Human Flourishing Requires More Fossil Fuel Use, Not Less

Coincidentally, I find your lack of understanding of science and your continual reliance on IPCC reports as some kind of holy writ handed down on tablets from the mountain of the burning bush tired and stale.

Tell you what. You come up with an original thought and I'll read it too.

 

Sorry, but you can't claim both. Either it's made up rubbish or it's not worth reading. The claims are mutually exclusive. (In truth, it's neither, but that's another lesson.)

 

It would seem that Nature did not share your opinion. Your response looks like denial.

 

Hint cherries! Or what did the nature paper really say? And I realise this would have you actually looking at the original paper rather than taking the word of a website known to misrepresent research

 

???? It can be rubbish not worth reading or have you never heard of the term “skim”. But to be honest - why would I waste my precious time reading an article written by a lawyer who is not an economist but who is a member of more than one “denialist” groups as well as being a member of the infamous “federalist society”? At least off something is in a news website and not a blog it is subject to editorial scrutiny- well, news sites that aren’t faux anyway.

 

As is NTZ's customary practice, the entire paper was linked for review. This is from the Discussion.
". . . In summary, demasking the aerosol-induced surface cooling through climate mitigation actions will unveil the actual magnitude and effect of GHG-induced global warming; we shall anticipate a decades-long transitory increase in surface temperatures from planned mitigations. The global scale reductions in the aerosol loading during COVID shut-down provided this unique opportunity to witness and gauge this inadvertent impact of climate mitigation strategies. . . ."

 

Is your time so precious that you must offer unfounded opinions?
And IMHO the Federalist Society is not at all infamous.

 

Just NAYSAYING doesn't mean SQUAT.

ONUS is on YOU to EXPOSE any FACTUAL issues within that IPCC reports.

If you CANNOT then BB's posts stand UNCHALLENGED.

 

This is comprehensive.
The IPCC has been exposed as a mere propaganda outlet. The criticisms exposed by CLINTEL are devastating.

CLINTEL’s critical evaluation of the IPCC AR6
Posted on May 13, 2023 by curryja
by Judith Curry

Clintel has published a new report entitled “The Frozen Climate Views of the IPCC: Analysis of the AR6.”

“The new Report provides an independent assessment of the most important parts of AR6. We document biases and errors in almost every chapter we reviewed. In some cases, of course, one can quibble endlessly about our criticism and how relevant it is for the overall ‘climate narrative’ of the IPCC. In some cases, though, we document such blatant cherry picking by the IPCC, that even ardent supporters of the IPCC should feel embarrassed.”

Continue reading →

Climate Intelligence (CLINTEL) is an independent foundation that operates in the fields of climate change and climate policy. CLINTEL was founded in 2019 by emeritus professor of geophysics Guus Berkhout and science journalist Marcel Crok.

The CLINTEL Report is edited by Marcel Crok and Andy May, with contributions from Javier Vinos, Ross McKitrick, Ole Humlum, Nicola Scafetta, and Fritz Vahrenholt.

The Chapter topics are:

1. No confidence that the present is warmer than the mid-Holocene
2. The resurrection of the Hockey Stick
3. Measuring global surface temperature
4. Controversial Snow Trends
5. Accelerated sea level rise: not so fast
6. Why does the IPCC downplay the Sun?
7. Misty climate sensitivity
8. AR6: more confidence that models are unreliable
9. Extreme scenarios
10. A miraculous sea level jump in 2020
11. Hiding the good news on hurricanes and floods
12. Extreme views on disasters
13. Say goodbye to climate hell, welcome climate heaven . . . .

 

Another physics denier heard from.

It's just a shame that repeating the same tired stuff doesn't make it true.

 

No, it was perfectly correct. You just proved you don't know any logic.

 

^^^ My nomination for "Unconscious Self-Reference of the Month."

 

Inevitably, your "sources" (Desmog!? ) provide no actual evidence for your claim.

 

So they will be helping to raise agricultural yields and shrink deserts worldwide. Nice!

 

It is if you are following the Supreme Court scandal. Oh! And I provided links

 

Nope. There is no real scandal, only politics.
And the Federalist Society has nothing to do with any of it.

 

So… who is Clintel?


https://www.desmog.com/climate-intelligence-foundation-clintel/

And I mean those so called “errata” are pretty bloody vague - where is the research backing it?

 

I welcome a discussion of the substance.

 

Climate DENIALISM content from a DISCREDITED source noted.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judit...lanation for,and refusing access to outsiders.

This is a REPEAT of the Tobacco lobby BRIBING scientists of muddy the waters around the RISKS of CANCER.

It is CLEAR given her EMPHASIS on LIES about the IPCC and the COSTS associated with mitigating climate change that she has allowed herself to be BRIBED by the NEFARIOUS corporations that are GUILTY of the WORST of POLLUTION that is harming our one and only planet.

 

May I ask how much you were drinking when you wrote this?

 

Sorry, but that's just conspiracy theory nonsense.

 

The data are the data.

 

Agreed, Climate DENIALISM relies upon conspiracy theory nonsense because it has NOTHING that withstands critical scrutiny.

 

Evidence? Of course not.

Which did not offer any evidence for your claims.

 

You seem unaware of the difference between "discredited" and merely, "attacked."

Wikipedia is just William Connolley's personal anti-fossil-fuel hate propaganda blog, as proved by its prolific use of dishonest terms like "denialist" and "climate denial blogosphere." All climate-related content on Wikipedia is edited by liars like Connolley to conform to the most extreme and absurd anti-fossil-fuel hatemongering.

Yes -- and the muddying is being done at the behest of anti-fossil-fuel scaremongers.

There is no credible empirical evidence that CO2 is a pollutant, and your claims about Dr. Curry are a false, unsupported, and ridiculous conspiracy theory.