CO2 Does Not Drive Temperature; Temperature Drives CO2

Fossil fuels ARE a tiny part if you ignore half of the carbon cycle.

 

Truth is my ally.

 

I should have added tiny and unimportant.

 

You quote MoTricksZone.

 

Proudly. They are a useful aggregator of peer-reviewed research.

 

Yep. Lie jockeys.

 

Mate! This is so easy to prove that Mythbusters did it! Every University teaches this as BASIC science! Are you trying to tell me that all those universities and science schools and institutions have this wrong?

 

Pull the other one it has bells on

 

It is amazing isn’t it? Just underscores how important it is to teach people what is meant by “peer reviewed research”

 

Who is he nd what are his contentions?

 

Twenty years ago. He is talking about something that happened or did not happen TWENTY YEARS AGO! We were only just accepting EBP back then and what science qualifications did Crichton have? I know he wrote bloody awful SF

 

How about neither and we absolutely can get there. The population growth has slowed

https://www.worldometers.info/world-population/
And if certain churches would play their part we could reduce further. As for the “gloom and doom” about abandoning fossil fuels - we are already transitioning

 

The peer-reviewed research is linked, and lengthy excerpts are printed. Your claim has no foundation.

 

I'm telling you that the research result indicates otherwise.

 

The peer-reviewed research is linked, and lengthy excerpts are printed. Your cartoon has no foundation.

 

Crichton was a Harvard MD published in the peer-reviewed literature. The point he made about consensus was timeless.

 

but you miss the rest of the equation. Population may be growing slower BUT the world poverty rate is dropping fast; more people are demanding and getting things like electricity, telephone And internet service, better medical care, the ability to prepare food on gas or electric appliances rather than on animal dung fires.

 

Precisely my point and thank you for proving it. If certain churches would just buy in to reducing the population, we could really nail this "global warming" fiction. And if they won't do that voluntarily because they won't get with the program, there are always proven (and nastier) ways of killing off the excess population to fall back on.

And we can similarly kill industrial productivity by continuing to make the use of fossil fuels illegal (forced "transitioning" in your parlance). After all, the fewer inconvenient people to support, the less productive industry needs to be. Right? So let's just kill the greatest technical innovation ever that originally powered the industrial revolution and the greatest expansion of global wealth in history. What could go wrong?

After all, it was that expansion of global wealth that created all these inconvenient people we no longer need, right?

We're rocketing towards a return to paganism like those pre-christian times, and throwing the weak and inconvenient in a pit to die more efficiently is the way to save the more fortunate among us from uncertain death from climate change.

Well, maybe.

Right?

 

FYI.
Can Google Bard AI Lie?
Guest Blogger
By Jonathan Cohler, Andy May, and Willie Soon Here we ask the question, can AI lie? It seems so. AI (artificial intelligence), is based on neural networks. The theory of…

 

Thanks for making my point

CARBON FOOTPRINT - learn guys!

 

Can RWers Lie?

Here we ask the question, can RWers lie? It seems so. RW ideology is based on extreme partisan talking points.

 

How does that make your point? CARBON FOOTPRINT is a joke. Minuscule increases in temperature and a prospering world.

 

Ahhhhhh! Well, I understand you just had a nasty summer over there and guess what? This solar cycle is about to hit peak in 2025.

 

And they all employ this


What papers are linked to are cherry picked so the information taken from them does not reflect the rest of the paper

 

Yeah, I know. That wasn't the issue, was it. Solar cycles are long established phenomena.