We Just Breached the 410 Parts Per Million Threshold

In a way by the US imposing restrictive energy and economic policies more goods are purchased from countries which emit far more CO2 than we would.

Once again the liberal CO2 alarmists have taken action which actually results in more CO2 emissions overall. Their policies have again resulted in the opposite of what they hoped to achieve. But their hearts are in the right place and the party of goodness cannot be blamed.

 

so cut down all the forests then?

 

How did you derive that conclusion from what I said?

 

That's right, we move industrial production from places with regulation to places without regulation, plus we then add the transport CO2 to bring the products to market.

You can't even see a logic for governments to look at it this way, it would only adversely affect their own country's GDP.

Who it does help is actually the manufacturers who can shift their production sites. They don't have to comply with the CO2 regs.

 

because plants are what actually consume co2.. and you want to cut the consumption..

 

Sometimes, you just have to love the paparazzi. Former president Obama found himself under a teensie little bit of scrutiny after our vultures with cameras documented his arrival at a climate conference in Milan. What made it most notable was his use of a private plane to get him there, and a convoy of some 14 SUVs, police escort vehicles, etc to rush him through the Italian city's crowded streets causing a massive traffic jam and further thumbing his privileged nose at conservation to then bully pulpit his demands for the less privileged to be controlled so they don't "add further" to the CO2 "problem"...

Of course, his little trip generated more actual footprint than the average Italian family for a year, but who's counting....

 

Lucky it wasn't Trump and family. Ten times the CO2.

 

Laughable. How does one expect to be credible when they so publicly thumb their noses at actually being conservative? If we have to conserve, why must only the proletariat be the ones who suffer through being conservational? What level of hubris must one have to so publicly flaunt their over consumption?

 

Trump and family espouse consumption, not conservation. They haven't discovered how to skim from conservation.

 

Who cares? The conversation isn't about the Trumps. It's about the guy (Obama) who thinks that it's his job to demand the rest of us conserve. This isn't hard. Why so unwilling to address the question and work so vigorously to deflect from the conversation?

 

So, your theory is that "Obama has to drop his security detail and bicycle around the globe, otherwise he's not allowed to talk about global warming".

That's absurd, and any grownup should be ashamed to say something so absurd.

The topic that you're trying to deflect from is the science. The topic is not your strawman. Why are you so unwilling to address the actual topic, and why do you work so vigorously to deflect from the conversation?

We rational people don't demand anyone give up technology. That's just a big whopper that almost all deniers depend on. You deniers being dishonest doesn't make us look like hypocrites, it only makes you look bad.

 

What science?

You demand my money in exchange for nothing.

Well may be not for nothing but for promoting quackery as science.

But thievery and deception is not science.

The science is that CO2 has been pumped into the air and nothing negative has happened.

Less droughts, less flooding and less destructive hurricanes are only positive, though there is no reason to think that is caused by CO2.

The science tells that we safely can continue to pump up CO2 at this rate.

 

Climate science. You know, physics, chemistry, stuff like that.

Huh? What are you talking about?

I agree. That's why I criticize deniers, as everything they do is dishonest and fraudulent, and the policies they push pick my pocket and wreck the environment.

The temperature has risen. That's had negative effects. That's not disputable.

Pretty much every economist in the world, except for one, disagrees with that claim strongly. Are the economists part of a socialist plot too? Maybe it would be quicker if you just named who on earth wasn't part of the VastSecretGlobalSocialistPlot.

 

Your ilk is not demanding my money in exchange for nothing?

Except for promoting quackery science?

Really?

 

The temperature has risen?

And what is about humidity?

And what is about heat content?

The temperature of has risen according to quackery calculations and measurements?

Do you think if you have no clue what is temperature how to measure it nobody does?

Temperature of what?

Fake science with fake measurements of fake values.

 

So nobody broken it to you that your conspiracy theories don't represent reality?

I know if the whole planet disagreed with me, I wouldn't proudly declare how the whole planet was wrong because I read something on a blog. Not being consumed with narcissism or paranoia, I would very strongly consider that I really was wrong. And if I was going to declare the whole world was wrong, I'd be damn sure to knew the topic down to the last detail, and I'd work especially hard at reading what the other side has to say, with an open mind.

Deniers do none of that. Reality doesn't match their politics, so they say reality is wrong. Simple as that.

 

Yes.

Relative humidity is about constant, so absolute humidity has increased. That follows the increase in temperature. It's one of the positive feedbacks.

What about it?

The temperature has risen according to hard data. If you're going to deny hard data, there's no point in talking with you.

Huh?

People who have the science backing them up don't have to resort to conspiracy crankery.

 

Every economist in the world?

I am sorry, there is some common sense.

Less hurricanes then ever,

Less floods,

Less droughts,

Not even single climate has shown any sign of any change,

Just pointing to fake measurements by quackery scientists saying that temperature nobody knows of what and nobody knows when increased by nobody knows what number, you are telling me every economist in the world agrees something negative has happened?

Do you know what is a solution for such a problem?

Put each and every economist in a mental institution and each and every climate scientist in jail.

Or on the street to beg for a change.

I may give a dollar.

Just because I am a kind man.

 

As usual a lot of tantrum, and foaming.

And not even a word to address the questions:

Your ilk is not demanding my money in exchange for nothing?

Except for promoting quackery science?

Really?

 

What hard data can even potentially be there when quackery scientists don't know what is temperature and how it is measured and compared?

What hard data can even potentially be there if quackery scientists don't know what warming has to do to heat content?

And of what?

And since what time it is measured in units of temperature?


What conspiracy do quackery climate scientists see in basic and simple questions?

 

The science is clear. Climate sensitivity to CO2 is ~ 1 deg C and warming of ~ 3 deg C (which will not be reached for ~ 200 years) is net beneficial. Why then implement policies which cause regressive economic harm. That is the rational appraisal of global warming base on data.

 

Laughable. The fact that what mr Obama is doing fundamentally abuses the climate, all my himself, is justified by you because his "mission" requires all of his hangerons and "protection" to do so? It's utterly laughable. The real message here is that mr Obama shouildn't ride a bike because he needs protection, but the rest of us must because he and you have to feel good about the necessity to damage the environment because of his exulted status?

Utterly, entirely, laughable.

 

The only person demanding everyone swear off technology is .... you.

If you want to live in a cave and hug trees, go do it. The rest of us enjoy electricity and technology, which is why we're workin to make that technology sustainable indefinitely.

You, OTOH, are working for a new dark age. Regardless of global warming, fossil fuels and uranium will eventually run out. It's either renewable energy or mankind shivering in the dark, and you're choosing the latter.

 

We've been over this before. That's complete fiction. Transient climate sensitivity is already over 2.0C, and equilibrium climate sensitivity has to be much higher.

And again, we've been over this before. Only one single economist says that, and you know that. Pretending that single man's opinion represents the whole field of economists is not honest. The rest of the economists all says the warming will be very harmful to the world economy, and that mitigating it will save money. That is the rational appraisal based on data.

 

Stalin favored the same policies that you do for scientists who did science that was inconvenient to TheParty.

Does it bother you, knowing you push Stalinist policies, or does it thrill you, knowing you'll get accolades from the cult for doing so?