"e Trump “has made it so clear he will do exactly what oil and gas executives want him "
We called that projection
Here’s what trump would like to do
What Trump promised oil CEOs as he asked them to steer $1 billion to his campaign
Donald Trump has pledged to scrap President Biden’s policies on electric vehicles and wind energy, as well as other initiatives opposed by the fossil fuel industry.
By Josh Dawsey
and
As Donald Trump sat with some of the country’s top oil executives at his Mar-a-Lago Club last month, one executive complained about how they continued to face burdensome environmental regulations despite spending $400 million to lobby the Biden administration in the last year.
Although the will of the people is pretty dead set against doing anything of real substance, so we are left with reality playing out as it will.
Arctic Sea Ice minimum 2024. Three degrees Celsius warming now baked in!
Sep 15, 2024
Arctic Sea ice reaches its minimum extent each year around the middle of September. This year is one of the lowest in recorded history. Ocean temperatures have been so ‘off the charts’ in 2023 and 2024 that scientists fear those waters have reached their capacity to mop up after us humans and are now starting to release that energy. On our current trajectory, by 2100, our planet will reach a temperature not seen for 3 MILLION years!. So…what’s the plan???
We can save what’s happening around the South Pole, for another time.
Chump trump. You said the warming is already baked in . Whats that world look like and how is harris going to do to mitigate
In the face of greedy oligarchs, who is doing any mitigating of oil consumption except for developing green energy sources and transport?
FACT SHEET: Biden-Harris
During the previous Administration, important projects stalled; Under the Biden-Harris Administration, projects are moving more quickly
President Biden’s Investing in America agenda is making once-in-a-generation investments in America’s infrastructure and our clean energy future that are creating good-paying and union jobs, establishing and growing new industries in the United States, tackling the climate crisis, and helping lower costs for families.
To deploy these investments, the Biden-Harris Administration has taken aggressive action to accelerate project permitting and environmental reviews. The Administration has developed and is currently executing a Permitting Action Plan; secured $1 billion from the Inflation Reduction Act to improve permitting; passed important reforms in the 2023 Fiscal Responsibility Act that made commonsense changes to the environmental review process, including setting deadlines for completion of reviews and making documents more readable by limiting their length; and took a number of administrative actions to simplify and accelerate the permitting process.
By taking these actions, the Administration is ensuring that industry can move forward with key investments and projects, including building out clean energy and transmission, while also being responsible stewards of the environment and protecting communities.
It was not that many years ago you went along with the lie that all the climate science was done. We did not need any more climate research. It was all done. All we needed now was regulations.
In 1990 the first reports from the climate models were published. They have been providing wrong data ever since.
Why are the IPCC’s models not working?
AI - There are a number of limitations to climate models, including:
Regional variations
Global climate models are not able to accurately represent regional variations when projecting into the future.
Resolution
Low-resolution models can’t capture important regional phenomena like clouds. Upscaling to higher-resolution models can introduce boundary interactions that contaminate the model.
Cloud errors
Modeling clouds and their effects is difficult because clouds reflect and trap incoming and outgoing radiation.
Earth’s complexity
The Earth’s size and complexity make it difficult to represent in a model. Different parts of the planet respond to energy and materials differently.
Multiplier effects
Many models don’t account for multiplier effects that can amplify the initial impacts of biospheric processes.
Incomplete understanding
There’s an incomplete understanding of Earth’s systems and their interactions.
Natural variability
The climate system is naturally variable.
Measurement errors
Imprecise observational instruments can lead to measurement errors.
How long will it take to get it right? Because of political road bumps it could be 100 to 200 years, unless private companies take over the research. I think it will slowly fade away as usage from major institutions are now using private companies to predict weather patterns and changes by Global Warming and Climate Change.
What you fail to see is that climate is not a condition but a variable (chaotic) process that can only be understood by studying long-term trends also known as the science of paleontology.
Note that these trends took as much as millions of years. But today’s climate change has been accelerated by human activity and changes seem to happen in centuries instead of millennia.
You cannot possibly take a small sampling and arrive at any meaningful result from a dynamically changing environment.
The current rise in global average temperature is primarily caused by humans burning fossil fuels since the Industrial Revolution.[3][4] Fossil fuel use, deforestation, and some agricultural and industrial practices add to greenhouse gases.[5]
These gases absorb some of the heat that the Earth radiates after it warms from sunlight, warming the lower atmosphere. Carbon dioxide, the primary greenhouse gas driving global warming, has grown by about 50% and is at levels unseen for millions of years.[6]
Climate change - Wikipedia
The paris climate agreement is a fraud
And that means what? Global warming does not exists?
Read the articles sunshine
Answer the question.
He’s not going to answer any questions except with quips and insults. He’s one of these odd species of troll who agrees with most of the liberal world when it comes to values and facts, but believes he has have something to teach that same world about how wrong they are. So, yes, climate change is real, but you (his audience) are supporting the wrong people in fighting it. Or, yes, Putin is evil, but so is Biden. There is no “therefore”, no action to take if you accept his treatise, no policy suggestions, no better candidate to back, not even a good book to read. There is only “you are wrong”, anything you say, there is something wrong about, not good enough about it, not on the right track, misguided. He doesn’t have answers, he exists only to question you. His goal is poke you in the shoulder and see how off balance you get.
1 Like
Why? Most of your links are not reliable sources and those that are, don’t quote from reliable people. There’s no reason to read nonreliable sources.
I disagree that I fail to see that issue. It is just the climate deniers refuse to follow the facts of science. They are a decade behind science now. Stuck on CO2 as being the control mechanism of Climate Change. I cannot debate climate change on this site much past a political level as anyone with opposing viewpoint are not welcomed on this site. If you are on this site with opposing viewpoint the debates become personal and all about you.
I do agree with your point about long-term trends and debating issues that are past the field meteorology and in the science of paleontology. Science is moving forward to answer questions like quasielliptical interactions by particle physicists. Also, might be referred to as a neutrino physicist or astroparticle physicists as neutrinos are often studied in the context of astrophysics. Wisdom would be using all fields of knowledge to find the answers. It seems the party that controls the money, controls the results of science.
Example of science that is being done, but does not want to get involved in the political BS: Solar wind shielding:
During solar maximum, the Sun’s increased magnetic activity creates a stronger solar wind, which acts as a shield, deflecting incoming cosmic rays (including those that produce muons) from reaching Earth, resulting in a lower muon count.
Observation evidence:
Studies have shown a correlation between the number of sunspots (a measure of solar activity) and the measured muon flux, with a decrease in muon count during solar maximum periods.
Key points to remember:
Cosmic ray origin:
Most muons detected on Earth originate from cosmic rays interacting with the atmosphere, not directly from the Sun.
Solar flares and sudden increases:
While the overall trend shows a decrease in muons during solar maximum, sudden events like solar flares can cause temporary spikes in muon detection due to high-energy particles reaching Earth.
Political climate science is just now getting involved in clouds and other items that they were telling us a decade ago had no, or such little effect on climate that they zero out and no measurable effect on climate change.
My view on paleontology is that it covers the Holocene period. And I would like to see science review the CO2 levels. The major problem is that plants grew and evolved in a world according to the phytologists at CO2 levels between 1,000 and 1,200ppm. Today all the plants on earth would like CO2 levels of over 1,000ppm. Meteorologists failed to address that problem with a reasonable scientific answer.
Neutrinos from the sun come in energies from tens to millions of electronvolts, a result of the many different fusion processes that take place there simultaneously. Scientists now know that most neutrinos from the sun are in the tens to hundreds of electronvolts. Scientists agree that as much as 98% of the universe’s energy has been moved by neutrinos. Yet climate scientists say that neutrinos move no energy from the sun to the earth. It is almost a decade since neutrinos were proven to be part of matter. Climate scientists will not address the finding and are still using the idea that neutrinos and muons should be ignored.
Yes, Global warming does exist. So does Global Cooling. It is part of the Milankovitch cycles.
The Paris Climate agreement is not about Global Warming. Dante555 is correct.
It is about Climate Change or Anthropogenic changes to natural climate.
People have changed the weather mostly in the first 50 feet of the atmosphere in areas where people live and work. It is being blamed on CO2. Which is the same level in most of the world because of air movements. But anthropogenic changes are taking place mostly where the people are. Thus proving it is not the CO2 or the changes would be taking place where the CO2 is too at the same rate. That is not happening.
Until the understanding of how much Climate Change is affecting the Milankovitch Cycle. Then yes, the Paris Climate agreements is junk. At this time the Global Warming being affected by anthropogenic warming is less than 3%. Not enough to implement the changes they want. Civilizations are requiring more energy, not less.
Where can you debate it?
The Forum supports the interests of CFI by creating an online community of supporters and interested inquirers into CFI’s areas of concern, which can be generally described as advancing the enlightenment project, fostering an evidence-based, scientific outlook and humanist values.
I really don’t debate climate change because my knowledge is not at the level to do that at the sites I visit. It is all I can do to keep up with the data being debated by people with the knowledge.
I know what Forum here is supposed to be concerned about. But give the debate a dozen more posts and it will be about me or Trump.
So what are you saying?
And what is your point? You list a litany of items. What’s the problem?
I am saying the sites I follow debates on are more in depth on the Climate Change subject. And is the only subject being debated. They do not get into political or personal degrading. It is like a fact checking all the data. They have the skills and abilities to check all the data. Most of the debaters have been into climate change from the beginning and many have written papers on the subject.
Just look at the facts. I don’t debate climate change is true. I try to debate climate change. Check the history. They all seem to end in posts degrading me. It is not a debate until it is completed. Most of the debates are taken to a different pathway or ended with data dumps. A big part of the problem is that the Forum base is not large enough to have new people wanting to debate. Years ago, this was a great site for debating climate change. I would like the site to return to debates.
I have had great debates on this site on the Cradle of Civilization and religion subjects.
Speaking of Cradle of Civilization. I need to thank you for telling me to take a break when I brought up the issue of the creation of wheat. That made me take the time to review the subject to see if any progress has been made with the DNA search of the beginning of wheat. When hospitalized new data had come out. As the subject is not followed like Climate Change is. I missed the new data. What was found, is that two wild grasses combined DNA about 150M years ago. This was an unknown pathway and therefore never looked for. I am now waiting for the DNA to be re-worked and we will know when and where wheat started according to DNA.
I think you confuse attacks on your logic and data with personal attacks, but that’s difficult to review given the amount of posts wec would need to go back over.
When you those kinds of problems, you should put them in “Issues and Complaints”.
1 Like
What an idiotic uneducated take. To say James Hansen’s thoughts on this is to be ignored is akin to all the climate change denier wackos out there