared radiation (LWIR) with a blackbody temperature of 210-310ºK. The only defined mechanism by which CO2 can affect climate change/global warming is by “trapping” LWIR between 13 and 18 microns. That is the only defined mechanism, CO2 has a very clearly defined LWIR absorption spectrum.

Any real scientific experiment would then seek to “control” for all factors except those relevant to CO2. It would also define the ranges to which this experiment would apply. The important range for this experiment is the range of possible CO2 concentrations. Right now CO2 is at 400 parts per million (ppm), doubling it would be 800 ppm, and if we burned every drop of oil, every lump of coal and gasified every pebble of limestone, the maximum CO2 level would reach the Cambrian level of 7,000 ppm.

A well-run experiment would then seek to:

1. Use a gas chamber of dry air (H2O is a GHG).
2. Vary CO2 to a level up to but not exceeding 7,000 ppm (the theoretical maximum atmospheric CO2).
3. Use an IR light and filter that transmits only wavelengths between 13 and 18 microns.
4. Thermometers would be located throughout the chamber.
5. Have a glass ceiling to allow radiation to escape, replicating the path to outer-space.
6. Enclosing the gas prevents conduction from removing some of the heat as it would in the real atmosphere, so this experiment would establish a worst case scenario that wouldn’t truly be possible to reach in the real atmosphere.
7. While not perfect, this experiment would seek to isolate the impact of 13 to 18-micron LWIR on CO2, and the resulting effect on temperature.

Mythbusters broke just about very one of the above lists for a good experiment, but what they did a fantastic job at were the scientific sophistry and entertaining theater. Like a magician, they use slight of hand tricks to keep the audience focused on one thing while hiding the truth in smoke and mirrors.

First, they brought in an “expert” to add credibility. The show features a chemistry professor from Berkeley, yes, that Berkeley, the one that was just torched because it was going to have a conservative speaker on campus.

 

[mamooth]

Dude its total bunk..

That hysterical propaganda source you quoted certainly was.

Use a gas chamber of dry air (H2O is a GHG).

Not necessary, as water vapor is a well-mixed gas. H20 would have been the same in all chambers.

Vary CO2 to a level up to but not exceeding 7,000 ppm (the theoretical maximum atmospheric CO2).

They should have said exactly what concentrations of CO2 and methane were used. They didn't. Nobody knows. That's the one big flaw.

Use an IR light and filter that transmits only wavelengths between 13 and 18 microns.

Not necessary at all, as the only variable was CO2 or methane.

Thermometers would be located throughout the chamber.

Not necessary for the requirements of the experiment, as extreme accuracy wasn't needed.

Have a glass ceiling to allow radiation to escape, replicating the path to outer-space.

Irrelevant to an experiment that that just meant to see if greenhouse gases absorb IR and then hold in more heat.

Enclosing the gas prevents conduction from removing some of the heat as it would in the real atmosphere, so this experiment would establish a worst case scenario that wouldn’t truly be possible to reach in the real atmosphere.

Irrelevant to an experiment that that just meant to see if greenhouse gases absorb IR and then hold in more heat.

While not perfect, this experiment would seek to isolate the impact of 13 to 18-micron LWIR on CO2, and the resulting effect on temperature.

Irrelevant to an experiment that that just meant to see if greenhouse gases absorb IR and then hold in more heat.

Conclusion? Your piece was written by a hysterical cultist. The conspiracy weeping about Berkeley at the end confirmed that absolutely.

 

[skookerasbil]

That's not quite right. The greenhouse effect was first observed in 1827 and expanded on by many scientist. It was widely acceptable in the early 20th century. The theory simply stated is greenhouse gases, in the atmosphere reflect heat back to the earth thus forming a blanket around the earth. Without these gases the planet would go into a deep freeze. Too much and temperature rises to a point of treating life on the planet.

That isn't quite right either...A greenhouse effect was first thought to have been observed, and was written up in a paper in 1827....shortly afterwards, one professor woods performed a series of experiments and discredited that first paper on the greenhouse effect. He demonstrated that what was thought to have been a greenhouse effect was actually nothing more than blocking of convection by glass panes... The present day climate crisis is based on a failed experiment done in the early 1800's.

No greenhouse effect has ever been observed, or measured in reality...it is all the product of models.


To date, there has not been a single paper published in any scientific journal in which the claimed warming due to our activities has been empirically measured, quantified and ascribed to so called greenhouse gasses. That being the case, exactly where does the certainty that we are altering the global climate come from?

No greenhouse effect has ever been observed, or measured in reality...it is all the product of models.

The Greenhouse Effect is demonstrated and observed in just about ever high school in the country.



Similar experiments have been duplicated many times in large atmospheric chambers containing various concentrations of CO2, methane, water vapor, and trace gases. Temperature changes of course vary by concentrations and mixtures but it always shows increases in temperatures compared to the control.

The results are confirmed by measurements at Mauna Loa and Baring Head. In addition the Greenhouse Effect has been used by planetary astronomers to help explain temperature differences between planets. Furthermore every modern weather forecasting model has a radiative transfer model in its core, which is based on the Greenhouse Effect. People who don’t accept the greenhouse effect are simply not dealing with reality.

There is no way to directly measure temperature change in the atmosphere due to burning fossil fuels, deforestation, agriculture, ocean absorption, or other sources because there is no way to isolate a single source. We can calculate the amount of greenhouses gases produced by various sources and thus determine which sources are of greatest concern. However, due to political and economic reasons reducing the greatest contributor may not be possible. In the end, the most important thing is reducing amount of greenhouse gases. How we do it will be a political decision.

You seriously posted that as fact?

Dude its total bunk..



Climate “Science” on Trial; Confirmed Mythbusters Busted Practicing Science Sophistry











I’ve seen some really stupid attempts at creating scientific experiments to prove CO2 is causing global warming, and when I say really stupid, I mean stupid on an epic scale. After Anthony Watts got finished debunking Al Gore and Bill Nye’s experiment, it is amazing they will show their faces in public. Mythbusters, however, may have topped Al and Bill on the stupidity scale, Mythbusters actually disproves CO2 as the cause by trying to prove just the opposite. Here is another video doing the same experiment. Even the BBC is pushing this nonsense.This is how a real scientist runs an experiment.

First, let’s review the greenhouse gas effect. Incoming visible radiation warms the surface of the Earth. CO2 and other greenhouse gasses (GHG) are transparent to incoming radiation. Incoming radiation has a blackbody temperature 5525ºK. The warmed earth then emits outgoing long-wave infrared radiation (LWIR) with a blackbody temperature of 210-310ºK. The only defined mechanism by which CO2 can affect climate change/global warming is by “trapping” LWIR between 13 and 18 microns. That is the only defined mechanism, CO2 has a very clearly defined LWIR absorption spectrum.

Any real scientific experiment would then seek to “control” for all factors except those relevant to CO2. It would also define the ranges to which this experiment would apply. The important range for this experiment is the range of possible CO2 concentrations. Right now CO2 is at 400 parts per million (ppm), doubling it would be 800 ppm, and if we burned every drop of oil, every lump of coal and gasified every pebble of limestone, the maximum CO2 level would reach the Cambrian level of 7,000 ppm.

A well-run experiment would then seek to:

1. Use a gas chamber of dry air (H2O is a GHG).
2. Vary CO2 to a level up to but not exceeding 7,000 ppm (the theoretical maximum atmospheric CO2).
3. Use an IR light and filter that transmits only wavelengths between 13 and 18 microns.
4. Thermometers would be located throughout the chamber.
5. Have a glass ceiling to allow radiation to escape, replicating the path to outer-space.
6. Enclosing the gas prevents conduction from removing some of the heat as it would in the real atmosphere, so this experiment would establish a worst case scenario that wouldn’t truly be possible to reach in the real atmosphere.
7. While not perfect, this experiment would seek to isolate the impact of 13 to 18-micron LWIR on CO2, and the resulting effect on temperature.

Mythbusters broke just about very one of the above lists for a good experiment, but what they did a fantastic job at were the scientific sophistry and entertaining theater. Like a magician, they use slight of hand tricks to keep the audience focused on one thing while hiding the truth in smoke and mirrors.

First, they brought in an “expert” to add credibility. The show features a chemistry professor from Berkeley, yes, that Berkeley, the one that was just torched because it was going to have a conservative speaker on campus.

Dang.....post of the year!

 

[skookerasbil]

Cult - Wikipedia

Just to set the record straight on the definition of " cult".

"Cult" is defined as a " very small group of people"

 

[Flopper]

Consensus of peers is how we arrive at accepted and discarded theories. We need accepted theories so they can be used as tools until disproved. Without accepted theories to use as tools the researcher would have to evaluate competing hypotheses making his job somewhere between more difficult and impossible.

Nope... Consensus of peers is how we arrive at a consensus that will eventually be overturned by actual science. In actual science, a single predictive failure is enough to ether bring about a major change to a hypothesis, or to have it rejected entirely and work begin on a more workable hypothesis...The AGW hypothesis has littered the landscape with failed predictions over the past 30 years...and yet, no change has been made to the basic hypothesis. This is important...in real science, a single predictive failure can doom a hypothesis...in pseudoscience, however, any number of predictive failures is fine so long as the funding continues.

Consensus has no place in science unless it is backed by an overwhelming amount of observed, measured evidence that support the hypothesis over the null hypothesis (in this case natural variability of the climate) and reams and reams of repeatable experiment demonstrating the accuracy of the hypothesis...consensus under any other condition is the result of politics...not science.

Without consensus there would be no accepted theories. And without accepted theories, both the public as well as scientists in other areas would be faced with the daunting task of evaluating competing hypothesis that they would likely not be capable of doing.

Mathematical hypothesis can be proven. Scientific hypothesis can never be proven. They can become discredited or accepted via consensus of peer revenues. Accepted hypotheses become accepted theories and considered true only until shown to be false again through consensus of peer reviews.

Rejecting consensus of peer review is rejecting the method of advancement of science.

 

[westwall]

Consensus of peers is how we arrive at accepted and discarded theories. We need accepted theories so they can be used as tools until disproved. Without accepted theories to use as tools the researcher would have to evaluate competing hypotheses making his job somewhere between more difficult and impossible.

Nope... Consensus of peers is how we arrive at a consensus that will eventually be overturned by actual science. In actual science, a single predictive failure is enough to ether bring about a major change to a hypothesis, or to have it rejected entirely and work begin on a more workable hypothesis...The AGW hypothesis has littered the landscape with failed predictions over the past 30 years...and yet, no change has been made to the basic hypothesis. This is important...in real science, a single predictive failure can doom a hypothesis...in pseudoscience, however, any number of predictive failures is fine so long as the funding continues.

Consensus has no place in science unless it is backed by an overwhelming amount of observed, measured evidence that support the hypothesis over the null hypothesis (in this case natural variability of the climate) and reams and reams of repeatable experiment demonstrating the accuracy of the hypothesis...consensus under any other condition is the result of politics...not science.

Without consensus there would be no accepted theories. And without accepted theories, both the public as well as scientists in other areas would be faced with the daunting task of evaluating competing hypothesis that they would likely not be capable of doing.

Mathematical hypothesis can be proven. Scientific hypothesis can never be proven. They can become discredited or accepted via consensus of peer revenues. Accepted hypotheses become accepted theories and considered true only until shown to be false again through consensus of peer reviews.

Rejecting consensus of peer review is rejecting the method of advancement of science.

So long as climatology refuses to adhere to the Scientific Method, they are nothing more than a pseudo science. That is a simple fact that you will eventually learn.

 

[Flopper]

Consensus of peers is how we arrive at accepted and discarded theories. We need accepted theories so they can be used as tools until disproved. Without accepted theories to use as tools the researcher would have to evaluate competing hypotheses making his job somewhere between more difficult and impossible.

Nope... Consensus of peers is how we arrive at a consensus that will eventually be overturned by actual science. In actual science, a single predictive failure is enough to ether bring about a major change to a hypothesis, or to have it rejected entirely and work begin on a more workable hypothesis...The AGW hypothesis has littered the landscape with failed predictions over the past 30 years...and yet, no change has been made to the basic hypothesis. This is important...in real science, a single predictive failure can doom a hypothesis...in pseudoscience, however, any number of predictive failures is fine so long as the funding continues.

Consensus has no place in science unless it is backed by an overwhelming amount of observed, measured evidence that support the hypothesis over the null hypothesis (in this case natural variability of the climate) and reams and reams of repeatable experiment demonstrating the accuracy of the hypothesis...consensus under any other condition is the result of politics...not science.

Without consensus there would be no accepted theories. And without accepted theories, both the public as well as scientists in other areas would be faced with the daunting task of evaluating competing hypothesis that they would likely not be capable of doing.

Mathematical hypothesis can be proven. Scientific hypothesis can never be proven. They can become discredited or accepted via consensus of peer revenues. Accepted hypotheses become accepted theories and considered true only until shown to be false again through consensus of peer reviews.

Rejecting consensus of peer review is rejecting the method of advancement of science.

So long as climatology refuses to adhere to the Scientific Method, they are nothing more than a pseudo science. That is a simple fact that you will eventually learn.

So long as climatologist point to burning of fossil fuels and deforestation of the planet as a primary cause of climate change, they will be regarded as a pseudo science by deniers. Boy, did they step on Superman's cape when laid the responsibility of global climate change on the world oil and gas industry and corporations clear cutting millions of acres of forest.

 

[Crick]

It never fails to astound me that deniers completely ignore the possibility that fossil fuel industries who have billions and billions of dollars at stake might be pushing a few false memes but have no apparent difficulty accepting the absurdity of tens of thousands of scientists in a massive conspiracy for decades without the slightest hint of evidence.

 

[skookerasbil]

How great is this??

https://behindtheblack.com/behind-the-black/points-of-information/scientists-horrified-that-trump-wants-to-require-universities-to-honor-free-speech/

Long overdue

 

[Wyatt earp]

It never fails to astound me that deniers completely ignore the possibility that fossil fuel industries who have billions and billions of dollars at stake might be pushing a few false memes but have no apparent difficulty accepting the absurdity of tens of thousands of scientists in a massive conspiracy for decades without the slightest hint of evidence.

The year is not 2003, it has already been established

1. that fossil fuel has spent billions of dollars since the 1970s on green energy

2. They admitted man has some effect by burning fossil fuels and deforestation

3. Green peace buget alone is like 40 million dollars, fossil fuel company's are dwarfed compared to what activist and governments spend.

So stop the nonsense.


.

 

[Flopper]

It never fails to astound me that deniers completely ignore the possibility that fossil fuel industries who have billions and billions of dollars at stake might be pushing a few false memes but have no apparent difficulty accepting the absurdity of tens of thousands of scientists in a massive conspiracy for decades without the slightest hint of evidence.

The year is not 2003, it has already been established

1. that fossil fuel has spent billions of dollars since the 1970s on green energy

2. They admitted man has some effect by burning fossil fuels and deforestation

3. Green peace buget alone is like 40 million dollars, fossil fuel company's are dwarfed compared to what activist and governments spend.

So stop the nonsense.


.

Big Oil spent 1 percent on green energy in 2018 | Reuters
And 99% on fossil fuel

 

[skookerasbil]

It never fails to astound me that deniers completely ignore the possibility that fossil fuel industries who have billions and billions of dollars at stake might be pushing a few false memes but have no apparent difficulty accepting the absurdity of tens of thousands of scientists in a massive conspiracy for decades without the slightest hint of evidence.

The year is not 2003, it has already been established

1. that fossil fuel has spent billions of dollars since the 1970s on green energy

2. They admitted man has some effect by burning fossil fuels and deforestation

3. Green peace buget alone is like 40 million dollars, fossil fuel company's are dwarfed compared to what activist and governments spend.

So stop the nonsense.


.

Big Oil spent 1 percent on green energy in 2018 | Reuters
And 99% on fossil fuel

It's called supply and demand. The world seeks cheap energy and not expensive energy so doy.....that's where they will seek profits. Only progressives think entities are in business for the purpose of holding a moral high ground.

 

[skookerasbil]

Over 95% of Congress are climate skeptics. Not hard to connect the dots. Because they know people dont care.....we know that because of the laughably lack of climate change action in the past 10 years.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

It never fails to astound me that deniers completely ignore the possibility that fossil fuel industries who have billions and billions of dollars at stake might be pushing a few false memes but have no apparent difficulty accepting the absurdity of tens of thousands of scientists in a massive conspiracy for decades without the slightest hint of evidence.

The year is not 2003, it has already been established

1. that fossil fuel has spent billions of dollars since the 1970s on green energy

2. They admitted man has some effect by burning fossil fuels and deforestation

3. Green peace buget alone is like 40 million dollars, fossil fuel company's are dwarfed compared to what activist and governments spend.

So stop the nonsense.


.

Big Oil spent 1 percent on green energy in 2018 | Reuters
And 99% on fossil fuel

Fossil fuels are a lot more useful than green energy.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

The number of scientists towing the AGW line is growing smaller all the time...more than 500 papers questioning the consensus line last year alone..surely more this year and more the next...you picked pseudoscience over science and sooner or later, you will find that you, and the rest of your cult buddies will have to leave the board because of the peals of laughter over how easily you were duped...

You are saying 95% of all national academies of science, most every national science foundation, 97% of all climate scientists, the vast majority scientists from all disciplines, and ever major scientific organization in the world that studies climate are a cult.

Bwhahahahahaha!!!

What YOU are showing is strong evidence of a POLITICAL behavior, since consensus and authority doesn't advance science research at all, it is REPRODUCIBLE research that matters.

Meanwhile you and another warmists are ignoring the utter failures of the IPPC prediction/projection that have been made since day one in 1990.

SSDD is correct there have been HUNDREDS of new science papers THIS YEAR, that doesn't support the AGW conjecture. Many hundreds last year and the year before that means that over 2,000 papers have been published against the AGW conjecture, in the last few years.

Consensus doesn't publish papers, that is why your argument is dead on arrival.

Regardless of what branch of science we might discuss, consensus is the cornerstone for acceptance of scientific theory. An accepted scientific theory follows the Scientific Method which begins with a question or an unexplained phenomenon. Observations, data collection, and experiments are conducted to gain more insight into the phenomenon. Ideas we call hypothesis's begin to develop spurring more research. Papers are written showing scientific evidence in support or undermining a hypothesis. As the hypothesis gains support the hypotheses are restated as a new theory with supporting evidence. It moves up through more prestigious scientific groups spurring more research. As acceptance grows, the new theory makes it's way into the academies of science, organizations like NASA, the American Society of Physics, American Medical Association, etc. As the New Theory is endorsed by these groups it becomes a tool used to investigate other areas of Science. People may then accept it as fact but the door is always open to competing ideas. To put it in common terms, scientists run their ideas with supporting research up the flagpole to see who salutes.

So you see, acceptance of new ideas and theories is always about getting a consensus, yet no theory is every written in stone. It will always be a theory subject to change.

Bullcrap.

The entire community has made it toxic to not agree.

By consensus, I mean consensus of peers in academies of science, scientific societies, and research groups. Methods and conclusions have to be defended with solid scientific evidence.

What strong evidence ?

They've not produced a pre or post predictive model that is worth crap.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

That's not quite right. The greenhouse effect was first observed in 1827 and expanded on by many scientist. It was widely acceptable in the early 20th century. The theory simply stated is greenhouse gases, in the atmosphere reflect heat back to the earth thus forming a blanket around the earth. Without these gases the planet would go into a deep freeze. Too much and temperature rises to a point of treating life on the planet.

That isn't quite right either...A greenhouse effect was first thought to have been observed, and was written up in a paper in 1827....shortly afterwards, one professor woods performed a series of experiments and discredited that first paper on the greenhouse effect. He demonstrated that what was thought to have been a greenhouse effect was actually nothing more than blocking of convection by glass panes... The present day climate crisis is based on a failed experiment done in the early 1800's.

No greenhouse effect has ever been observed, or measured in reality...it is all the product of models.


To date, there has not been a single paper published in any scientific journal in which the claimed warming due to our activities has been empirically measured, quantified and ascribed to so called greenhouse gasses. That being the case, exactly where does the certainty that we are altering the global climate come from?

No greenhouse effect has ever been observed, or measured in reality...it is all the product of models.

The Greenhouse Effect is demonstrated and observed in just about ever high school in the country.



Similar experiments have been duplicated many times in large atmospheric chambers containing various concentrations of CO2, methane, water vapor, and trace gases. Temperature changes of course vary by concentrations and mixtures but it always shows increases in temperatures compared to the control.

The results are confirmed by measurements at Mauna Loa and Baring Head. In addition the Greenhouse Effect has been used by planetary astronomers to help explain temperature differences between planets. Furthermore every modern weather forecasting model has a radiative transfer model in its core, which is based on the Greenhouse Effect. People who don’t accept the greenhouse effect are simply not dealing with reality.

There is no way to directly measure temperature change in the atmosphere due to burning fossil fuels, deforestation, agriculture, ocean absorption, or other sources because there is no way to isolate a single source. We can calculate the amount of greenhouses gases produced by various sources and thus determine which sources are of greatest concern. However, due to political and economic reasons reducing the greatest contributor may not be possible. In the end, the most important thing is reducing amount of greenhouse gases. How we do it will be a political decision.

You can predict the greenhouse effect of a volcano ?

 

[Crick]

The climatic effects of volcanoes are quite well known.

 

[Wyatt earp]

It never fails to astound me that deniers completely ignore the possibility that fossil fuel industries who have billions and billions of dollars at stake might be pushing a few false memes but have no apparent difficulty accepting the absurdity of tens of thousands of scientists in a massive conspiracy for decades without the slightest hint of evidence.

The year is not 2003, it has already been established

1. that fossil fuel has spent billions of dollars since the 1970s on green energy

2. They admitted man has some effect by burning fossil fuels and deforestation

3. Green peace buget alone is like 40 million dollars, fossil fuel company's are dwarfed compared to what activist and governments spend.

So stop the nonsense.


.

Big Oil spent 1 percent on green energy in 2018 | Reuters
And 99% on fossil fuel

Why are you changing the goal posts and why dont you post the rest of the story, or are you affraid to say that Fossil fuel after the billions of dollars they spent on green energy since the 1970's found out they can not make any money on it?

.

 

[Crick]

You act like they spent billions on a charity. They did spend 866 million dollars attempting to convince the public that AGW was wrong, that a major debate still brewed on the topic within the ranks of climate scientists and that those of us concerned with global warming were actually liberals and socialists trying to destroy the global economy.

Where do you see they spent billions on green energy that wasn't just a freaking investment? It looks to me as if they can see which way the wind is blowing.