Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
You are going to have to provide more information. If you're talking about the suggestion that the government provide incentives for homeowners to improve insulation, I think that is probably a good investment.
Fracking doesn't help. Replacing coal with natural gas provides a small benefit, but a better investment is to replace coal with non-emitting technologies.
Once again, we run into the dilemma that you see no value in non-emitting energy technologies while I do and thus you and I assign different values to these things. You also add "cheap and reliable" in an attempt to rule out alternative technologies but, in fact, fossil fuel-powered technologies are getting more and more expensive and photovoltaics have already beaten them in cost per kWh.
Waiting is what we cannot do. If such a development is on the horizon, it will come whether we act now or later. But later is guaranteed to cost us more, particularly when you're simply waiting for pie in the sky. You're smarter than that.
They've helped more than we have.
Todd, you KNOW the arguments you've got to bring here - pardon my French - suck. There's a reason for that. You're on the wrong side, dude.
corbettreport.substack.com
I assume you were aware that glacier-fed rivers and streams provide the drinking water for hundreds of millions of people on the planet. So, is the problem that my assumption was incorrect or that you don't care about those people?Thank goodness. As bad as warmer is, advancing glaciers would be 10 times worse.
I assume you were aware that glacier-fed rivers and streams provide the drinking water for hundreds of millions of people on the planet. So, is the problem that my assumption was incorrect or that you don't care about those people?
Incorrect. The last eccentricity cycle was nearly circular. So no. Our current phase is not one of cooling.But, as you know, the current phase of our glacial cycle is one of cooling.
Doubly incorrect. We are in a prolonged interglacial cycle because every 4th eccentricity cycle is nearly circular so there was no orbital forcing trigger for a glacial cycle.Despite that, global temperatures are increasing because the radiant forcing factor of our increasing GHG levels is overwhelming the glacial cycle drivers.
Doubly incorrect. We are in a prolonged interglacial cycle because every 4th eccentricity cycle is nearly circular so there was no orbital forcing trigger for a glacial cycle.
You have falsely correlated the recent warming trend to CO2. Scientists come to opposite conclusions for the cause of the recent warming trend depending upon which datasets they use.
berkeleyearth.org
Todd, I'd like you to read the whole thing of course, but I especially want you to think of things I've said to you about the varying cost of taking care of problems earlier rather than later, as you read the very last sentence.
Discovery of ‘fingerprint’ confirms alarming predictions of Greenland ice sheet melt
The findings, possible with the help of high-resolution satellite observations, detail the unique pattern of sea level change linked to the Greenland ice sheet.www.nbcnews.com
PAID scientists. Now I wonder WHO PAID THEM to come to those "remarkably similar" conclusions ???Bullshit. Scientists working on different datasets have come to remarkably similar conclusions:
PAID scientists. Now I wonder WHO PAID THEM to come to those "remarkably similar" conclusions ???
You see, if they do NOT come to the same conclusion, Mama don't get no cornbread.
They are each paid by different revenue sources not that the fact that they're paid shows us ANYTHING but your bias and your ignorance.
For a scientist, there is no greater success than showing that a widely held belief is incorrect. THAT is the purpose of the calling.
We’re in an interglacial cycle.Then the glacial cycle isn't advancing.]
Not when they exclude urban temperature stations and use the high variability solar output dataset.Bullshit. Scientists working on different datasets have come to remarkably similar conclusions
Incorrect. The last eccentricity cycle was nearly circular. So no. Our current phase is not one of cooling.
Not exactly. This explains it best.We're moving towards a circular orbit, and are currently within an Earth's diameter of such ... so we should be at maximum glaciation due to orbital forcings ...
Crick has been told this ... shown the proof ... the geometry of an ellipse is beyond his ability to understand ...
Not exactly. This explains it best.
Not to oversimplify, but I am absolutely certain that the people at NOAA GISS, at Berkeley Earth, at Japan's Meteorology Office, at Hadley CRUT all know ENORMOUSLY (likely infinitely since I strongly suspect your side of the calculation equals zero) more about accurately calculating the Earth's global temperature than do you and your irrelevant mantras are just that. Just a tip for future posting - and something I have to keep an eye out for myself - posting the exact same text over and over again does not improve your odds of convincing anyone of anything.Not when they exclude urban temperature stations and use the high variability solar output dataset.
Do you believe Michael Mann controls all the world's climate and science journals? Some of your skeptics have gotten published. Have they convinced anyone? Has the number of scientists who accept the IPCC's conclusions decreased at any point since its founding?For a scientist, there is no greater success than showing that a widely held belief is incorrect. THAT is the purpose of the calling.
That's what Michael Mann thought........When he was plotting with his friends to prevent
skeptics from being published.
That's probably why he won the Nobel Prize, eh?
The GHG effect from CO2 is exaggerated by a factor of 2 to 3 because they are lumping in water vapor feedback which is not well understood. So I don’t buy into your greenhouse gas warming narrative. We are in an ice age. Our planet is an icehouse planet whose climate is controlled by the northern hemisphere. And you don’t have the first clue why that is.Feel free, whenever it's available, to show us when glacial effects will overcome greenhouse warming.
The threshold for extensive northern hemisphere continental glaciation can be easily determined from ice core data. It’s not hard to see the tipping point or that the planet is close to that tipping point. You don’t know the first thing about what drives the earth’s climate.Not to oversimplify, but I am absolutely certain that the people at NOAA GISS, at Berkeley Earth, at Japan's Meteorology Office, at Hadley CRUT all know ENORMOUSLY (likely infinitely since I strongly suspect your side of the calculation equals zero) more about accurately calculating the Earth's global temperature than do you and your irrelevant mantras are just that. Just a tip for future posting - and something I have to keep an eye out for myself - posting the exact same text over and over again does not improve your odds of convincing anyone of anything.
I couldn’t care less what Mann does or doesn’t do. Your nonsensical consensus arguments hold no sway with me. That’s not how science works.Do you believe Michael Mann controls all the world's climate and science journals? Some of your skeptics have gotten published. Have they convinced anyone? Has the number of scientists who accept the IPCC's conclusions decreased at any point since its founding?
