Commercial fusion is decades away. We have to reduce CO2 emissions now to avoid an even greater catastrophe. An escalating carbon tax is the best way to to do this.
Even the Pope sides with Futurecurrents
- Thread starter nitro
- Start date
Commercial fusion is decades away. We have to reduce CO2 emissions now to avoid an even greater catastrophe. An escalating carbon tax is the best way to to do this.
So you STILL do not what a greenhouse gas is.
Look it's simple. CO2 is earth's most important greenhouse gas. Without the earth would be much colder. Man's activitie have raised level by 40%. This the GHG effect has gone up and therefor temps have also gone up and will go much higher. How high depends on how well we reduce GHG emissions.
It's 2+2. It's simple logic. It's observed.
absolutely is a horrendous mis representation of the study you posted or incredibly willful ignorance.
You never presented such a thing. There is no HFGW finding to any confidence levels because you can't put confidence intervals around something that has never been found by science. There is no science showing man made co2 causes warming.
You cited a study that had a model or projection that assumed x amount of co2 created Y rise in temperature... then it put confidence intervals around its projections. I hope you understand that is nothing like what you just claimed about 95%.
Why lie?
--
re: that study that co2 lags ocean temps would not be an extraneous correlation.
the science records show that co2 lags change in ocean temps and the correlation is very strong. How could any study claim that co2 was causing their findings and not change in ocean temps.
and I note... from reading these stories for years.... had they done so that would have been the headline and set them up for scientific accolades and prizes.
You never presented such a thing. There is no HFGW finding to any confidence levels because you can't put confidence intervals around something that has never been found by science. There is no science showing man made co2 causes warming.
You cited a study that had a model or projection that assumed x amount of co2 created Y rise in temperature... then it put confidence intervals around its projections. I hope you understand that is nothing like what you just claimed about 95%.
Why lie?
--
re: that study that co2 lags ocean temps would not be an extraneous correlation.
the science records show that co2 lags change in ocean temps and the correlation is very strong. How could any study claim that co2 was causing their findings and not change in ocean temps.
and I note... from reading these stories for years.... had they done so that would have been the headline and set them up for scientific accolades and prizes.
Last edited:
Looks like freon peddler FC will shortly be unemployed...
'Monumental' deal to cut HFCs, fastest growing and most dangerous greenhouse gases
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-37665529
More than 150 countries have reached a deal described as "monumental" to phase out gases that are making global warming worse.
Hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) are widely used in fridges, air conditioning and aerosol sprays.
Delegates meeting in Rwanda accepted a complex amendment to the Montreal Protocol that will see richer countries cut back their HFC use from 2019.
But some critics say the compromise may have less impact than expected.
Three-way deal
US Secretary of State John Kerry, who helped forge the deal in a series of meetings in the Rwandan capital, said it was a major victory for the Earth.
"It's a monumental step forward, that addresses the needs of individual nations but it will give us the opportunity to reduce the warming of the planet by an entire half a degree centigrade," he told BBC News.
(more at above url)
Looks like FC will need to find a new career field. He should search for something he is well-qualified for. Can I suggest a job as a paid troll for climate change alarmism on Internet forums or cleaning up the retarded parrot cages at the local zoo.
'Monumental' deal to cut HFCs, fastest growing and most dangerous greenhouse gases
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-37665529
More than 150 countries have reached a deal described as "monumental" to phase out gases that are making global warming worse.
Hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) are widely used in fridges, air conditioning and aerosol sprays.
Delegates meeting in Rwanda accepted a complex amendment to the Montreal Protocol that will see richer countries cut back their HFC use from 2019.
But some critics say the compromise may have less impact than expected.
Three-way deal
US Secretary of State John Kerry, who helped forge the deal in a series of meetings in the Rwandan capital, said it was a major victory for the Earth.
"It's a monumental step forward, that addresses the needs of individual nations but it will give us the opportunity to reduce the warming of the planet by an entire half a degree centigrade," he told BBC News.
(more at above url)
Looks like FC will need to find a new career field. He should search for something he is well-qualified for. Can I suggest a job as a paid troll for climate change alarmism on Internet forums or cleaning up the retarded parrot cages at the local zoo.
The reaction that will change the world: it would give us clean fossil fuels forever
Crack natural gas into its constituent atoms and you can burn it without producing CO2 – giving us green energy without all the pain of renewables
Jack Hudson
By Jon Cartwright
SCARRED landscapes, billowing smoke, seabirds writhing in liquorice gloop: there’s no denying fossil fuels have an image problem. That’s before we even start to factor in the grave risk continuing to burn them poses to Earth’s climate. But what’s the alternative? Nuclear is expensive, renewables are unreliable, and we are a long way from making batteries that could power our fuel-hungry lifestyles. Realistically, we are going to be reliant on fossil fuels for a while yet.
What we need is a way to exploit them without emitting any planet-warming carbon dioxide. Alberto Abánades thinks he has the answer. He isn’t a PR man for the fossil fuel industry, and nor does he have anything to do with various schemes to capture and bury carbon emissions after the event. He and his research team think they have cracked the problem using chemistry alone. By simply changing the way we liberate the energy trapped inside natural gas molecules, we can have all the benefits of fossil fuels – and none of the guilt. Too good to be true?
It’s easy to see why we love fossil fuels. For a start, they are cheap and abundant. Discoveries of new resources and extraction techniques such as fracking mean reports of “peak oil” always seem exaggerated. They are reliable, too – you can shovel coal or pipe gas into a power station when the sky is cloudy or the wind’s not blowing. And they can be portable – simply fill a car tank with petrol and you are good to go.
“It’s easy to see why we love fossil fuels – they’re cheap, abundant and reliable“ ...
https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg23230940-200-crack-methane-for-fossil-fuels-without-tears/
Crack natural gas into its constituent atoms and you can burn it without producing CO2 – giving us green energy without all the pain of renewables
Jack Hudson
By Jon Cartwright
SCARRED landscapes, billowing smoke, seabirds writhing in liquorice gloop: there’s no denying fossil fuels have an image problem. That’s before we even start to factor in the grave risk continuing to burn them poses to Earth’s climate. But what’s the alternative? Nuclear is expensive, renewables are unreliable, and we are a long way from making batteries that could power our fuel-hungry lifestyles. Realistically, we are going to be reliant on fossil fuels for a while yet.
What we need is a way to exploit them without emitting any planet-warming carbon dioxide. Alberto Abánades thinks he has the answer. He isn’t a PR man for the fossil fuel industry, and nor does he have anything to do with various schemes to capture and bury carbon emissions after the event. He and his research team think they have cracked the problem using chemistry alone. By simply changing the way we liberate the energy trapped inside natural gas molecules, we can have all the benefits of fossil fuels – and none of the guilt. Too good to be true?
It’s easy to see why we love fossil fuels. For a start, they are cheap and abundant. Discoveries of new resources and extraction techniques such as fracking mean reports of “peak oil” always seem exaggerated. They are reliable, too – you can shovel coal or pipe gas into a power station when the sky is cloudy or the wind’s not blowing. And they can be portable – simply fill a car tank with petrol and you are good to go.
“It’s easy to see why we love fossil fuels – they’re cheap, abundant and reliable“ ...
https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg23230940-200-crack-methane-for-fossil-fuels-without-tears/
futurecurrents is an eco terrorists and comes here and lectures us about co2.
only a leftist drone could do that without apology.
then another, agw nutter produces co2 for a living.
Then nitro who sort of holds himself out as a man of science, but may not be, misrepresents the science and claims something about confidence intervals. When called on this argument for the second time he just ignores it.
On the skeptical side I know at least a few of the posters have claimed to be real scientists.
only a leftist drone could do that without apology.
then another, agw nutter produces co2 for a living.
Then nitro who sort of holds himself out as a man of science, but may not be, misrepresents the science and claims something about confidence intervals. When called on this argument for the second time he just ignores it.
On the skeptical side I know at least a few of the posters have claimed to be real scientists.
Last edited:
from your very interesting article... so I wonder if future currents and company are going to say these papers are lies.
this projected decrease looks powerful but short.
hopefully man made co2 can keep us a bit warmer and the world a little more green and wet than it would have been. otherwise we could be in trouble.
this projected decrease looks powerful but short.
hopefully man made co2 can keep us a bit warmer and the world a little more green and wet than it would have been. otherwise we could be in trouble.
Last edited:
No No! It's not changing! It's a consipiracy theory from Barack Obama!