Keep global warming under 1.5C or 'quarter of planet could become arid'

You're asking for everyone to abandon the best theory we have for no theory at all. AGW isn't perfect, but it is useful. And it's made some pretty remarkable predictions that have been verified.

In other words, how is zero correct predictions better than many correct predictions?

It's no skin off my back if you can't see it's utility, but if you want me to abandon it then you're going to have to present an alternative that works better.

 

WITHOUT DOUBLE STANDARDS THEY WOULDN’T HAVE ANY STANDARDS AT ALL: Environmentalist Millionaire Candidate Heavily Invested in Fossil Fuels.

Millionaire congressional hopeful Dean Phillips invested as much as $2 million in energy companies even as he criticized Rep. Erik Paulsen (R., Minn.) for supporting fossil fuel development.

Phillips, a Minnesota liquor heir, is campaigning as an environmentalist in a bid to win a crowded Democratic primary and unseat Paulsen, a five-term congressman. He has supported a massive carbon tax as well as a shift away from automobiles to cut down on emissions.

“I care about the environment and I’d like to see fewer cars burning fossil fuels,” he said at a May townhall with voters. “Anybody who argues that a carbon tax would kill jobs is simply, fundamentally misguided.”

Phillips’s financial records show that the environmentally conscious candidate has no problem profiting off of automakers and fossil fuels. He has invested between $780,000 and $2 million in energy companies and major car companies. He held stocks valued between $65,000 and $150,000 in Energy Transfer Partners, owners of the Dakota Access Pipeline that has inspired numerous protests and arrests from radical environmental activists.

Well, what else is he supposed to do now that the “clean” energy crony bonanza is drying up?

 

I will accept the challenge:

Venus is a classic example climate scientists evoke to prove that CO2 causes a planet warming and it is a classic proof that climate scientists are charlatans and scumbags whether they argue for or against GW.


The assumption that all planets started at equal mass, equal composition, equal mode of motion and at equal time is absolutely bogus like each and every statement made by NASA, NOAA, NAS and IPCC.


Venus has not been warming.


Understand?


There is a huge difference between the state of being hot and the state of being warming.


Understand?


The climate scientists, NASA, NOAA, NAS and IPCC count that these simple facts can never be understood by minds brainwashed and indoctrinated in schools and colleges.


Venus is another proof of the simple truth that if you change all Earth atmosphere to 100% CO2 the mean of temperatures of weather stations will remain the same, the Earth will remain as hot as it was, it will not be warming,


because,


CO2 or aerosols are not sources of heat, not heat sinks, they are not producing/consuming mechanical work and there is no way to heat or cool anything without at least one of these 3 things.


This is the law of nature, science, the 1st beginning of thermodynamics, dQ=dU+dW, sanity.


The climate scientists, NASA, NOAA, NAS and IPCC count that the underlined sentence can never be understood less accepted by minds brainwashed and indoctrinated in schools and colleges.


Everything about GW/CC is based on illiteracy, ignorance, obscurantism, everything in each and every turn and move is an absolute insanity.

Any questions?

 

Now you will be asked why “everyone” should abandon the best “theory” “we” have for no theory at all.

The adepts of the cult of GW/CC will never accept the notion that “theory” which has no more reality and science in it than a theory of Flying Spaghetti Monster living under their bed should be abandoned completely and immediately, no dime, no penny of public money should be given to crooks and charlatans to promote it.

 

1. Spoke as a real fanatic.
2. http://politicalforum.com/index.php...ld-become-arid.522744/page-22#post-1068601075
3. Here you are correct: that is what they teach in schools and colleges.
As soon as GW/CC theory flies they will teach the theory of Flying Spaghetti Monsters living under everyone's bed.
There is not so much difference between the former and the latter.

The fact is that Einstein explained that his Theory of Relativity was true because "it comes to a far reaching agreement" with Newton's mechanics.
The fact is that we sent people to orbits using Newton's mechanics.
The fact is that any theory which is done according to rules of natural sciences "stands true or nearly true" forever, and only "can be made more accurate or liable to exclusions."

But who cares about the facts?

 

Sure, one is dT/dt = 0 and the other is dT/dt > 0. But to go from T to T+X it necessitates that dT/dt > 0 at some point in time. Scientists believe that Venus started at a lower temperature at some point in the past and has a higher temperature now. That means Venus warmed up. It is believed that CO2 played a huge role.

 

I did not say Newton mechanics does not work or is inaccurate. I said his vision of space-time was fully accepted for over 100 years but proved incorrect.

 

Look a little closer.

 

I'm not asking anyone to abandon a damn thing. I merely point out that what you're selling doesn't perform as advertized.

You have failed to cite any that inspire confidence in the reasonable observer. Atmospheric scientists may find "remarkable" accurate predictions of spatial temp gradients, but no way in the world does that make credible any predictions about global temps decades down the road.

Wrong question, obviously. Here's the right question: what good are correct predictions that do not demonstrate a cause-effect relationship between CO2 increase and global warming?

Cat gotcher tongue?

 

Sure,

https://science2017.globalchange.gov/chapter/2/#section-6

2.3.2 Anthropogenic Drivers
PRINCIPAL WELL-MIXED GREENHOUSE GASES (WMGHGs)

The principal WMGHGs are carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), and nitrous oxide (N2O). With atmospheric lifetimes of a decade to a century or more, these gases have modest-to-small regional variabilities and are circulated and mixed around the globe to yield small interhemispheric gradients. The atmospheric abundances and associated radiative forcings of WMGHGs have increased substantially over the industrial era (Figures 2.4–2.6). Contributions from natural sources of these constituents are accounted for in the industrial-era RF calculations shown in Figure 2.6.


Figure 2.4



Atmospheric concentrations of CO2 (top), CH4 (middle), and N2O (bottom) over the last 800,000 years (left panels) and for 1750–2015 (right panels). Measurements are shown from ice cores (symbols with different colors for different studies) and for direct atmospheric measurements (red lines). (Adapted from IPCC 2007,IPCC, 2007: Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. S. Solomon, D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Averyt, M. Tignor, and H.L. Miller, Eds. Cambridge University Press, 996 pp. URL https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicat...s-atmospheric-concentrations-greenhouse-gases).




Figure 2.5



(a) Radiative forcing (RF) from the major WMGHGs and groups of halocarbons (Others) from 1850 to 2011; (b) the data in (a) with a logarithmic scale; (c) RFs from the minor WMGHGs from 1850 to 2011 (logarithmic scale); (d) the annual rate of change ([W/m2]/year) in forcing from the major WMGHGs and halocarbons from 1850 to 2011. (Figure source: Myhre et al. 2013,G. Myhre, D. Shindell, F.-M. Bréon, W. Collins, J. Fuglestvedt, J. Huang, D. Koch, J.-F. Lamarque, D. Lee, B. Mendoza, T. Nakajima, A. Robock, G. Stephens, T. Takemura, and H. Zhang, 2013: Anthropogenic and natural radiative forcing. T.F. Stocker, D. Qin, G.-K. Plattner, M. Tignor, S.K. Allen, J. Boschung, A. Nauels, Y. Xia, V. Bex, and P.M. Midgley, Eds., Cambridge University Press, 659–740. URL
Figure 2.6



Time evolution in effective radiative forcings (ERFs) across the industrial era for anthropogenic and natural forcing mechanisms. The terms contributing to cumulative totals of positive and negative ERF are shown with colored regions. The terms are labeled in order on the right-hand side with positive ERFs above the zero line and negative ERFs below the zero line. The forcings from black-carbon-on-snow and contrail terms are grouped together into a single term in the plot. Also shown are the cumulative sum of all forcings (Total; black dashed line) and of anthropogenic-only forcings (Total Anthropogenic; red dashed line). Uncertainties in 2011 ERF values are shown in the original figure (Myhre et al. 2013,G. Myhre, D. Shindell, F.-M. Bréon, W. Collins, J. Fuglestvedt, J. Huang, D. Koch, J.-F. Lamarque, D. Lee, B. Mendoza, T. Nakajima, A. Robock, G. Stephens, T. Takemura, and H. Zhang, 2013: Anthropogenic and natural radiative forcing. T.F. Stocker, D. Qin, G.-K. Plattner, M. Tignor, S.K. Allen, J. Boschung, A. Nauels, Y. Xia, V. Bex, and P.M. Midgley, Eds., Cambridge University Press, 659–740. URL G. Myhre, D. Shindell, F.-M. Bréon, W. Collins, J. Fuglestvedt, J. Huang, D. Koch, J.-F. Lamarque, D. Lee, B. Mendoza, T. Nakajima, A. Robock, G. Stephens, T. Takemura, and H. Zhang, 2013: Anthropogenic and natural radiative forcing. T.F. Stocker, D. Qin, G.-K. Plattner, M. Tignor, S.K. Allen, J. Boschung, A. Nauels, Y. Xia, V. Bex, and P.M. Midgley, Eds., Cambridge University Press, 659–740. URL G. Myhre, D. Shindell, F.-M. Bréon, W. Collins, J. Fuglestvedt, J. Huang, D. Koch, J.-F. Lamarque, D. Lee, B. Mendoza, T. Nakajima, A. Robock, G. Stephens, T. Takemura, and H. Zhang, 2013: Anthropogenic and natural radiative forcing. T.F. Stocker, D. Qin, G.-K. Plattner, M. Tignor, S.K. Allen, J. Boschung, A. Nauels, Y. Xia, V. Bex, and P.M. Midgley, Eds., Cambridge University Press, 659–740. URL Figure 2.7). CO2 emission sources have grown in the industrial era primarily from fossil fuel combustion (that is, coal, gas, and oil), cement manufacturing, and land-use change from activities such as deforestation.Ciais, P., C. Sabine, G. Bala, L. Bopp, V. Brovkin, J. Canadell, A. Chhabra, R. DeFries, J. Galloway, M. Heimann, C. Jones, C. Le Quéré, R. B. Myneni, S. Piao, and P. Thornton, 2013: Carbon and other biogeochemical cycles. T.F. Stocker, D. Qin, G.-K. Plattner, M. Tignor, S.K. Allen, J. Boschung, A. Nauels, Y. Xia, V. Bex, and P.M. Midgley, Eds., Cambridge University Press, 465–570. URL Xi, F., S. J. Davis, P. Ciais, D. Crawford-Brown, D. Guan, C. Pade, T. Shi, M. Syddall, J. Lv, L. Ji, L. Bing, J. Wang, W. Wei, K.-H. Yang, B. Lagerblad, I. Galan, C. Andrade, Y. Zhang, and Z. Liu, 2016: Substantial global carbon uptake by cement carbonation. Nature Geoscience, 9, 880–883, doi:10.1038/ngeo2840. Figure 2.4), with the increase in atmospheric CO2 approximately twice that absorbed by the oceans. Over at least the last 50 years, CO2 has shown the largest annual RF increases among all GHGs (Figures 2.4 and 2.5). The global average CO2 concentration has increased by 40% over the industrial era, increasing from 278 parts per million (ppm) in 1750 to 390 ppm in 2011;Ciais, P., C. Sabine, G. Bala, L. Bopp, V. Brovkin, J. Canadell, A. Chhabra, R. DeFries, J. Galloway, M. Heimann, C. Jones, C. Le Quéré, R. B. Myneni, S. Piao, and P. Thornton, 2013: Carbon and other biogeochemical cycles. T.F. Stocker, D. Qin, G.-K. Plattner, M. Tignor, S.K. Allen, J. Boschung, A. Nauels, Y. Xia, V. Bex, and P.M. Midgley, Eds., Cambridge University Press, 465–570. URL http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/). CO2 has been chosen as the reference in defining the global warming potential (GWP) of other GHGs and climate agents. The GWP of a GHG is the integrated RF over a specified time period (for example, 100 years) from the emission of a given mass of the GHG divided by the integrated RF from the same mass emission of CO2.


Figure 2.7
VIEW
The global mean methane concentration and RF have also grown substantially in the industrial era (Figures 2.4 and 2.5). Methane is a stronger GHG than CO2 for the same emission mass and has a shorter atmospheric lifetime of about 12 years. Methane also has indirect climate effects through induced changes in CO2, stratospheric water vapor, and ozone.Lelieveld, J., and P. J. Crutzen, 1992: Indirect chemical effects of methane on climate warming. Nature, 355, 339–342, doi:10.1038/355339a0. G. Myhre, D. Shindell, F.-M. Bréon, W. Collins, J. Fuglestvedt, J. Huang, D. Koch, J.-F. Lamarque, D. Lee, B. Mendoza, T. Nakajima, A. Robock, G. Stephens, T. Takemura, and H. Zhang, 2013: Anthropogenic and natural radiative forcing. T.F. Stocker, D. Qin, G.-K. Plattner, M. Tignor, S.K. Allen, J. Boschung, A. Nauels, Y. Xia, V. Bex, and P.M. Midgley, Eds., Cambridge University Press, 659–740. URL Ciais, P., C. Sabine, G. Bala, L. Bopp, V. Brovkin, J. Canadell, A. Chhabra, R. DeFries, J. Galloway, M. Heimann, C. Jones, C. Le Quéré, R. B. Myneni, S. Piao, and P. Thornton, 2013: Carbon and other biogeochemical cycles. T.F. Stocker, D. Qin, G.-K. Plattner, M. Tignor, S.K. Allen, J. Boschung, A. Nauels, Y. Xia, V. Bex, and P.M. Midgley, Eds., Cambridge University Press, 465–570. URL Ciais, P., C. Sabine, G. Bala, L. Bopp, V. Brovkin, J. Canadell, A. Chhabra, R. DeFries, J. Galloway, M. Heimann, C. Jones, C. Le Quéré, R. B. Myneni, S. Piao, and P. Thornton, 2013: Carbon and other biogeochemical cycles. T.F. Stocker, D. Qin, G.-K. Plattner, M. Tignor, S.K. Allen, J. Boschung, A. Nauels, Y. Xia, V. Bex, and P.M. Midgley, Eds., Cambridge University Press, 465–570. URL Figure 2.4) reflect the complexity of the methane budget.Ciais, P., C. Sabine, G. Bala, L. Bopp, V. Brovkin, J. Canadell, A. Chhabra, R. DeFries, J. Galloway, M. Heimann, C. Jones, C. Le Quéré, R. B. Myneni, S. Piao, and P. Thornton, 2013: Carbon and other biogeochemical cycles. T.F. Stocker, D. Qin, G.-K. Plattner, M. Tignor, S.K. Allen, J. Boschung, A. Nauels, Y. Xia, V. Bex, and P.M. Midgley, Eds., Cambridge University Press, 465–570. URL Saunois, M., R. B. Jackson, P. Bousquet, B. Poulter, and J. G. Canadell, 2016: The growing role of methane in anthropogenic climate change. Environmental Research Letters, 11, 120207, doi:10.1088/1748-9326/11/12/120207. Nisbet, E. G. et al., 2016: Rising atmospheric methane: 2007–2014 growth and isotopic shift. Global Biogeochemical Cycles, 30, 1356–1370, doi:10.1002/2016GB005406. Figure 2.4).Ciais, P., C. Sabine, G. Bala, L. Bopp, V. Brovkin, J. Canadell, A. Chhabra, R. DeFries, J. Galloway, M. Heimann, C. Jones, C. Le Quéré, R. B. Myneni, S. Piao, and P. Thornton, 2013: Carbon and other biogeochemical cycles. T.F. Stocker, D. Qin, G.-K. Plattner, M. Tignor, S.K. Allen, J. Boschung, A. Nauels, Y. Xia, V. Bex, and P.M. Midgley, Eds., Cambridge University Press, 465–570. URL Ciais, P., C. Sabine, G. Bala, L. Bopp, V. Brovkin, J. Canadell, A. Chhabra, R. DeFries, J. Galloway, M. Heimann, C. Jones, C. Le Quéré, R. B. Myneni, S. Piao, and P. Thornton, 2013: Carbon and other biogeochemical cycles. T.F. Stocker, D. Qin, G.-K. Plattner, M. Tignor, S.K. Allen, J. Boschung, A. Nauels, Y. Xia, V. Bex, and P.M. Midgley, Eds., Cambridge University Press, 465–570. URL G. Myhre, D. Shindell, F.-M. Bréon, W. Collins, J. Fuglestvedt, J. Huang, D. Koch, J.-F. Lamarque, D. Lee, B. Mendoza, T. Nakajima, A. Robock, G. Stephens, T. Takemura, and H. Zhang, 2013: Anthropogenic and natural radiative forcing. T.F. Stocker, D. Qin, G.-K. Plattner, M. Tignor, S.K. Allen, J. Boschung, A. Nauels, Y. Xia, V. Bex, and P.M. Midgley, Eds., Cambridge University Press, 659–740. URL Skiba, U. M., and R. M. Rees, 2014: Nitrous oxide, climate change and agriculture. CAB Reviews, 9, 7, doi:10.1079/PAVSNNR20149010. Ciais, P., C. Sabine, G. Bala, L. Bopp, V. Brovkin, J. Canadell, A. Chhabra, R. DeFries, J. Galloway, M. Heimann, C. Jones, C. Le Quéré, R. B. Myneni, S. Piao, and P. Thornton, 2013: Carbon and other biogeochemical cycles. T.F. Stocker, D. Qin, G.-K. Plattner, M. Tignor, S.K. Allen, J. Boschung, A. Nauels, Y. Xia, V. Bex, and P.M. Midgley, Eds., Cambridge University Press, 465–570. URL Fowler, D., M. Coyle, U. Skiba, M. A. Sutton, J. N. Cape, S. Reis, L. J. Sheppard, A. Jenkins, B. Grizzetti, J. N. Galloway, P. Vitousek, A. Leach, A. F. Bouwman, K. Butterbach-Bahl, F. Dentener, D. Stevenson, M. Amann, and M. Voss, 2013: The global nitrogen cycle in the twenty-first century. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 368, 20130164, doi:10.1098/rstb.2013.0164. ↩

" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: rgb(45, 86, 119); border-bottom: 0px !important;"> Furthermore, changes in climate parameters such as temperature, moisture, and CO2 concentrations are expected to affect the N2O budget in the future, and perhaps atmospheric concentrations.

 

Surely you don't expect me to wade through that in hopes of finding something relevant to anything I said.

 

Climate drivers of significance over the industrial era include both those associated with anthropogenic activity and, to a lesser extent, those of natural origin. The only significant natural climate drivers in the industrial era are changes in solar irradiance, volcanic eruptions, and the El Niño–Southern Oscillation. Natural emissions and sinks of GHGs and tropospheric aerosols have varied over the industrial era but have not contributed significantly to RF. The effects of cosmic rays on cloud formation have been studied, but global radiative effects are not considered significant.

Krissansen-Totton, J., and R. Davies, 2013: Investigation of cosmic ray–cloud connections using MISR. Geophysical Research Letters, 40, 5240–5245, doi:10.1002/grl.50996. ↩

" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); color: rgb(45, 86, 119); font-family: "Open Sans", "Helvetica Neue", Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; border-bottom: 0px !important;">There are other known drivers of natural origin that operate on longer time scales (for example, changes in Earth’s orbit [Milankovitch cycles] and changes in atmospheric CO2 via chemical weathering of rock). Anthropogenic drivers can be divided into a number of categories, including well-mixed greenhouse gases (WMGHGs), short-lived climate forcers (SLCFs, which include methane, some hydrofluorocarbons [HFCs], ozone, and aerosols), contrails, and changes in albedo (for example, land-use changes). Some WMGHGs are also considered SLCFs (for example, methane). Figures 2.3–2.7 summarize features of the principal climate drivers in the industrial era. Each is described briefly in the following.

2.3.2 Anthropogenic Drivers
PRINCIPAL WELL-MIXED GREENHOUSE GASES (WMGHGs)

The principal WMGHGs are carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), and nitrous oxide (N2O). With atmospheric lifetimes of a decade to a century or more, these gases have modest-to-small regional variabilities and are circulated and mixed around the globe to yield small interhemispheric gradients. The atmospheric abundances and associated radiative forcings of WMGHGs have increased substantially over the industrial era (Figures 2.4–2.6). Contributions from natural sources of these constituents are accounted for in the industrial-era RF calculations shown in Figure 2.6.

 

Next time you respond with a C&P, you're on my i-list.

 

You said and I quote "what good are correct predictions that do not demonstrate a cause-effect relationship between CO2 increase and global warming?". VanCleef's post is directly related to that. And he included dozens of citations to real experts doing real research. Note, the difference between his post and blogger posts who cherry-pick, omit, and flat out fraudulently mislead the lemmings who read that junk. If you are the audience of said propaganda you are getting brainwashed.

 

They are telling you CO2 is an anthropological driver for GW. Please do not get upset at me for your inability to understand their fact based report, which has not been been refuted.

Your job is to disprove their report and study with your own peer reviewed studies directly claiming the opposite.

I understand it can be frustrating that nearly an entire field of science disagrees with your fact-less speculation and opinion on the topic, but surely you have something to add.

 

Which isn't exactly saying it demonstrates anything, now is it?

Swell, you buy the medal, I'll pin it on him.

What the hell for? Am I supposed to be grading all this on a curve or something?

I do find it interesting, this penchant of yours for ignoring posts addressed to you in favor of posts addressed to others...

...well, except for that post to MrTLegal, which seems to interest nobody.

Which is nothing like what I asked for, obviously.

Next time you presume to tell me my job you're on my i-list.

 

If you can't objectively show how the current data on AGW is incorrect, then what are we even debating?

 

1. Scientists and journalists believe that some kind of El-Nino could be or could not be brewing on Jupiter.

2. Scientist and journalists believe that “Earth is currently experiencing rapid warming, Mars, too, appears to be enjoying.”


What relation does it have to the fact you quoted? What do you want me to comment on? What is your question?

 

I quoted Einstein " they (Newton’s and Einstein’s) come to a far reaching agreement ".

I can extend the quote: “ in spite of totally different sets of assumptions they come to a far reaching agreement.”

Assumptions, by the definition, cannot be proven correct or incorrect.

I can repeat: The fact is that any theory which is done according to rules of natural sciences "stands true or nearly true" forever, and only "can be made more accurate or liable to exclusions.”

 

Lacing your post with scientific jargon again?

You know that nobody knows that T is Temperature as a rule and not heat Q as a rule.

You know that nobody knows that it does not necessitates to go from T to T+X but laws of nature necessitate to go from T to T-X.

I don’t know if I can ask you any questions, because I see that neither believers, nor denialists, nor sceptics can understand the simplest symbols you wrote.

It is believed… scientists believe that CO2 appeared from somewhere and warmed the Venus and then dropped its property to warm anything....

“Scientists believe –God” google brings 123,000,000 results (0.47 seconds).

This is what scientists do, they make all kinds of dubious beliefs and teach them in schools as Earth science.

That’s why basic facts of the reality, basic symbols and basic arithmetic are not accessible by minds of general public.

Then the public goes to colleges, learn how to calibrate thermometers and become scientists.

https://zapatopi.net/kelvin/papers/on_a_universal_tendency.html

“3. Within a finite period of time past, the earth must have been, and within a finite period of time to come the earth must again be, unfit for the habitation of man as at present constituted”

In other words the most fundamental law of nature necessitates that all parts of the solar system, including Venus and Earth and the Sun were hotter in the past and will be colder in the future to the point of absolute freeze.

Nothing of the 130,000,000 things scientists believe in has any root in reality.

GW/CC is a total hoax with no bit of reality, rationality or science in it.

 

Maybe there's a language barrier here, but I see this statement as being exactly the same as saying "I deny all science". If you deny all science then why are you even participating in these discussions?

 

What do all the planets have in common?

 

I'm not sure I get your point. Newton's theories were/are super, as are Einsteins, and there is much common ground. But, for example, Newton said time is constant and uniform in all of the universe; Einstein showed that not to be true.

 

Are you to give me some kind of a silly quiz?

Speak your mind, challenge me.

In relation to the discussed subject and following the 2nd beginning of thermodynamics explained by *Kelvin link all the planets have been cooling.

*Kelvin’s success as a synthesizer of theories about energy places him in the same position in 19th-century physics that Sir Isaac Newton has in 17th-century physics or Albert Einstein in 20th-century physics. https://www.britannica.com/biography/William-Thomson-Baron-Kelvin

 

A language barrier exists only between you, NASA, NAS, IPCC, 564 academies of science and Lord Kelvin whose words explaining and applying the most fundamental law of the universe I posted to counter the bogus beliefs of “all science” you claimed and posted as having any validity.

Lord Kelvin* spoke straight English, what is your language?

I have nothing to do to the fact that Google returns About 1,240,000 results (0.51 seconds) for “Global warming Venus.”

I post facts and let the public decide and choose between the most fundamental law of the universe, Kelvin* and the agenda you and the 1,240,000 results keep on pushing by calling it “all science”, by lying and perverting reality.

*Kelvin’s success as a synthesizer of theories about energy places him in the same position in 19th-century physics that Sir Isaac Newton has in 17th-century physics or Albert Einstein in 20th-century physics. https://www.britannica.com/biography/William-Thomson-Baron-Kelvin

And yes, I choose Kelvin, Newton and Einstein over your “all science”, NASA, NAS, IPCC and 564 academies of science any moment and without any hesitation.