I still work long hours and it does not take long to post a link. Neither does it take long to find appropriate studies especially if you use google scholar
https://www.star.nesdis.noaa.gov/sod/lsa/SeaLevelRise/ Because no one at NOAA knows what they are doing
I don't claim to know. But I do believe that when the overwhelming majority of climate scientists in the world tend to think AGW is real that their opinion is a lot more credible than most if not every poster on this forum. And I doubt the fact that the many foreign countries that believe in AGW are being bought by the conspiracies that some of our more conspiracy minded posters are pushing as relates to global warming
Sadly, I also sometimes wonder if part of the opposition stems from a misunderstanding of what "secular" means in this context.
Literally everything you wrote is false. Germany is NOT the country with the biggest share of renewable energy. It still gets 2/3 of its power from coal, gas, oil and nuclear. There are dozens of countries ahead of it in terms of renewable energy, including a dozen or so that get 90% or more of their energy from renewable sources. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_electricity_production_from_renewable_sources Meanwhile, Germany isn't even the most expensive electricity in Europe (that would be Denmark), much less the world. And over half of what consumers pay for electricity is taxes and other fees, and has nothing to do with the actual cost of generation. https://1-stromvergleich.com/power-price-germany-electricity/ Even further, Germany is a wealthy nation, so things cost more. Measured as a percentage of household income, Bulgaria has the most expensive energy in Europe. Germany is middle-of-the-pack. https://1-stromvergleich.com/medien/strompreis-einkommen-vergleich-400x235.png Further, electrical production is only a fraction of overall energy use, so you're trying to compare apples to oranges. Not to mention, you seem to view the price of electricity as the only valid measure, ignoring environmental or national security concerns. If all you've got is lies, you're done.
Look up developed nations, they only ones that can afford the high price of renewables. Germany 35 US cents/kwh, Denmark 33 US cents/kwh.
You're pulling that from Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_pricing#Price_comparison That compares 2015 Denmark prices to 2017 Germany prices. Does that seem valid to you? Here's a 2017 comparison of prices within the EU: https://medium.com/solardao/electricity-cost-by-country-europe-660c2741d5d Up until 2017, Denmark was the most expensive. As of 2017, Denmark and Germany are tied, followed closely by Belgium, Ireland and Spain. And let me remind you of the four caveats you wish to ignore: -- That's absolute cost, not share of income. When you consider household income, energy prices in Germany are average for the EU. -- It ignores the fact that more than half of the rate is made of up taxes and fees, not the underlying cost of production -- Electrical production is only one part of a nation's total energy consumption -- By focusing on electrical rates, you are assuming that is the most important measure, ignoring other concerns such as the environment or national security And bullshit on the "only developed countries can afford renewables." Look at the list I gave you, ranking countries by their share of renewable energy generation. Is Congo a "developed country"? Namibia? Tajikistan? If you want to focus only on wind and solar, you get countries like Uruguay and Costa Rica as the leaders in terms of share of total production. And you get countries like India as one of the top producers in terms of total gigawatts. Within the EU, the country with the most renewable energy is Iceland. It also happens to have one of the lowest electrical rates. Same with Albania, Norway, Austria and Croatia. They all have much higher share of renewables than Germany, and have middle-to-low electrical rates. I repeat: your original post was completely false. Please stop.
Really, @iamanonman, I'm at a loss to understand what prompts you to Like a post that is so utterly devoid of anything resembling intelligent criticism of anything I said.
The post contained a link to a website ran by people who actually measure sea level using radio altimetry. There is information on how it's done and they have a citation page with around 100 references. I learned a lot from it and am still learning a lot from it.
Swell, as long as it's understood that it did not contain any intelligent critcism of anything I said.
Outside of politically motivated special interest groups or publicly funded indoctrination centers? Not likely, the fraud runs deep...
that's all the science illiterates have, they can't argue the science because they don't understand it and the entire scientific world is against them...so they deflect, run and or when cornered fall back on conspiracies...
It is not a conspiracy but a number of issues. One, there are some very public scientists who, if proven wrong have a lot to lose. This is normal in science and one of the reasons erroneous paths often hang on for a long time. Educational institutions have a great deal of interest in government investment but the investment has strings. The strings often find their way to the scientist. The current IPCC was formed by governments and initially did some unbiased reporting in AR1 but that changed radically as the fame and fortune arrived through government funding specifically to prove that CO2 is a control knob for the climate. The reports are not written by the scientists but by a small group in coordination with the governments involved. The reports are written specifically for government and the governments have the last say what is in or out of the reports. Peer review, often called pal review, has proven to have many negative issues and most papers do not stand the test of time. A professor is required to write a specific amount of papers, a negative incentive since it does not really matter what is in the paper as long as it gets published and referenced. In some cases the references are the same scientists previous papers. There is no conspiracy but a perfect storm of money, ego, and intransigence due to the previous.
Hardly. Its pretty simple, too many morons bought into the hoax years and years ago. Decades later none of the predictions have come true, in fact some trends are completely the opposite. Now those folks are all in, otherwise they have to admit they are wrong. Don't you folks remember the holes in the ozone? Somehow those were mysteriously repaired, humanity still doesn't understand how it happened as quickly as it did. Thinking we are tinkering or effecting the climate with our petty actions is the height of arrogance and ignorance...
You're proposing a conspiracy theory of a scope and depth that is absolutely and totally impossible to accomplish. There is no way to coordinate the scientific results of physics, chemistry and biology as related to climate for all science throughout the world in a way to derive a false result. Let's try to be serious.
Spouting alleged magical knowledge while also being ignorant is the height of arrogance. So you know this because what, god told you?
