The climate change consensus extends beyond climate scientists

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by freebeard

aerohead, that's 20 twenty-three posts in two hours. As a courtesy could you provide the Permalink to your quotes? TIA

The federal government birthed Internet, but it's just a proud parent.

slowmover: Politics is downstream from culture. And vice versa.

Amazing how it still works, isn't it? Almost like it's about human nature instead of technology.

what does that stand for?

[freebeard]

An unqualified guess:
..It's a physiological response at this level,and so addictive that the individual can't shake it.

That's ...not wrong.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PjEj8DdFQ1A

http://onlineslangdictionary.com/mea...inition-of/tia

In the above case, Thanks In Advance.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

I suggest anyone wanting less liberty and authority (bigger government) to run their own lives to simply go to prison. It's essentially the model of an extreme government running every aspect of the "incompetent".

Your liberty ends where mine begins.Once you've paid tribute to Caesar,you are granted some privileges,but that's all you have.You're not really free.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by redneck

.

The world needs a massive carbon tax in just 10 years to limit climate change, IMF says


https://www.washingtonpost.com/clima...ange-imf-says/



.






And...







>

Those dang'd Republicans and their carbon taxes!

[redneck]

Originally Posted by aerohead

An unqualified guess:
*the visual cortex experiences an excitation through a confirmational bias filter
*readiness potentials are triggered by a challenge by a novel,potentially heretical position
*the amygdala secretes adrenocorticotropic hormone and norepinephrine
*which disinhibits the hard-wired switch to the R-complex
*triggering the hypothalmus to stimulate the adrenal gland's production of cortisol into the bloodstream
*initiating fear amplification and fight/conflict response
*compartmentalized
*leading to a mental habit
*of target fixation/ide'e fixe
*and attack response
*ending in chemical dependency (literally addiction) to the norepinephrine/dopamine/testocerone/adrenaline.At the first appearance of an Alewxandria Ocasio Cortez,or the like,the person immediately bypasses logic,and goes directly to non-processed behavior.It's a physiological response at this level,and so addictive that the individual can't shake it.

🤔

Funny...

You just described the AGW cult.

Just substitute Breitbart for AOC...

😉





>

[redneck]

Originally Posted by aerohead

Those dang'd Republicans and their carbon taxes!

>

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

So no comment on the retraction?
You remind me of Elizabeth warren when asked about raising taxes.

I will play make believe and pretend the paper that made up the frame work for the oceans and cryosphere ipcc report hadn't been retracted in nature and that it's still relevant, since that's what your doing.

In this report the ipcc defines pre industrial climate as the time between 1850 and 1900.
This seems odd to me for several reasons:
The industrial revolution had already stated by 1850 then exploded from 1850 to 1900.
There is seemingly no upper time limit to what "pre industrial" climate could be defined as time wise but they went with 50 years.
Just 50 years doesn't really fit the definition of climate.
1850 was the end of the little ice age and there was a rather large volcanic eruption in 1883 that caused the earth to be cooler for up to 10% of that 50 year time frame.
Why does it seem like they cherry picked a time period to define the base line for pre industrial climate in a time that isn't pre industrial or long enough to be climate and we know was unusually cool because of explainable events?

Up to around 1850,the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide was on the order of 280ppmv since 11,000 years ago,when we entered the Holocene at the end of the last ice age.Which is defined by ocean levels that are circa 1850,by definition.You should know that!.That's what's referred to as 'pre-industrial.'
We have paleo records,to the year, dating back three ice ages.We know what the atmosphere was like in the past and what the climate was like.
Our current level of CO2 reflects an Earth temperature that hasn't been seen in a great while.We'll achieve that temperature given time.That's the problem.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by sendler

Only to you. To the rest of the world, this is current data.

It doesn't matter what production is without the context of load.If the world has been flying into a headwind since 1859,what happens if she starts flying in a tailwind? Do you think she'd need the same amount of 'fuel.'
Find a mechanical engineer to explain it to you.
Your information is not actionable! It's completely conditional/contextual.And your inability to grasp this concept makes you dangerous to the public at large.You've hit your Rumsfeldian moment.Just like Julian Simon.Just like Bjorn Lomberg.Just like Nate Hagens.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by sendler

"According to new analysis by the climate change analysis site Carbon Brief, Q3 saw 40% of power come from renewables such as wind, biomass and solar, while fossil fuels—almost all gas, as coal and oil now have a negligible share of the U.K. energy scene—accounted for 39% of generation. (The remaining 21% largely came from nuclear.)"
.
.
They are doing the thing. Conflating the terms "energy" and "electricity".
.
Electricity is only a small fraction of total primary energy consumption.
.
.

.
.

.
. I couldn't find a chart with a better break out for UK "renewables and nuclear" But this is the newest chart showing the totals from 2018 for Germany which will slightly lead UK on wind and solar at 4.6%.
.
.

.
.
And then to keep this in perspective for the world, additions of fossil fuel consumption outpace new added production from renwables by 2-3X every year. Energy consumption is growing far faster than solar and wind are being built out.
.
.

.
.

A more sophisticated version of the same error.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

Glass and cement were so expensive they were reserved for public works, infrastructure or the rich.
Steel was so difficult to make with out coal that it was reserved for weapons.
Glass remained a luxury until people started using coal and a few other advances. Coal made it good natural gas made it what it is today.
Steel was more valuable than gold by weigh until the start of the industrial revolution. One of the best examples I am aware of is when Alexander the great won one of his major battles he was rewarded with not silver or gold, but 30lb of steel.
Cement was difficult to produce with out natural gas. Wood was burned to dehydrate lime and volcanic ash was carried by animal cart to where it was needed.

Basically it sucked and we are better off now.

I would just add that,us being better off may cost us our planet.