New study refutes climate-change alarm

Our primary goal should be reducing pollution, even if you don't take climate change seriously - pollution (wherever it is) is always problem. Increasing pollution will eventually decrease our chances to keep this planet habitable. Careless ignorance isn't helping any of us if we just keep messing up all over the place called Earth. Arguing is just waste of time, not gonna help - we need wisdom to make good decision, reduce waste as much as possible. Current path is suicidal.

 

In that case, why are you still fighting and denying?

The private sector is now driving the trend to renewables.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/energy...aper-than-running-existing-coal/#5a19b49731f3

100 % of new electric generating capacity in the United States in the last two years came from wind and solar. In addition to that, wind and solar replaced 100% of the nuclear, coal, and gas power that was retired during that same period.

The world's auto industry is committed to the switch to electric cars.

So, your last line of retreat in the ideologically (and oil driven) has closed.

 

Since you cited no facts and do not support your claims, and since I refuted every single one of your outdated claims, you don't have a leg to stand on with that dishonest denial.

You can't make a case for your backward world view.

I expect you'll be doing the denial thing right up to the day you buy your first electric car.

 

Thanks for the example of conspiracy ideation. You are ideal.

 

Yeah, I don't understand why there's so much pushback by conservatives against renewables. Ignoring the climate change aspect, it's still a good idea to start transitioning away from pollutive fossil fuels. Well, I think I understand: liberals are for renewables, liberals suck, so therefore renewables suck. It's the laziest kind of thinking, but I suspect that's where a lot of conservatives are mentally at the moment.

 

There is no provision for excuses in the federal doctrine.

 

Very fast but far too expensive and impractical because it costs four times as much and only has half the driving range of the Vette (that we are considering) before needing a twelve hour recharge.

 

And yet they are taking over the market

Especially in Asia

 

I didn't deny anything. I just want government to do less. I don't want it involved in this issue. Have you seen the green new deal? That isn't a private sector program. I wrote nothing about oil. Just federal government.

 

What conspiracy would you be referring to.

Not only was your resonse obtuse, it made no sense.

You make it up, spew it out, and claim you have the facts (while never providing a single on, or a single back up of any sort). Instead of defending your positions with actual arguments and facts, you repeat phrases you heard on talk radio shows like "consipracy ideation". I guess you think this makes you look clever, dispite the fact that it's obvious to anyone that it's a weak attempt to avoid admitting you don't have any facts to back your claims.

The future is fast approaching, and even folks like you will be there (dragged kicking and screaming, if your posts are any indication).

 

Do you think the earth's climate change cycle will stop if the planet switched to renewable energy overnight?

 

Thanks for being forward about the point that this is an opinion by Breitbart. It saves me the time in finding out for myself that this is from a source that is widely recognized to be biased and controversial.

Please tell us all why climate change has to be such a conspiratorial issue.

 

Ludicrous is the word you use the describe anyone who talks about buying a Corvette who talks about anything else being 'impractical". Corvettes have never been practical. They're expensive boy toys. They aren't known for structural integrity safety versatility or (especially) reliability.

You dismiss a four seat vehicle as less "practical" than a two seater.

Your claims about driving range are almost certainly false.

Nor does a Tesla, even with the Ludicrous package, cost four times as much as any Corvette, even the base one. But we know you made all that up anyway.

I know Tesla owners and Vette owners. I have never known a Corvette owner in thirty years who used their car as a daily ride. They're just too impractical and cumbersome. They also live in the shop and have done since the 1960's.

Tesla owners, on the other hand, always use their cars as daily drivers, as they are practical, comfortable, and very very reliable.

BTW, are you thinking about buying the last of the C07's (the last one will be built in June), or the new center engined C08?

 

still staring in your mirror?

 

Nice try but it's not an opinion piece.

Brietbart is just reporting their findings since no lefty news outlet will.

 

Yikes. We got a hardcore one right here. Watch out!

 

Are you faulting their peer-reviewed scientific study in some way?

 

I'm saying it's from Breitbart. Therefore it is trash.

 

The study is not from Brietbart, I showed you that it was from researchers at the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research who published their findings in the journal Science Advances.

Brietbart did not create their findings, they simply posted them and commented on them.

So once again, what parts of their findings do you disagree with?

 

Other than "because the title on my wingnut media blog says so", in what way does any of that "refute" AGW?

I read the article, and there is nothing in it that contradicts AGW. So .... what gives?

They even try to pass off a Breitbart editor as an.... expert in Climatology????

Did you read it?

 

Everything in Brightfart is an opinion piece. And much of it is false or deliberately misleading.

The Times said no such thing. First of all, it was an opinion piece from one of their commentators. Second, it did not say what the Breitbart headline claims it did. But that’s a standard Bretbart tactic.

They know their audience isn’t either smart enough or curious enough to fact check them, as long as the trash talk sounds like what the audience already thinks.

 

No it isn't.

Would you like the same information from Thinkprogress, the most liberal organization on the planet who are saying the same thing based on this study?

Last time CO2 levels were this high, sea levels were 60 feet higher and Antarctica had trees

https://thinkprogress.org/carbon-dioxide-levels-sea-antarctica-b435497e1266/

So are you now going to claim that Thinkprogress is lying also?

 

It is. The title is an opinion that comes from the part of the article that says...

Nolte doesn’t buy it.

“No, actually, what this study proves is that...​

Nolte is a Breitbart editor, BTW. Which doesn't matter. But what does matter is that it's an opinion.

The fact that there have been CO2 levels this high... and higher.... dozens of times in the past is irrelevant. Each one of those times this has had a different cause. What is relevant is that\this time the cause is human activity. And that, unlike 3 million years ago, this time we're the ones who are here to suffer the consequences.