lenben Loc: Seattle

Curious about what Trump supporters on this blog think about g****l w*****g. Trump seems totally opposed to its reality. Is it real? If so can we do anything about it?

Texcaster Loc: Queensland

Six comments in and they'll be flogging Al Gore, the crooked climate scientists and/or AOC.

boberic Loc: Quiet Corner, Connecticut. Ex long Islander

All that is necessary is to check the facts. ALL the predictions regarding the perils of g****l w*****g are as a result of computer modeling. There is no imperical evidence of the perils of g****l w*****g. When NOOA makes statements saying the this year is the warmest year in history, they never state by HOW much, so the number is meaningless. Has the planet gotten warmer in the last 11,000 years, absolutely. That's why the ice age receeded, IT GOT WARMER< With the contribution of the US to CO2 in the air, the US has 5% of the world's population. If the US were to stop the use of 100% of f****l f**l, the worldwide % of CO2 in the air would not change. Even the phrase G****l W*****g has become C*****e C****e. Is there c*****e c****e yes the climate is always changing. One thing is true, however. Man is destroying the invironment, for an y number of reasons, primarily for population intrusion. That's a serious problem.

Kmgw9v Loc: Miami, Florida

The Trump supporters will not disagree with him—ever.
They have given up independent thought.

EyeSawYou

Lol liar.

Bob Smith Loc: Banjarmasin

Whether it's man made or not doesn’t matter c*****e c****e is happening and the thing that is surprising is the speed it is happening. It has happened before but really no one knows what rate it changed in the past. So it's no good just ignoring it we need to plan what precautions to take. Fail to plan and you plan to fail.

LWW Loc: Banana Republic of America

It is impossible for the thinking class to have a serious discussion with the l*****t science deniers.

BboH Loc: s of 2/21, Ellicott City, MD

the globe has been and will continue to warm and humankind has nothing to do with it and can't stop it.
All the money and hollering should be about adapting as the warming continues rather than trying to stop the inevitable; how is lava flow stopped?.
Carbon dioxide is food for plant life - without it there will be no food.
- stop air pollution? plug Iceland's, Hawaii's and Italy's volcanos.

thom w Loc: San Jose, CA

I'm trying to think of the most vile thing I can say about you. You seem to be better at the vile thing than I am, so you think of what I could say that would make you feel the worst. Consider me to have said that. Have a wonderful day, and may you not wake up in the morning.

yhtomit Loc: Port Land. Oregon

I think magnetic pole shifting is a bigger threat.

Cykdelic Loc: Now outside of Chiraq & Santa Fe, NM

I think I would like to see some real science, less emotion and funding-chasing, and more understanding that computer models are not science.

As examples.....

1.Bjorn Lomborg:
“Limiting temperatures to 2.7 degrees Fahrenheit above preindustrial levels, as the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on C*****e C****e urges, is economically and practically impossible—as Mr. Nordhaus’s work shows. The IPCC report significantly underestimates the costs of getting to zero emissions. F****l f**ls provide cheap, efficient power, whereas g***n e****y remains mostly uncompetitive. Switching to more expensive, less efficient technology slows development. In poor nations that means fewer people lifted out of poverty. In rich ones it means the most vulnerable are hit by higher energy bills.

The IPCC says carbon emissions need to peak right now and fall rapidly to avert catastrophe. Models actually reveal that to achieve the 2.7-degree goal the world must stop all f****l f**l use in less than four years. Yet the International Energy Agency estimates that in 2040 f****l f**ls will still meet three-quarters of world energy needs, even if the Paris agreement is fully implemented.

The U.N. body responsible for the accord estimates that if every country fulfills every pledge by 2030, CO2 emissions will be cut by 60 billion tons by 2030. That’s less than 1% of what is needed to keep temperature rises below 2.7 degrees. And achieving even that fraction would be vastly expensive—reducing world-wide growth $1 trillion to $2 trillion each year by 2030.

2.Rupert Darwall:
“Negotiators sought to slow the rise of greenhouse emissions—around 2% a year world-wide for the past two decades. For the three years straddling the 2015 Paris conference, carbon-dioxide emissions were more or less flat. Then they resumed their upward trend—up 1.6% in 2017 and a projected 2.7% this year. According to the Intergovernmental Panel on C*****e C****e report released on the eve of the conference, all scenarios limiting warming to 2.7 degrees Fahrenheit assume steep reductions in coal consumption—to zero by 2050.

That’s not going to happen. According to the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, a German think tank close to Chancellor Angela Merkel, what it calls the renaissance of coal continues, using up the available carbon budget within a decade.

Speaker after speaker at conference side-events spoke of expanded coal use. Turkey has plans for 80 new power stations to double its coal capacity and reduce dependence on imports. Chinese provinces are lobbying for more coal and Beijing is investing in coal infrastructure abroad. So are Japan, South Korea and Australia. During his September visit to Indonesia, South Korea’s President Moon Jae-in oversaw a deal to build two new coal plants there. Before the conference, in Polish coal country, Warsaw had declared it would continue burning coal—a matter of national security when the principal alternative is Russian natural gas.”


3.25 NASA scientists disagree....
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=EhW-B2udhQw

Here's the 500 million year GEOCARB CO2 graph.  Time 0 is today at 380ppm.  It's the lowest point on the graph all the way to the left.  The 1st smaller peak is the dinosaur era at 1000-2200ppm.  And the large peak is the Cambrian explosion which was the most prolific creation event for animals in history at greater than 7000ppm.  Al Gore and the f**e scientists want you to believe that CO2 going from 350ppm to 380ppm over 180 years is life threatening.  They should study this graph.  Because the most prolific times ever for animal and plant life were during periods where CO2 was dramatically higher than today.  It's b/c plants need CO2 for food.  And the more plants grow, the more animals grow.  That is the evidence.   It's pretty simple.

Cykdelic Loc: Now outside of Chiraq & Santa Fe, NM

Of course it is, it the democrats deny it’s happening!

One Rude Dawg Loc: Athol, ID

There can be no consideration of curbing g****l w*****g until they ground the air industry, we all know that isn't going to happen.

lenben Loc: Seattle

lenben Loc: Seattle

I really enjoyed seeing your graph. Note however that as carbon levels rise and temperature rises, evolution gets a boost over a long period of actual time. We humans cannot rely on that for our survival. Those ancient times of rising temperature drastically cut down the amount of land not covered with sea water. We humans need a short time horizon to protect ourselves. Personally I will not buy land in Florida or Louisiana at this time. We will have to adapt (Not evolve) to living closer to our neighbors on higher ground at the current rate of c*****e c****e.