"Science be damned!" Let's have Oil rule our lives!

[Frankeneinstein]

There is absolutely nothing wrong with clean, intelligent and cheap. For a change.

without the claim of 'reliable' there is plenty wrong with that, in fact it is absurd if it isn't reliable...now nuclear is all those things as well as reliable, is there anything wrong with that?

 

[Hafar1014]

Scientific projections, particularly climate models, have shown varying degrees of accuracy over the past 50 years, with a high overall success rate in projecting global temperature increases, though some specific, regional, or long-term predictions have missed the mark. Evaluations show that most climate models from the 1970s and later were "pretty much spot-on" when adjusted for the actual increase in greenhouse gas emissions.
Degree of Accuracy and Key Mismatches

• Temperature Projections: A 2019 study found that 14 out of 17 projections of global surface temperature from models published between 1970 and 2007 were indistinguishable from actual observations.
• Early Models: Older, more rudimentary models from the 1970s generally fell within the error bars of observed warming, proving to be quite accurate.
• "Running Hot": Some models have been found to over-predict warming, with one study claiming that some models predicted 2.2 times as much warming as actually occurred between 1998 and 2014, although this is debated, with others finding high accuracy.
• Regional Discrepancies: While global trends are often accurate, models have struggled with regional precision, such as underestimating Arctic sea ice decline or misrepresenting specific ocean circulation patterns.
• Timing of Impacts: Some impacts, such as sea-level rise and the intensity of extreme heatwaves, have occurred faster than some earlier models predicted.

Reasons for Inaccuracies

• Input Variables: Inaccuracies are frequently due to inaccurate assumptions about future emissions of greenhouse gases (scenarios) rather than failures in the physics of the models themselves.
• Model Complexity: The climate system is immensely complex, and early models lacked the computing power to simulate all factors, such as cloud formation and aerosol effects, with high precision.
• Natural Variability: Short-term, natural fluctuations (like Pacific Ocean cycles) can create discrepancies over 10-20 year periods that do not accurately reflect long-term trends.

In summary, while individual, extreme, or early "worst-case" scenarios have not always materialized, the foundational projections of global warming have proven to be largely accurate over the past few decades.

There is zero evidence humans are the cause or that its even a threat. In fact they have been largely inaccurate as I proved in my post.

 

[Luckyone]

There is zero evidence humans are the cause or that its even a threat. In fact they have been largely inaccurate as I proved in my post.

You truly do not do any research to prove of disprove facts. You rely on your own BELIEFS and say it like there is no way to prove you wrong.

You are truly a "sick puppy".

Here, from NASA itself:

Evidence​

There is unequivocal evidence that Earth is warming at an unprecedented rate. Human activity is the principal cause.

• While Earth’s climate has changed throughout its history, the current warming is happening at a rate not seen in the past 10,000 years.

You NEVER provide any evidence to support your beliefs. Why should anyone believe you?

By the way and simply using "common sense"

Atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) levels have risen by over 50% since the start of the Industrial revolution, moving from a "STABLE" 280 ppm to over 420 ppm in October 2024.

Human activities, primarily burning fossil fuels and deforestation, have added over 2,000 billion metric tons of CO2 to the atmosphere.

How can anyone with a brain, think that adding so much CO2 to the atmosphere would not have a warming effect (caused by humans)?

You actually think this helps the atmosphere"

is this something you believe in"

 

[Hafar1014]

You truly do not do any research to prove of disprove facts. You rely on your own BELIEFS and say it like there is no way to prove you wrong.

You are truly a "sick puppy".

Here, from NASA itself:

Evidence​

There is unequivocal evidence that Earth is warming at an unprecedented rate. Human activity is the principal cause.

• While Earth’s climate has changed throughout its history, the current warming is happening at a rate not seen in the past 10,000 years.

You NEVER provide any evidence to support your beliefs. Why should anyone believe you?

View attachment 1219479

Thats not evidence thats your opinion. I dont have to prove something is not happening
Human caused climate change

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You truly do not do any research to prove of disprove facts. You rely on your own BELIEFS and say it like there is no way to prove you wrong.

You are truly a "sick puppy".

Here, from NASA itself:

Evidence​

There is unequivocal evidence that Earth is warming at an unprecedented rate. Human activity is the principal cause.

• While Earth’s climate has changed throughout its history, the current warming is happening at a rate not seen in the past 10,000 years.

You NEVER provide any evidence to support your beliefs. Why should anyone believe you?

View attachment 1219479

There is unequivocal evidence that Earth is warming at an unprecedented rate.

Baloney.

Look at all the uncertainty is those charts.

Does that make you confident we need to waste...err...invest $100 trillion in renewable energy?

 

[ColonelAngus]

You lefties still have not explained how your elites will fly private jets without oil.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

there have been ZERO experiments to prove CO2 raises temperature and history tells us CO2 rise happens AFTER temperature rise.

 

[Luckyone]

Thats not evidence thats your opinion. I dont have to prove something is not happening
Human caused climate change
View attachment 1219486

No, that is not opinion that is measurement of how much CO2 has expanded.

By the way, take another look at my post, I added a few things since your response

 

[Hafar1014]

No, that is not opinion that is measurement of how much CO2 has expanded.

By the way, take another look at my post, I added a few things since your response

How much net CO2 is left after plants convert it to O2. We are at the bare minimum of CO2

 

[Hafar1014]

There is unequivocal evidence that Earth is warming at an unprecedented rate.

Baloney.

View attachment 1219487

Look at all the uncertainty is those charts.

Does that make you confident we need to waste...err...invest $100 trillion in renewable energy?

There is nothing in those charts that show humans are the cause. Renewable energy is an economic disaster

 

[RetiredGySgt]

There is nothing in those charts that show humans are the cause. Renewable energy is an economic disaster

ask him about the nonexistence of experiments to prove CO2 raises temperatures. History shows that CO2 rises AFTER temperature rises not the other way around

 

[Luckyone]

How much net CO2 is left after plants convert it to O2. We are at the bare minimum of CO2

How much CO2 is required to sustain life?

Selin says a good argument could be made that 280 is the ideal level of CO2 for human life, since it creates temperature ranges that are comfortable for the human body and allowed civilization to grow.

As of October 2024, the earth has 420, meaning 50% above what is required

 

[Stryder50]

How much CO2 is required to sustain life?

Selin says a good argument could be made that 280 is the ideal level of CO2 for human life, since it creates temperature ranges that are comfortable for the human body and allowed civilization to grow.

As of October 2024, the earth has 420, meaning 50% above what is required

This is a classic of the sort of mis-lead, mis-state, and indirect pravda common to the Leftist/Marxist such as you are.

98-99% of life on this planet is plants~flora and 280ppm is starving them. On average at least 300ppm is a bare minimum, anything above that and they will thrive. Many commercial greenhouse businesses operate up to 1200 ppm and there is no negative effect to the humans working in them.

The chart below is worth an exam, it shows that as far back as the first life on Earth, atmosphere CO2 and Global temperatures have been higher than at present, yet life thrived and evolved. It also shows very little correlation* between the two and evidence that CO)2 level determines temperatures.

* Correlation is not Causation !

 

[Stryder50]

You truly do not do any research to prove of disprove facts. You rely on your own BELIEFS and say it like there is no way to prove you wrong.

You are truly a "sick puppy".

Here, from NASA itself:

Evidence​

There is unequivocal evidence that Earth is warming at an unprecedented rate. Human activity is the principal cause.

• While Earth’s climate has changed throughout its history, the current warming is happening at a rate not seen in the past 10,000 years.

You NEVER provide any evidence to support your beliefs. Why should anyone believe you?

View attachment 1219479

By the way and simply using "common sense"

Atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) levels have risen by over 50% since the start of the Industrial revolution, moving from a "STABLE" 280 ppm to over 420 ppm in October 2024.

Human activities, primarily burning fossil fuels and deforestation, have added over 2,000 billion metric tons of CO2 to the atmosphere.

How can anyone with a brain, think that adding so much CO2 to the atmosphere would not have a warming effect (caused by humans)?

You actually think this helps the atmosphere"

View attachment 1219488

is this something you believe in"

View attachment 1219490

There is no evidence that supports CO2 as the only, or even main driver of the slight global temperature rise.
So far the global temperature since "industrial revolution" has neither risen as high as which ended the last ice age, nor dropped as low as that caused the last ice age.

Your images are fake composites which don't reflect accuracy, in the USA and Western World at least. In the USA and Europe we have had decades of Flue-Gas-Desulfurization systems that clean the flue(smoke) coming out of the chimneys of coal and gas fueled power plants. Means that what we see coming out is steam and CO2 (Actually don't see CO2 since it's not visible in normal light).

Newest twist is to pipe that warm, moist, CO2 rich flue into greenhouses for hothouse growth of flora, such as tomatoes and other produce.

Unfortunately your friends in India and PRChina have no similar EPA mandates (USA has been in effect since the 1980s) requiring FGD systems be installed. Hence the pump a lot of SO2, Sulfur Dioxide into the air which causes acid rains.

Flue-gas desulfurization - Wikipedia​

Flue Gas Desulfurization: Process Overviews with Flow Diagrams​

Only "sick puppy" here is you, phony!