Now what am I suppose to do with all my save the glacier tshirts, bumper stickers, Stanley thermis, back pack and ball point pens.

I'M SUEING SOMEONE.

Yep. I laughed at this comment in the article knowing those two built out coal in massive numbers and then it was reported a few days ago that coal is back on the rise again.

Quote:

---

Global coal use isn't on a path to quintuple; consumption has largely plateaued after decades of growth.

---

In the early 2020 democratic debate, before she dropped out, Kamala said we should treat climate change with the same resolve we had to use for the Apollo program to get man to the moon. Can you imagine the useless cost that would have entailed. She needs to be grilled about that among other things when she runs again.

YouBet said:

---

Yeah, it's funny how it's mostly disappeared from the American conscious at this point. Too many who cried wolf.

And then Bill Gates declaring climate change no longer being an issue a few months ago so that Big Tech can build out their data centers helped kill the narrative as well.

---

Just think about all of the rabid liberals who decided to not have children because of climate change. The media wrote articles on this. Shameful. But there are fewer leftist with children because of their mental issues.

bobbranco said:

---

Gut all govt climate spending.

---

All of it. It was just a scam to pay their buddies with gov't contracts and get a cut for political campaigns. Like Obama said, "I guess those jobs weren't shovel ready".

Climate is always changing before people and long after we are gone. It is (was) foolish to think throwing money at it would change anything (at least climate wise).

TAMU1990 said:

---

YouBet said:

---

Yeah, it's funny how it's mostly disappeared from the American conscious at this point. Too many who cried wolf.

And then Bill Gates declaring climate change no longer being an issue a few months ago so that Big Tech can build out their data centers helped kill the narrative as well.

---

Just think about all of the rabid liberals who decided to not have children because of climate change. The media wrote articles on this. Shameful. But there are fewer leftist with children because of their mental issues.

---

Or how about the mental instability and depression they caused for America's youth over this. Criminal.

TAMU1990 said:

---

bobbranco said:

---

Gut all govt climate spending.

---

All of it. It was just a scam to pay their buddies with gov't contracts and get a cut for political campaigns. Like Obama said, "I guess those jobs weren't shovel ready".

---

The bloated Oceanography departments should be gutted and forced to correct their mistakes.

A more nuanced take:
Burning fossil fuels at the scale we are doing so is releasing quantities of CO2 at the scale massively more than the Earth would naturally release on its own. CO2 is not the one magical molecule we can put in the atmosphere at whatever quantities we want with no second and third order consequences. Current average temperatures are being exceeded year over year for recorded history, and declaring the hypothesis that human caused CO2 additions in the atmosphere has something to do with that, as models and science predicted it would, shouldn't cause thoughtful people to erupt in a deep belly laughter for being absurd liberal propaganda.

Yes, someone selling a fatalistic picture of Florida being underwater in 10 years was selling something or trying to increase their personal power. Sensationalism and doom attracts more eyeballs than a more balanced approach. We should be skeptical of worst case scenario claims.

YouBet said:

---

Malibu said:

---

A more nuanced take:
Burning fossil fuels at the scale we are doing so is releasing quantities of CO2 at the scale massively more than the Earth would naturally release on its own. CO2 is not the one magical molecule we can put in the atmosphere at whatever quantities we want with no second and third order consequences. Current average temperatures are being exceeded year over year for recorded history, and declaring the hypothesis that human caused CO2 additions in the atmosphere has something to do with that, as models and science predicted it would, shouldn't cause thoughtful people to erupt in a deep belly laughter for being absurd liberal propaganda.

Yes, someone selling a fatalistic picture of Florida being underwater in 10 years was selling something or trying to increase their personal power. Sensationalism and doom attracts more eyeballs than a more balanced approach. We should be skeptical of worst case scenario claims.

---

I just don't care about CO2. Besides, it's already solved if everyone believes China's latest investment in green energy. That would just leave India as the world's biggest polluter. We bent our emissions downwards 20 years ago. We are good here.

Regardless, no amount of wealth redistribution to the UN is going to solve such a nebulous problem as CO2. It's a total boogeyman.

What we should be focused on is water access. Arbitrary temperature goals in the Paris Accords mean nothing.

---

This argument seems to be conceding the main point of climate activists, which is that through massive state action to reinvest in green and renewable technologies, we could change the trajectory of CO2 output and worst case global warming scenarios. That is probably happening, and it's a good thing, but happened because China is smart enough to know that oil barges traveling through the Straight of Malacca is it's biggest strategic risk and needed energy independence via renewables.

CO2 doesn't care about you either, nor does it care about wealth distribution and the UN. Molecules are indifferent to ideology. Its occurrence will have atmospheric consequences independent of how deeply felt concerns are or ignored. Yes, we should focus on water access, but declaring AGW as a giant hoax we can now safely ignore seems irresponsible too.

YouBet said:

---

Malibu said:

---

A more nuanced take:
Burning fossil fuels at the scale we are doing so is releasing quantities of CO2 at the scale massively more than the Earth would naturally release on its own. CO2 is not the one magical molecule we can put in the atmosphere at whatever quantities we want with no second and third order consequences. Current average temperatures are being exceeded year over year for recorded history, and declaring the hypothesis that human caused CO2 additions in the atmosphere has something to do with that, as models and science predicted it would, shouldn't cause thoughtful people to erupt in a deep belly laughter for being absurd liberal propaganda.

Yes, someone selling a fatalistic picture of Florida being underwater in 10 years was selling something or trying to increase their personal power. Sensationalism and doom attracts more eyeballs than a more balanced approach. We should be skeptical of worst case scenario claims.

---

I just don't care about CO2. Besides, it's already solved if everyone believes China's latest investment in green energy. That would just leave India as the world's biggest polluter. We bent our emissions downwards 20 years ago. We are good here.

Regardless, no amount of wealth redistribution to the UN is going to solve such a nebulous problem as CO2. It's a total boogeyman.

What we should be focused on is water access. Arbitrary temperature goals in the Paris Accords mean nothing.

---

Maybe the hotels in Paris will allow people to start adjusting their room thermostats? It is so freaking hot in those hotels. I can't imagine living there. But that would allow plebes some control over their lives and these marxist socialists can't allow that.

bobbranco said:

---

Malibu said:

---

A more nuanced take:
Burning fossil fuels at the scale we are doing so is releasing quantities of CO2 at the scale massively more than the Earth would naturally release on its own. CO2 is not the one magical molecule we can put in the atmosphere at whatever quantities we want with no second and third order consequences. Current average temperatures are being exceeded year over year for recorded history, and declaring the hypothesis that human caused CO2 additions in the atmosphere has something to do with that, as models and science predicted it would, shouldn't cause thoughtful people to erupt in a deep belly laughter for being absurd liberal propaganda.

Yes, someone selling a fatalistic picture of Florida being underwater in 10 years was selling something or trying to increase their personal power. Sensationalism and doom attracts more eyeballs than a more balanced approach. We should be skeptical of worst case scenario claims.

---

The emboldened is based on falsified data.

---

I go outside and I've been on the planet awhile. It's hotter here than it was when I was a kid. Maybe I'm in on the conspiracy too.

Ultimately technological advances will curtail CO2, if that is ultimately the complete driving force of it all…if the left would just lift their hands off of nuclear and let it happen, that will help in producing massive amounts of energy more so than any other type of energy.

Malibu said:

---

YouBet said:

---

Malibu said:

---

A more nuanced take:
Burning fossil fuels at the scale we are doing so is releasing quantities of CO2 at the scale massively more than the Earth would naturally release on its own. CO2 is not the one magical molecule we can put in the atmosphere at whatever quantities we want with no second and third order consequences. Current average temperatures are being exceeded year over year for recorded history, and declaring the hypothesis that human caused CO2 additions in the atmosphere has something to do with that, as models and science predicted it would, shouldn't cause thoughtful people to erupt in a deep belly laughter for being absurd liberal propaganda.

Yes, someone selling a fatalistic picture of Florida being underwater in 10 years was selling something or trying to increase their personal power. Sensationalism and doom attracts more eyeballs than a more balanced approach. We should be skeptical of worst case scenario claims.

---

I just don't care about CO2. Besides, it's already solved if everyone believes China's latest investment in green energy. That would just leave India as the world's biggest polluter. We bent our emissions downwards 20 years ago. We are good here.

Regardless, no amount of wealth redistribution to the UN is going to solve such a nebulous problem as CO2. It's a total boogeyman.

What we should be focused on is water access. Arbitrary temperature goals in the Paris Accords mean nothing.

---

This argument seems to be conceding the main point of climate activists, which is that through massive state action to reinvest in green and renewable technologies, we could change the trajectory of CO2 output and worst case global warming scenarios. That is probably happening, and it's a good thing, but happened because China is smart enough to know that oil barges traveling through the Straight of Malacca is it's biggest strategic risk and needed energy independence via renewables.

CO2 doesn't care about you either, nor does it care about wealth distribution and the UN. Molecules are indifferent to ideology. Its occurrence will have atmospheric consequences independent of how deeply felt concerns are or ignored. Yes, we should focus on water access, but declaring AGW as a giant hoax we can now safely ignore seems irresponsible too.

---

Tell that to the left whose solution for solving this is Marxism. When the green movement can no longer be referred to as "watermelons" then maybe we can talk. Basing this entire movement on an arbitrary temperature increase in the Paris Accords is laughable.

I'm fairly pro-environment in reality; I'm just not going to concede anything to the left while they let Marxism rule the topic. Water is an issue right now; hitting some temperature goal years from now is make believe stuff. It's completely arbitrary based on a combination of pseudo science and lies. We had the hockey puck lie, the 97% of scientists lie, multiple faked studies, the carbon credit scam in South America (this one was awesome btw), and now this RCP 8.5 propaganda.

Let's focus on real world stuff like water and how we solve that and quit with the fake temp talks.

safety guy said:

---

In the early 2020 democratic debate, before she dropped out, Kamala said we should treat climate change with the same resolve we had to use for the Apollo program to get man to the moon. Can you imagine the useless cost that would have entailed. She needs to be grilled about that among other things when she runs again.

---

Can you imagine all the Learing Centers that could have funded!?

Your framing of the argument seems a bit off to me. If global warming, therefore Marxism and since Marxism is a bad idea, therefore we should ignore any potential global warming. The concentration of CO2 and its environmental impacts are independent of any policy solution, it's just a physics problem. I think we should start there. I also think dismissing a few degrees change as no big deal is probably unwise in a system as complex as global climate.

I am with you with a 'and therefore, tax oil companies and immediately switch to unreliable solutions' is peak idiocy and will do more to make the problem worse than better, but a sober look at a nuclear future and a grid with a renewable mix is not liberal alarmism and lunacy.

YouBet said:

---

Malibu said:

---

bobbranco said:

---

Malibu said:

---

A more nuanced take:
Burning fossil fuels at the scale we are doing so is releasing quantities of CO2 at the scale massively more than the Earth would naturally release on its own. CO2 is not the one magical molecule we can put in the atmosphere at whatever quantities we want with no second and third order consequences. Current average temperatures are being exceeded year over year for recorded history, and declaring the hypothesis that human caused CO2 additions in the atmosphere has something to do with that, as models and science predicted it would, shouldn't cause thoughtful people to erupt in a deep belly laughter for being absurd liberal propaganda.

Yes, someone selling a fatalistic picture of Florida being underwater in 10 years was selling something or trying to increase their personal power. Sensationalism and doom attracts more eyeballs than a more balanced approach. We should be skeptical of worst case scenario claims.

---

The emboldened is based on falsified data.

---

I go outside and I've been on the planet awhile. It's hotter here than it was when I was a kid. Maybe I'm in on the conspiracy too.

---

This comment is about as data driven as the climate movement.

---

I can't be the only person on in the US that is seeing repeatedly higher temperatures in my locale than when I was kid and noticing that the AC is on more and being outside in the summer sucks more. Global temperatures = giant hoax. My lived experience = pshhh, you're imaging things. ETA: TexAgs courtesy, will be offline for awhile. Happy Sunday.

Quote:

---

Current average temperatures are being exceeded year over year for recorded history,

---

That so? What are the "average temperatures" for the last 5 years? I wouldn't want to go changing people's hearts and minds with nothing more than feelings.