2023 Was the worlds warmest year on record by far

Probably.

Effff Congolese kids. Indonesian kids. Forests. Eff them all, they say. You must break eggs to make an omelette!

 

Makes no sense. Science is what exploration and experimentation of theories. Science is not something that fits into your political box of absolutes. There is no two options with science that's beyond ignorant and exactly what those making billions off of the global warming scare wants you to believe.
Now I agree in a sense that this can be solved with technology I've made a great living selling technology in Ag that is sustainable and good for ole mother earth. In fact, we just sold a few hundred metric tons of Carbon offsets this year, all created by the products I'm selling, trust me I get it!
That being said, I specifically gave you the example earlier that science and technology always has a cause and effect. Synthetic Nitrogen, lowered emissions and destruction of mother earth by miners mining nitrate. This lowered emissions initially but then the demand rose which actually increased overall emissions and polluted not only our air but our rivers and oceans due to fertilization runoff. This led to algae and other massive blooms in our water ways, when they died, they sank and microorganisms had tons of food, which lead to overpopulation, and this led to oxygen depletion, which lead to dead zones in oceans for miles and miles, which led to the ocean warming, on and on. What it did achieve is more food (energy) for mankind, which also led to more emissions/pollution.

My point is don't fall for the political BS and think outside the box and in your case if you want credibility stop tying it to a party or Maga, that's ignorant at best. To achieve clean energy, the source must be clean or adverse effects will also follow and lead to a whole new chain of emissions. Mining for minerals is as old as time and not technologically advanced, nor clean energy, it's a money grab from a country with major economic goals and little natural resources.

 

No, not THIS Supreme Court.

Which is perfectly indicative of the rationality of the rest of your "arguments".

 

I have an IQ and know how to use it.

You might try it sometime.

 

And it won't ever make any sense to you if you don't understand the difference between science and technology.

Science is nothing that "romantic".

It's just a method. If you follow that method, you are more likely to be right than to be wrong. But it's just the method. The word is used to also mean the body of knowledge obtained using this method. Which might confuse some.

A method is just a method. To even consider it a possibility that it has anything to do with politics is one clear indication that you still don't understand what it is. It would be as if I were to accuse you of fitting roasting beef, instead of frying it, as some sort of political agenda. Science is one method of understanding reality. Just like roasting or frying are methods of cooking beef. The particularity of science is that it has been very successful. Especially when compared to other methods. But, in the end, it's all it is.

I have no reason to doubt you understand technology. But I have many to doubts that you understand science.

Even though science is not political, the opposition to solving/addressing it most definitely IS. Democrats had no problem accepting scientific fact. But Republicans denied it. They denied that Global Warming existed (they were wrong). When the problem became so obvious they couldn't deny it anymore, they refused to help fix it (they were wrong). When Democrats attempt to solve it, Republicans criticize and offer NOT alternative (they are as wrong as they have ALWAYS been). One Party has been consistently wrong, and one has been consistently right. So don't give me that "don't tie it to MAGA" crap. Inaction is TIED to Republican extremists (today known as MAGAs) and it always HAS been.

 

I cannot like this post enough.

 

That is flat out funny.

 

Oh, really? Maybe you can use your self-declared superior intellect to explain this.

In short, the IPCC logarithmic equation predicts a total greenhouse warming for CO2 of 32 W/sq.m. The total greenhouse back-radiation from all sources according to the IPCC and Trenberth (see his Global Energy Budget) is 333 W/sq.m. So CO2 accounts for about 10% of total greenhouse warming while water vapour mostly makes up the rest, with methane contributing a small amount.

So why are the climate fascists focusing on CO2 and not water in the atmosphere when they demand a dismantling of the technological basis for all of modern society?

 

Maybe you can take a shot at this:

 

Maybe this one:

 

This one's fun.

 

This is a bit on the more obscure side of the climate change argument, but perhaps you might understand it.

 

Basically nonsense, distortion and idiocy. FYI, it wasn't until 1995 that concept or AGW even gained acceptance - based on some very shaking "evidence. Even as the UN via IPCC took up the cause many scientists were skeptical if not outright deniers. You'll never understand the entire scope of the issue until you abandon the partisan driven slogans and mantras until you conduct some of that research you brag about, but rarely actually conduct.

 

I could do this all day.

 

A twofer.

 

Wow, how "scientific"

What is the source of these claims?

A substantial proportion of scientists.

Please define "substantial proportion"

What kind of scientists? An oncologist is a scientist but that doesn't give him any kind of special insight to climate change.

Most of the reports you have in your pretty little pictures are from 10 years or older. Quite a few are from about 20 years ago and a handful are from over 40 years ago.

Also one of your pretty little pictures says the website "Notrickszone" says they have a list of over 100 papers...

How many papers are there on climate change? Do you know if "100" papers is a significant amount or is a tiny sample?

So I checked out notrickszone.com (anyone can go there to check out my claims about the site)

First, as with any of these kinds of sites, the first place you should go is the "About" entry (most websites have them)

Here we find that the man behind the website is Pierre Gosselin. There he informs us he has his Associates Degree in Civil Engineering and a Bachelor of Science Degree in Mechanical Engineering. Well Gosh darn, why didn't you tell us that your "expert" had degrees in civil and mechanical engineering? We might as well pack up and go home now. Who needs all them high falutin degrees in physics or climatology or stuff like that?

But in the interests of complete open mindedness I will continue.

"I’ve always been a skeptic of the hypothesis mankind is causing catastrophic global warming."

Well I guess that settles it

Again, you claim you have a high IQ but there is nothing here to indicate you are using it.

 

Not political yet you attempt to make it political. Fascinating you give the left so much credit when up until the 70's, republicans were known as the green party and started the green movement. Republicans refuse to fix it, lol what do you think you're fixing? What do you think you've fixed? I deal specifically in genetically altered microbials but do tell me more about your understanding of science and my lack thereof, I find it an intriguing discussion.

 

And yet you can't answer any of it. Just a bunch of snark.

Which says all I need to know about you.

No need to waste my time further.

 

I don't need to answer it. Your post was meaningless without answering any of those questions.

 

The scientific consensus existed since about 1995. It was definitely proven to the public that there was a scientific consensus in a peer-reviewed meta-study (as study of studies) published in 2003 ("Beyond the Ivory Tower" -Science Magazine). So there was NO excuse after that to deny reality. In any case, that legislators have the preparation or academic knowledge to know whether or not the evidence is shacky or not is beyond ridiculous. Ignorant little idiots like Senator Inhofe who brought a snowball to the floor of the Senate to PROVE that Global Warming did not exist. It's just laughable that people similar to Inhofe don't realize how ridiculous they look when they act as if they understood whether or not scientific evidence is ... "shacky"

 

You are still not grasping the meaning of what you quoted. Science cannot be, has never be, and nobody has ever attempted to make it political. There is an AGW scientific consensus about AGW. That is science, and it's NOT political.

Now.... dealing with the effects of AGW is political. That part has more to do with technology. But there is no excuse to NOT deal with the consequences other than to deny AGW science.

Therefore, while science is not political, DENYING science IS.

Kudos to Republicans in the 1970s. Shame on Republicans in the 2000s.

Not sure what your point is in mentioning this, but your partisan bias shines through. I commend anybody who follows science. I could not care less what party they belong to. TODAY it's ... not even Republicans... but Republican EXTREMISTS who deny AGW, or refuse to do anything about it. The portion of Republicans we know today as MAGAs. It comes easy for them to deny reality.

 

I can not like this post enough!!!!

 

So, I see posts like this, and I always wonder at the motivations behinds them. A warmer world means the planet has more food production potentials. It means that more folks will be able to lift themselves out of hunger. And poverty. But instead of seeing things like these as positives, the flat earther folks demand that the climate cannot change. How selfish, or stupid is that?

Here's a thought. In 1800 or so, something like 80% of the world population was starving to death. The population was less than an 1/8th of what it is today. And yet, today, less than 20% of the world is starving. A large part of that success is directly tied to two things. The climate warming, and cheap available energy. Year on year, this remains the best possible path for humanity.

This conversation is so unlikely because it pits the most ardently progressive folks in a position of ultimate anti progressivism. It begs a number of questions, not the least of which, can anyone explain why so many folks who consider themselves to be so liberal to be so demanding in making it impossible for the disenfranchised and poor of the world to have to stay that way.

And face it. Does anyone believe that it's their duty to ensure that others suffer so? It smacks of a certain lording over the weak that seems to be so quintessentially part of the democratic elite around the globe. In their world, folks must be miserable. The point cannot be overstated. So many examples. When confronted by their excess or their enormous contributions to the "pollution" that they claim to be so adamantly against, folks, like John Kerry, get angry as if you're not allowed to question what they do, only their pretentious do goodery....It's laughable.

So, really, what we need to do isn't straightforward, nor is it definite. What we must do is allow the world to catch up and be successful. What we need to do is ensure that energy is cheap and available. What we need to do is ensure that we deliver prosperity to every corner of the world.

But, the real tragedy here is that folks, like @Golem will continue to cry about not being able to lord over the world that they find distasteful and unruly because they cannot determine or dictate the way those folks choose to live. The real tyrants of the world are those who have determined that it's in their financial benefit to leach off of an oppressed public and keep them that way. Democrats and their slaves. It never ended.

 

So, here's the thing. Science cannot be, has never been and never will be about consensus. Period. That you believe in this is your demonstration of blind faith in a dogma that you support. Why? Because it creates endless dependence and suffering? Is that it?

 

A warmer world means DIFFERENT food production potentials. But here is what people who don't understand Global Warming fail to realize. The problem is not a warmer world. The problem is a warming world.

Humanity can adapt to ANY range of temperatures. Not so easy to adapt to rapid change. It's the constant change that causes displacement, loss of food sources, health problems, environmental catastrophes, more victims in natural disasters,...

This is why it's called "Global Warming" and not "Global Warmth"