The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change
“Climate experts reacted with anger after the government announced it had given the Jackdaw field, to be developed by the oil multinational Shell, “final regulatory approval”
Ami McCarthy, a political campaigner for Greenpeace UK
Green MP, Caroline Lucas
They claim increased supply doesn’t affect prices when everybody knows that to be utter nonsense.
Domestic gas is most welcome in the current energy crisis.
No there isn’t a climate crisis, although the Guardian is trying very hard to frame this.
Actually their is a climate crisis when you live in a cold country and you’ve banned natural gas.
The public, or at least this member of it, welcomed to news with joy and can’t wait for more of the same. I suspect Griff might not feel the same.
Well it won’t reduce the price for the UK consumer, that’s for sure…
It’s a good thing the bird choppers are drive energy costs down 😉
“They claim increased supply doesn’t affect prices when everybody knows that to be utter nonsense.”
From the other side of the Pond:
“Refineries with a total capacity of 800,000 barrels a day have closed since 2019 leaving the U.S.
with a total operating refinery capacity of 17.7 million barrels a day, its lowest level since 2013.”
Fundamentally, the left is against fire, unless it’s under their control. Yes, control is what it’s about. Gasoline prices above $6/gallon ought to create some backlash, hopefully.
Only NERC can stop the growing unreliability of America’s grid.
Unfortunately NERC is a nonprofit corporation funded by the utilities that are making a fortune building unreliable wind and solar. Follow the money!
What growing unreliability?
Read the link and your claim is not supported.
The links says “Unreliability is reported to already be getting pretty bad. Sustained outages in the US went from less than 12 in 2000 to over 180 in 2020. The average utility customer went from 8 hours of power failure per year in 2013 to 16 in 2020.”
That’s what I would call “growing unreliability.”
China just launched a manned mission to space.
Truly remarkable for a developing country.
Not to mention building a space station
Yeah, another Skylab. Been there, done that 50 years ago.
The t-shirt I got from there wore out in the ’80s.
Not to mention having a unified culture that is over 6000 years old. Plenty of time to develop, don’t you think?
Chnese will claim they “own” all planets they land / plant flags on.
Or they will build planets in strategically important parts of space like they are doing for islands in the South China Sea.
They can grow bugs on those plants for u and ship them back to earth in highly compressed protein modules. LOL
Developing country? Well, I’ll give partial marks, they are developing(!) Africa and poor Asian nations.
I think saw this reported as a “personed” mission to space in the woke msm.
Per = of or through son = male child
The world becomes more irrational daily.
Remarkable except that they stole most of what they know. A society like that tends not to encourage creative people so the only way they can get ahead is to copy form other cultures that have the creative people. Look at what happened when they attempted to get ahead in bio technology. We ended up with covid. They couldn’t even handle what they had safely and they were unable to see possible risks and protect against them. The damage was far worst than 911 except that everybody looks the other way and continues to buy from them as if nothing happened.
We really have become locusts.
I’m struggling with their maths:
Quote:”Researchers say grass could be a ‘silver bullet’ for UK food supplies, increasing production by up to 50pc and making Britain a net food exporter.
Especially that UK imports 50% of everything that’s eaten, thus produces 50%
So if the 50% produced at home goes up by 50%, that gets us 75% home produced, yes/no
How does that make UK a net exporter?
Lawn grass won’t have enough nutrients to survive. It has a lot of fiber to keep you “regular” but
comes up short everywhere else. They could add a garden mix- carrots, radishes, lettuce, cabbage,
corn, peas, spuds, sunflowers, … to it, too! Plant some canola & you can make dressing to go with
the “grass salad”. Along with some poached beef from a pasture nearby, an assortment of veggies,
that will taste “MMM, MMM good”! I’d call it living off the fat of the land! 😮
True UK has a lot of grass for hay that can be exported but why not produce meat and dairy on that grass and save.
The real goal, and the reason for the battles against cows, is to replace the cows with the general population.
From BBC here
Quote:”More than 100 countries – with about 85% of the world’s forests – promised to stop deforestation by 2030.
Why does it matter?
This is seen as vital, as trees absorb about 10% of the CO2 emitted each year.
38% of Earth’s total land area is now = desert
Total Earth area = 5E14 square metres, land = 30% of that so:
desert area = 0.38×0.3x5E14 = 5,700,000,000 Hectares =
or about 14 billion acres
Recalling from a discussion on here some while ago, Douglas Fir growing in Oregon pull down 5 tonnes of CO2 per acre per year
So if all contemporary desert started growing Douglas Fir, that would lead to a removal rate of just over 71 Gigatonnes per year
Do we say = twice current emissions rate?
there ain’t a lot of trees out there are there?
Not least, where exactly did NASA see all the Global Greening that’s going on
It’s 33 percent, not 38 percent. 9.2 percent, almost a third, of that is Antarctica (yes, Antarctica is considered to be a desert even though it’s cold and made of ice). The amount of desert worldwide is shrinking.
The reason Douglas Fir grow in Oregon (mostly Western Oregon) is because it rains a whole lot there. It rains because the prevailing winds are moisture laden coming out of the southwest from the central Pacific, rise to get over the Cascade mountains, and cool. The reason Douglas Fir doesn’t grow in the desert is because it doesn’t rain much in deserts. DUH.
You can easily look up where it has been greening. I suspect that you haven’t because it would challenge your insane notion that deserts are because of nutrient-free dirt. Completely insane.
Several facts need to be absorbed by climate activists. Since 1979 best evidence is 1.3degsC warming per 100 years. There are no factors changing this observable. CO2 will go on increasing at about 2ppm a year for the foreseeable future unless the globe starts cooling. There is a ‘pause’ of seven years and six months today, but that’s weather until it becomes— Ooh – fifteen? There are no weather events that are unusual because global warming is so slight. There are resource effects because of overpopulation but we can manage that. Best of luck and read Rosling.
Below is a graph used in David Siegel’s Climate Science 101 video that shows the atmosphere’s
composition for the last 4.6B yrs. Around 4B yrs ago, only ~10%-15% WAS NOT GHGs! CO2 was
25% of the atmosphere- 250k ppm– 3.3B yr ago. The oceans didn’t boil off. Same for ~530M yr
ago when CO2 was 0.7%- 7k ppm. Today, we’re @ 0.04%- 400 ppm. WUWT?
i have wanted to ask a question about past co2 consintrations. what method do scientist use to determine past levels? not desputing the data but knowing the method or methods would be helpful to me when discussing climate with…well you know, the other guys.
I don’t know either, but I’m sure astrophysicists & geologists take the few data points
they have & make a lot of assumptions & propose a lot of theories. There are enough
of them in each field to force honest debates, something lacking in “climate science”.
Those would be the two fields to study to find out more. Here’s a search to see some
competing ideas on atmosphere composition. The different web sites may lead to
The key to getting to the nitty gritty would be to access research papers. Wikipedia
articles usually have big bibliographies. Graphs will usually cite papers, too. Many
times sites will be jusr dedicated to research papers- either open source/paywalled.
This search lists two papers from researchgate.net & some coursework from Penn
State, where graphs are cited. Good luck!
Oh and forests are carbon dioxide neutral
An Australian national Church plenary council will later this year consider in debate a motion supported in part by a claim that “As drought, bushfires, floods and extreme weather become more common in Australia, [we realise the urgency of responding to our baptismal calling of taking up God’s mission of love for the whole of creation].
I would greatly appreciate it if anyone can provide me with some authoritative evidence or encapsulation with or without sources of an assessment of that claim.
Reply to firstname.lastname@example.org, if this does not offend WUWT policy.
Tried sending you some data and this came back.
Delivery has failed to these recipients or groups:
Your message couldn’t be delivered. The Domain Name System (DNS) reported that the recipient’s domain does not exist.
Contact the recipient by some other means (by phone, for example) and ask them to tell their email admin that it appears that their domain isn’t properly registered at their domain registrar. Give them the error details shown below. It’s likely that the recipient’s email admin is the only one who can fix this problem.
Couldn’t work yr email. There’s a straightforward government website which does wildfire history all the way back to Black Thursday or whatever. They are getting less.
Tony Heller @ realclimatescience.com has numerous newspaper articles, etc., on Australian data
going back up to 200+ yrs, including “droughts, bushfires, floods, & extreme weather”. Just search
his site for “Australia” (or anything better that you can come up with) & you’ll find articles like this:
Mentioning Tony Heller is an automatic fail…
Facts are stubborn things … One needs reliable facts to make contrary arguments, Griff. Leftist media cannot be relied upon to provide unbiased “facts.” Cherrypicking convenient data does not provide “the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.” CliSciFi produces reports aimed at convincing, not informing. Skepticism of government pronouncements has time after time proven to be mandatory throughout history.
Yeah- your fail! 😮
But you just did, Griff.
What’s the old saying, “Takes one to know one.”
You have no credibility around here!
Poor pathetic griff. Yes, wee know YOU FAIL to handle facts.
Your comments, and your hole existence, are just one big continual FAIL.
Yea, those old newspaper articles he posts showing how bad weather was at various time during history really get to you; Don’t they Griff.
Tony is the Climate/Weather way back machine that informs people of what has occurred in the past. The very thing people like you hate because it totally falsifies so many of your claims.
Here is a modest Modtran exercise to show the madness of the messaging about methane.
In the top frame is the difference in overall transmittance by wavelength between two cases: 1700 ppb and 3400 ppb CH4 in the atmosphere (i.e. a doubling from current concentration.) U.S. 1976 standard atmosphere, no clouds. The only difference is CH4.
In the lower frame is the difference in overall transmittance by wavelength between two cases by using a temperature offset of -5C and +5C from standard conditions, applying the “constant rh” selection. This means that the 283K (-5C) and 293K(+5C) cases differ in composition only by water vapor. Again, U.S. 1976 standard atmosphere, no clouds.
You can see readily that the minor difference in overall transmittance from a doubling of CH4 will be completely obscured by the major difference in transmittance by a relatively small change in water vapor as inferred from the modest -5C to +5C cases at constant relative humidity.
And this is just a comparison of the static sense of things. Put the atmosphere into motion, and everything changes.
Rud Istvan has been making this point here recently at WUWT about the overlap of water vapor and methane absorption and emission. These plots help show why he is right.
It is beyond absurd to be worried about methane in the real atmosphere. Cow masks and such. Get a grip!
Prince William backs his Daddy too. And the Pope, P.M. Boris, plus old idiot-liar Attenborough. Spoiled the 70th Party for me last night!
An interesting Modtran excercise on the UChicago website….pick constant relative humidity, some combination of clouds and atmosphere locality that gives close to 240 watts, like the real planet Earth. You will have to pick come cloud option to do this, since the default is no clouds, but the real planet has 65% cloud cover to achieve its 0.3 albedo
Save the 400 ppm run to background.
Now change the 400 ppm CO2 to some bigger value…heck, go crazy, double, double, double it again to 3200 ppm. Then adjust the “offset” which would be the new ground level temp. radiating to outer space.
Oops, holy cowabunga, your offset only works out to 2.1 or 2.2 degrees to match the 240 watts (admittedly you are assuming 0.3 planetary albedo) incoming solar again….hmmm…3200… Thats 2800 ppm higher than our present 400 ppm CO2 level. Thats only 15 times the 120 ppm CO2 increase since our pre-industrial estimate of 280 ppm. and would take 700 years to get there at the present rate of annual CO2 increase. So at least 15 times the petroleum and forest burnt since 1840.
Realizing that humanity will have had to move off fossil fuels by the time 700 yeas goes by…well, kind of takes the edge off the CO2 crisis for me….as well as the 2 to 6 degrees ECS number failing some fairly simple IR absorption calcs…./s
When one views the careers of “distinguished scientists” like Jane Lubchenco and Katherine Hayhoe there is nothing to be found of any use or value to humanity.
It’s all folly, enviro-activism, scheming and family enrichment.
These people NEVER get assessed for what they have produced or held accountable for any of the wrongs they frequently commit. What a gig.
They do whatever they want, get lauded for everything and lavished with riches.
Phony is just not sufficient to describe the institution of academia that has become so rotten to the core.
Look at their self image:
I imagine if their kind gain complete control, they will replace box cars with EV buses.
Their list of honorary awards of is extensive. So extensive that it is not possible they solicited them on their own. So it is an example factions of society seeking a leader to speak their thoughts to the public. Likely the media itself. A kind of “Joan of Arc” syndrome.
Honorary awards are the result of flashy publicity, not solid accomplishments advancing science.
Yeah, felonious wire fraud Peter Glieck got appointed head of AGU ethics committee, serial failure Ehrlich received the Royal Society’s prestigious award (although Western heads of state are working to make Ehrlich’s forecasts of world famine, poverty and death a belated reality), Dr Turney of the famous “Ship of Fools” stuck in in the Antarctic ice incident received an award from the ARC Centre For Excellence (I kid you not!) in Climate Science, Al Gore and rapist/porn novelist Pachauri shared the Nobel Prize.
They certainly are, as our Marxist N.Z. Prime Minister Ardern was recently so “honoured” by Harvard.
Or like the reverance of crazy people?
Am I right with my impression that females seem to be more easily swayed by this lunacy than us blokes? Seems so, from the photos of “climate protest marches” we see so often in our garbage press! Maybe Jane and Katharine could comment.
So, does CO2 change in response to and subsequent to changes in climate temperature, or does CO2 change first / before, thus plausibly CAUSING the change in temperature??
When looking at plots of CO2 vs Time, there seem to be two. One shows present day CO2 levels at the bottom decile of CO2 levels going back many millions of years. The other shows CO2 at nearly the highest levels going back many thousands of years.
So which is it?
Are present day CO2 levels near record lows or near record highs??
It just depends on one’s frame of reference.
The debate is whether it matters and what one does about it. If the left uses it as one of its tools to gain global control, then one might imagine the consequences to be bad for us all.
To avoid this debate, just ask debaters where the high correlation between temperature & CO2
concentrations are on this graph, keeping in mind that correlation doesn’t necessarily prove
“…correlation does not necessarily prove causation.” No, but lack of correlation is a damn good indication of lack of causation.
And that is well demonstrated by the mini ice age that closed out the Ordovician as CO2 level was at about 3,000 ppm.
Causes rise in temperature. Scientifically proven!
Scientifically proven by theory and lab experiments using dry air, Griff. It has not been proven that CO2 significantly affects temperature in the real Earth system. Theoretically, CO2 increases (supposedly all manmade) since the 1700s has had about a 1% impact on Earth’s energy balance: statistically immeasurable within the capabilities of today’s instruments.
Griff, do you seriously believe the above statements justify fundamentally altering our societies, economies and energy systems? Do you have actual data to refute those statements? If not, your assertions are ideologically based. Honestly assessing your assumptions is a prerequisite for reasoning out the truth.
Richard M has an interesting comment at 9:02 AM below that suggests CO2’s effect on the atmosphere (if any) is more complicated than you believe it is and suggest here. I recommend that you read it.
If you have any science that rebuts what he is saying, feel free to post it here.
You are an UTTER FAILURE griff when asked to produce proof.
There is in fact no real mechanism by which CO2 can cause a rise in global temperature.
Never has before.. and never will.
Both are somewhat true. CO2 is released by warming oceans and CO2 does absorb IR radiation from the surface. The key reason why increases in CO2 cannot produce warming at the present time is because the main absorption band of CO2 (15 microns) has already absorbed all the available energy radiated by the surface.
The warmists counter that CO2 also blocks energy flow out of the atmosphere as the concentration increases. This is only true right in the lowest layer of the atmosphere (boundary layer) and up in the stratosphere due to the reverse lapse rate. Otherwise, the ALR prevents any blocking of the outward energy flow. Both of the potential warming areas are canceled out by feedback.
The boundary layer exists in thermal equilibrium which means any warming from CO2 downwelling IR will be matched by some other cooling mechanism. This includes latent heat, radiation and conduction.
The stratospheric warming effect is countered by a reduction in stratospheric water vapor keeping the overall opacity of the upper atmosphere nearly constant.
JohnTyler said: “So, does CO2 change in response to and subsequent to changes in climate temperature, or does CO2 change first / before, thus plausibly CAUSING the change in temperature??”
Both. CO2 concentration modulates the temperature and temperature modulates the CO2 concentration.
JohnTyler said: “Are present day CO2 levels near record lows or near record highs??”
Neither. Though over million year timescales it is relatively low and over the Holocene it is relatively high.
And yet, there seems to be subdued inquisitiveness about why cloud cover has been significantly lower over these past 50 years or so.
All the while, changes in cloud cover extent and density are acknowledged to have more potential to alter temps than atmospheric CO2 content does.
We live in strange times when the obvious is overlooked in favor of the sublime (CO2).
Question to ask the believers: On a scale from ‘1’ (the level at which CO2 is so low only grasses will survive) to ’35’ (the highest we believe CO2 levels to have been as shown in the geologic proxies – check the chart below in OMW post @7.55), where are we now?
And you believe CO2 is dangerously high?
Global temperature regimes appear to be dominated by solar input and viscous dissipation of kinetic energy to internal heat by circulation of dense air. Temperature gradients are supplied by variable heating equator to poles, and day/night to get things moving. Coriolis forces steer the air against the grain to zonal winds which increases frictional shear as compared to meridional transport. Surface flux to the dense atmosphere is dominated by latent and sensible heat. Observed LW radiation fields are thus mostly a consequence of the turbulent system. The variable of interest is turbulent diffusivity which creates the apparent greenhouse enhancement in the material system. This is the only way to adequately describe the system while honoring thermodynamic ‘laws’.
Fluid dynamics in the material system. Near surface energy budgets a function of solar input, boundary layer density, and kinetic dissipation. Non-adiabatic flux export efficiency dominated by phase changes of water.
Your image seems to be a view centered somewhere around Central America if I’m interpreting it correctly. Very interesting. Can you overlay continental outlines and dating. Is there a source where I could ‘play around’ with it? It reminds me of some of Willis’s presentations.
Just a stock water vapor loop stolen from the internet. I think it’s centered on the Pacific. Trying to illustrate that the system cannot be passively described by radiation budgets to describe mechanisms of change.
There’s a whole heck of a lot of energy conversion going on, of various efficiency, as the material system strives for maximum entropy production (under the physical constraints of the system).
Entropy is simply energy supply / temperature. W m-2 K-1. Alternatively, diffusivity using the same units. Or inversely, exergy; the energy available for work. I prefer diffusivity because it seems to be more digestible to people. Diffusivity is a direct result of second law.
A function of material density, temperature gradients, and conversion efficiency between potential energy, kinetic energy (circulation), and internal heat in open fluid systems.
Diffusivity. How easily does the solar energy filter through the system on its way to space.
Radiation budgets are a crutch because it can be easily observed with IR sensors i.e. the temperature of things. This has led to conceptualizing the system by radiation alone, which has been an error. The radiation budgets are a consequence of the system, not the driving force.
Minor changes to the water cycle can account for changes to system efficiency, and thus minor temperature variations in the order of 1 to 2K. The water cycle is also involved in most facets of albedo as well. So, a simplifying assumption is to look into the water cycle as the primary mechanism of change. The gif shows the water cycle dynamics in fluid motions.
IIRC, transmission of radiation is not materially affected by turbulence in the atmosphere. Maybe a revisit of thermodynamics information is in order, JCM.
And no, JCM, I’m not going to get into an extended discussion about your novel theories and mathematical manipulations.
It is common for people to defend their subjective understanding and to reject other ways of characterizing the system. I understand there is resistance from people who wish to use simplifying assumptions in their conceptual understanding. In this case, people who wish to conceptualize the system by instantaneous radiation budgets. However, the solar radiation is converted into the potential energy which is the source of the kinetic energy of the atmosphere (and oceans). By refusing to study this it creates a barrier to discussion. Solar input vs Work performed driving the atmospheric and oceanic circulations. This, to describe the sun’s heat conversion through the system on its way to being exported by longer waves to space (temperature at the effective radiating height).
deleted – meant to respond to eyesonu
How to defeat the inflation: Rename The White House The Pink House. Paint it accordingly.
This approach has never failed. It is moch cheaper than currently proposed plans.
Let’s look at the current temperature anomalies of the Peruvian Current. Is it getting colder?
I have a beef with Richard Green (aka “The Cliff Craven of Finance”) about the masthead graphic on his climate website. Alas, I can’t find a way to address this (and him) directly, so I am going to post it here and trust that he will get wind of it.
For his graphic to be truly “honest,” the Y axis (the vertical) would start at zero for both CO2 and temperature. As it is, neither do, especially not the CO2, which shows the illusory magnification typical of the Carbon Cultists’ expanded-scale dishonesty.
They feel that they can do this and that it’s OK, but true skeptics and real science-people shouldn’t, or we become just as crooked as they are, and look like fools and liars to well-informed folks (like all of us here, for sure…).
So Richard, clean up your act. Make a graphic like the temperature-only graphic that you used to use. It was a powerful perspective-giving picture; one like that combining a zero-ppm start for the CO2 curve would be even more powerful, showing that the changes in both are relatively small, while preserving an honest picture of their non-correlation.
From the WSJ today, an admission that fossil powered power stations give cheaper energy than what we currently have:
New York Legislature Approves Bill to Limit Cryptocurrency Mining
Some miners secure low-cost electricity by bypassing the power grid and reviving closed power plants, creating jobs in upstate areas. Sustainability groups and some New York state lawmakers object to the practice because of the environmental impact.
Follow this up with a recent NYTImes piece titled:
You Want to Buy Meat? In This Economy?
Inflation has the potential to drive welcome change for the planet if Americans think differently about the way they eat.
So what can we conclude? That elites, the WEF, billionaires, rich leftist foundations, socialists, and demonrats WANT us to pay these higher prices.
We can also conclude that we are sheep because we’re just taking it.
A reminder of what this country could once do on this 78th Anniversary of D-Day Normandy.
By this time in 1944 during WW II American industry had restarted making various consumer products. This while all the other major combatants had converted 95% of more of their economies to war production.
More shipping tonnage built and launched by the US was afloat than that produced by all the other nations of the world combined. The US had produced over 93,000 aircraft which was nearly twice the 50,000 that FDR had asked for in 1940 which many experts had declared at the time an impossible number to reach.
Enough B-17s had been produced that if sat wingtip to wingtip they would reach from Richmond, VA to Washington DC and the B-24 production was already passing that number. The US produced about 750,000 machine guns that year and 4 1/2 million other small arms along with 17,500 tanks.
The Battle of Kansas had been won and the most complex machine ever mass produced to that time was rolling off the production lines of four different plants. The B-29 bomber was like no airplane that had been built before. It was twice the empty weight of a B-17 but had to have the same drag to achieve the high altitude performance demanded. Wing loading was 69 lb per square foot which the USAAF has considered impossible just three years before. It’s three crew stations were pressurized and it’s machine guns controlled by computer sights which automatically calculated the proper deflection needed while allowing for relative speeds and outside temperature. The Fowler Flaps had been developed for it and you who fly the big commercial jets still see them today in the aircraft your flying in.
A single B-29 was made up of 40,540 different parts and about 1 million rivets. The Pratt & Whitney R-3350 engine was the most complex machine made by man up to that time. There were over 900 separate engineering changes to the engine from the time the first prototype was produced until the first flight. And the changes kept on coming for both the engines and aircraft throughout their production.
Boeing, North American, Bell Aircraft, Wright Aeronautics, and GM’s Fisher Body all worked together to come up with a comprehensive production plan to mass produce the big bomber because doing so was far beyond the capability of the governments production board. There were 100 major subcontractors and about 1,300 smaller ones and a single slowdown at any of them could cause major problems down the line. And they had to promptly feed the parts into the four assembly plants located at Wichita, Marietta, Renton, and Omaha. Each of those plants employed tens of 1,000s of people. It was, and remains to this day, the most massive and complex production project in the history of aeronautics. The project that build the B-29 cost more than the Manhattan Project to build the bombs that would end the war.
Sure there were still shortages of certain war materials. Ike had postponed D-day a month for more than one reason, but an important one was to gain one more month of production of landing craft and LSTs. Before long the lack of a tank able to take on the German Tigers and Panthers head on would result in heavy casualties.
But the fight to turn the US into the “Arsenal of Democracy” had been won (It was an Industrial, Giant Bill Knudsen, known as “the great Dane”, who had coined that phrase and FDR adopted it without attribution of course.) and by this time as D-day Normandy is launched, MacArthur is mopping up in the Philippines, and as Operation Forager to take the Marianas from which the B-29s would bomb the Japanese home islands, the problem coming to the fore in Washington DC was how to demobilize the US economy once the war was won.
Demobilization was the phrase being heard frequently in Washington. How to convert the massive war production machine back into a peacetime economy without causing massive unemployment and social upheaval was what was what was quickly becoming the political hot potato in Washington by this time in 1944.
Motivation and ingenuity of that era to try are likely lacking in today’s modern times. But there are still calloused hands among us.
I don’t understand the beliefs and viewpoints held here.
If global warming isn’t real, the only harm that will be done is that some people have PTSD.
If global warming is real, as according to the world’s top scientists using the most state-of-the-art equipment in universities across the globe, everyone will die horribly.
Why would someone want everyone they know and love to die horribly? Even the worst dictators wanted to protect their own loved ones. How can people be so casual about mass death?
“Only harm done”? What planet are you living on? Our NG prices here have tripled! Gasoline is at the highest price in history and still rising! My electric bill had doubled and they are warning of possible rolling black outs when temps get real hot because of lack of capacity and supply chain problems leading to longer maintenance periods because they can’t get the parts. Something that has never ever happened here in central Indiana in a state that used to export power from our coal fired stations!
Grocery stores have shortages never seen here before in my 67 year life time. Independent owner operators are parking or selling their trucks and going to work for larger companies because they can’t make any income due to high fuel prices and that is only going to get worse.
The money spent subsidizing bird choppers and solar panels and trying to mitigate the emissions of a gas that is absolutely necessary for life could have been spent solving the many other problems we have and addressing real environmental problems.
Your ignorance is astounding. You’ve got to be a student that is insulated from the reality of the real world around you!