If I have a 10 ounce glass filled with 9.9 ounces of alcohol and add .2 ounces of water it will spill over, even though the water was only a tiny percentage of the total volume. It doesn't take much to make a balanced system unstable. Additionally you're ignoring the effects of methane emissions, an even more potent greenhouse gas.
It's so gratifying to know that people on the right never do this .. as we all know QAnon are in fact a knitting circle run by nice little old ladies, and that teeny-tiny silly little scuffle in the Capitol building in January was clearly faked by nasty bad left-leaning people in conjunction with Bill Gates, China, and Winnie-the-Pooh.
As I have noted elsewhere...
Think of what humans used for our fuel source before fossil fuels. Now, think what would have happened to our forests if we did not develop and use fossil fuels as our source of energy. You think that might have affected our environment just a tad? I think fossil fuels have done more to help our environment than harm it when you consider the alternative. One example is whale oil. Don't you think Rockefeller's kerosene was a good substitute? Anyway, this fossil fuel age we are in will only be a mere blip on the climate time scale. My suggestion to everybody is to simply allow our scientists and engineers do their work in developing ALL sources of energy to meet the public demand for electric power and transportation. Government should just butt out of the way. Pointing guns at people's heads and telling them what kind of car they should drive, or what kind of electricity to use serves no useful purpose.
Neither does the ridiculous hyperbole you keep spouting such as the above statement. I guess you are unaware of the ways in which the government subsidized oil and gas and literally by pointing and shooting guns in oil wars?
One of the authors of the Quantitative Attribution paper is Phil Klotzbach. He was a student of the late great Dr. Bill Gray. So I know the paper is a well written and well thought out paper. If you note in the conclusion, they mentioned post 1980 warming with a slight emphasis on human-caused warming. "We note that the post-1980 warming is not simply due to anthropogenic causes but also likely involves natural climate variability and random weather systems." So they were careful not to claim the extra 20% was anthropogenic only.
Trump just about accomplished getting us out of shooting wars in the Middle East over oil.
No, you don't believe in any such freedom to choose, because you support attempts to distort the playing field by denying that fossil fuels play a part in climate change, and the consequent dangerous impact on human civilization.
No he didn't but that's completely irrelevant to the point. The wars were fought and subsides were provided, both using tax payer dollars.
I have studied it. I am not a climate research scientists, but I have done operational weather forecasting for 40 years. Climate goes through natural cycles. Humans are basically just a pimple on a gnat's ass.DISAGREE!
PLEASE STUDY THE SCIENCE OF GHE AND AGW!
There is only one side that is distorting, and that is the side which claims the earth is warming at an unprecedented rate, and will lead to a climate catastrophe.
Trump got us off of Middle Eastern oil and got us on to Canadian oil, as well as our own. Apparently Biden doesn't like Canadian oil for some reason. He wants to load up oil tankers from the Persian Gulf and bring them back through the Gulf of Mexico to offload their crude at Texas and Louisiana ports again.
On what basis are those who agree that global warming is real "zealots"? Can that epithet also be applied to you? If not, why not?
64 year old and retired. My portfolio follows the Harry Browne (former Libertarian candidate for President of US) model. I roughly have 25% cash, 25% bonds, 25%stocks, and 25% gold. I'm sure my mutual funds and ETFs have some energy stocks. By the way, it was just discovered John Kerry owned oil company stocks!
The reason why I call you global warming zealots is because you inject political action into your beliefs about the climate. I am not the one trying to mandate what kind of car you should drive, or what kind of electric power plan you should buy. I believe the free market plus the consumer should decide that. I suppose I can call y'all "climate change activists" to be less harsh. Global warmunists is another term I like. The difference between someone like you and someone like me is that I don't tell you how to live your life. But people like you do tell your fellow citizens how to live theirs. People like you want to punish others if they buy a pickup truck or SUV with higher taxes. You want to raise their taxes (carbon tax) if they use an energy source derived from coal or petroleum. You basically just want to raise the cost of energy on the middle class and the poor. Doing so only makes them poorer, which means you have no regard for them. Most of them are Trump voters, so why do you give a crap?
Not denying anything. There is a real scientific debate going on amongst atmospheric researchers today about how much of an effect CO2 has on our climate. They argue over the equations and feedback. If you don't believe me, just go to Dr. Spencer's blog page and you can see the pro and con AGW researchers debate on his site. They delve into the physics of the atmosphere, and interpret the loads of data that is available. Some of them are solar physicists, and they argue from that angle as well.See this is what I mean about physics denial. We’ve known for over a century how CO2 interacts with light but here you are denying straight up physics.
80 years since the first calculations showed that the Earth was warming due to rising greenhouse gas emissions
Some people argue that concern for global warming is a modern phenomenon. And that scientists and environmental activists invented these worries to raise awareness of rising greenhouse gases from burning fossil fuels.phys.org
Please quote any post of mine in which I have expressed an opinion, even indirectly, about any of the political agendas you quote and accuse me of holding.
I don't quote. I surmise. Now tell me this. Did I surmise correctly about your beliefs in climate-based political activism?
