Climate Change Is Here: It’s Going To Get Cooler, Says NASA

Hardly. You think we can 'do something', we can't because we can't force the world to follow, nor will they. Why should they? What you folks suggest would cripple developing nations, cripple the economies of developed nations, all with no guarantee it would make one iota of difference...

 

We have a history of doing the impossible.

Giving up without trying? Suicide is unAmerican.

Aside from that, we need to reduce, no one will take us seriously until we do. And there is a sh*t ton that needs doing.

 

Qualify that beyond petty platitudes?

I'm saying ignore the climate cult hucksters and move forward without destroying economies, as their only 'solutions' are economic, like carbon taxes and other destructive lunacy.

Reduce what? Without a viable on-demand source, there is no reduction possible. Find viable alternatives then get back to us, otherwise stop trying to regress civilization...

 

As I thought, an excuse junkie.

 

You assume climate change itself has no economic drawback. Which is nonsense.

 

Can't get past your petty platitudes, eh? Should have figured. You offer nothing but sleazy doom and gloom, no viable solutions. No thanks

 

According to the newest sets of predictions, the potential drawbacks are minimal in comparison to the legislative destruction that would be assured if people were foolish enough to listen to these climate cultists and their nonsense...

 

We don't need "legislative destruction." Renewable energy is already on the path of being cheaper than fossil fuels, and in some cases already is. The fossil fuel industry, even then, is largely only as profitable as it is thanks to government subsidies. So, if you prop them up with subsidies and ignore the economic impact of climate change . . . that's the only way to continue supporting fossil fuels over renewable energy. You literally have to ignore reality.

Being unhappy about reality doesn't stop it from being reality. AGW is a thing. The evidence shows it. Crying and wishing it weren't true won't stop it from being true. Calling belief in evidence a "cult" is intellectually dishonest and complete nonsense.

 

On the path, and being a viable replacement are nowhere near the same thing. You are also completely ignoring the developing and third world, who would be most impacted economically.

AGW is a thing alright, a thing of fantasy. The climate cultist summer fearmongering machine, nothing more...

 

We've already had several places where it has replaced fossil fuels. Surely you know this. And in places where it hasn't replaced fossil fuels, we have the government dumping in subsidies to artificially prop up fossil fuels.

How so? Be specific.

It's based on evidence. Unlike knuckle-dragging denialism.

 

Which places? What sort of output? Let me guess, small countries that can't be scaled to the US as a whole. Sad.

How can developing and third world countries afford these new and developing techs? None of these technologies are near a final phase, meaning affordable mass production isn't an option. You expect they will pick up on half baked techs that would require constant upgrades, forcing them into eternal debt. That's not realistic.

Your so-called evidence is based on little more than a fraction of the factors that effect climate. Such petty fearmongering based on Marxist anti-capitalism is hardly compelling...

 

France, for example, is now operating almost entirely on renewable energy. Scale doesn't really matter there, as we've also had large sections of Texas now running on wind energy. That's not sad, hun, that's a good thing.

You still haven't shown how this would be bad for developing countries . . . or why that would mean we shouldn't start going in that direction anyway.

If you ever actually find yourself capable or willing to discuss the evidence, I'm here. We both know you won't. You should also actually learn what words like "Marxism" actually mean. And I'm sure I'm more capitalist than you are, so maybe learn what capitalism means too.

But keep pretending it is "capitalist" for the government to prop up fossil fuels. At least it is funny.

You are defending a dead technology. And capitalism is killing it.

 

You do realize you just said denier scientist don’t you? Lmao

 

Say what lol? A simple google search shows france using 70% nuclear.

 

Which isn't fossil fuel, and which I've supported.

 

Is this your first time encountering quotation marks? Do you need explanation for basic punctuation? Really? LMAO.

 

And it begins.

“The nationally averaged maximum temperature (daytime highs) was near average for 2019 at 64.1°F, 0.1°F above average, ranking as the middle third of the 125-year record and the coolest daytime high temperatures for any year since 1997. Parts of the Northern Rockies and Plains and western Great Lakes were below-average for the year with South Dakota tying with 1996 as second coldest. Only the daytime temperatures of 1951 were colder. Much of the South, Southeast, Mid Atlantic and parts of the Northeast were above-to much-above average during 2019”

 

Yes it’s obvious any scientist that don’t march in lockstep are berated by you.

 

1) You provided no source. 2) You only go back to 1997. 3) You looked at local temps, not global averages. This is frankly pathetic. A junior high student could tear this to shreds.

 

And you assume climate doesn’t change. Feel free to tell us all the times in earths history with a stable climate.

 

The assault on evidence-based decision making continues. Evidence has challenged the party! Evidence must be ignored! Such is the constant chant of the denialists.

 

Of course scale matters. We use nearly 9x the amount of energy France does, and we have only 5x their population. You also completely ignore transfer and sources, which is much easier in a smaller area like France, which again means scale matters.

Eternal debt and constant upgrades they can't afford wouldn't bad? You simply can't be taken seriously. Just like that junk science you peddle...

 

Quote me ever saying that or anything like this. I look forward to your apology, if you willing to be honest. But I won't hold my breath. Obviously.

 

And how far should we go back? To the LIA period maybe? That’s what alarmist generally do when looking for dramatic post industrialization warming

 

I'm sorry that you think the elementary empiricism is "junk science" . . . just as you can't support your claims with evidence. Cute.