Who is right? The climate alarmists? Or the Climate deniers?

No.

Accepting the science of all the countries of the world on the numerous areas that affect climate CAN NOT be positioned as "DENY the science".

There isn't any possibility of a conspiracy that large and that complex.

You need to get off the conspiracy train.

ALSO, being afraid of "irrational or unnecessary action" is NOT A JUSTIFICATION for ignoring the actual issue.

 

What do you mean?? There is no "the climate" BECAUSE Earth has MANY climates. Does that make sense? There is no "picking one" because there is no contradiction.

How do you know? It is not possible to measure Earth's temperature to any usable accuracy, as we don't have near enough thermometers to perform such a statistical analysis.

Climate is a subjective term that is not quantifiable. How do you measure a change in something that is not quantifiable?? How do you determine whether there is "more" or "less" climate present?

See above.

 

Even deniers such as Dr. Judith Curry have pointed out that we need to take many of the actions that are proposed as being defense against climate change - simply because they are good policy. Plus, she points out that if climate change is a bigger deal than she thinks it is, then that's good, too.

The version of that in China is similar. They need clean energy, because they need to clean up their cities, because it is a strong economic opportunity, and because of climate change.

So for example, killing clean energy in America because one denies the entire world of climatological sciences is just plain stupid - as seen even by many deniers!

 

Pascal's Wager is a logical fallacy, dude. If you actually believed it to be sensible, then you would be a Christian for the exact same line of reasoning.

 

Yes, that is no more than silly word games.

Nobody is going to list each of the local climates of the world when they reference this issue.

The issue isn't what that final number for Earth actually is.

Remember: The issue is the change. There IS massive measurement going on on. And, those measurements show that Earth is warming.

""more" or "less" climate present"???

You're going off the deep end.

Change in temperature absolutely IS quantifiable.

 

Yes.

Yes it can, because it is not science at all. Consensus is not science, dude.

You need to stop making use of meaningless buzzwords, adhering to an irrational religion, and to learn some logic, science, and mathematics.

What "actual issue" is there? You have yet to provide it (and support it with valid data).

 

I did not say ANYTHING about Pascal's Wager.

Please read my posts a little more carefully. Or, just give up.

 

Your post contains the Global Warming faith's version of Pascal's Wager... It is the exact same line of reasoning.

If you truly believed in that garbage line of reasoning, then you would also be a Christian per the same reasoning.

 

This is a ridiculous argument.

\If you want to reject the agreement of those studying all aspects of climatology from the entire world, then you need to state what it is that you WOULD accept.

The issue is climate change.

 

Precision of language is not "silly word games".

What "issue"? You have yet to describe and support any sort of "issue".

Remember: In order to know the temperature change, one must first know the temperature itself at two distinct moments in time.

What "measurements" are you talking about?? It is not possible to measure Earth's temperature to any usable accuracy, as we don't have near enough thermometers in order to do so. This is an issue relating to statistical mathematics.

Yes. YOU are the one claiming that climate can somehow "change"... I am asking you how you quantify such a change...

No, YOU are, since you think that climate can somehow "change" in a quantifiable manner... You have yet to show me how this works... You rightly think that "more climate" and "less climate" is laughable language, yet you cling to your religious belief that climate can somehow change.

WHOAAAA, slow down there... You didn't think that I'd actually miss this "goalpost shift" on your part, did you???

Yes, change in TEMPERATURE is definitely quantifiable... However, temperature is not CLIMATE, which is what we are actually talking about. CLIMATE is what is not quantifiable.

Please at least pretend to hold honest discourse with me. This blatant dishonesty on your part is rather insulting.

 

There is absolutely nothing wrong with the point Dr. Curry made.

YOU were in a panic about "irrational" moves being made.

Dr. Curry points out that even moves such as clean energy are not irrational.

 

No it isn't.

I reject that such consensus is somehow science. It is merely consensus.

I would accept science itself... IOW, I would accept the falsifiable models themselves. One such example is the Stefan Boltzmann Law. I accept the SB Law itself to be science. Same with the Laws of Thermodynamics themselves. Same with Planck's Law itself. Those falsifiable models that predict nature are what science is, not any sort of a consensus between a group of people.

There is no such thing. That is merely a meaningless buzzword.

 

That's not actually true. The issue is the change. To detect change, you need a measurement from a specific device at one time, then a measurement from the same device at another time. The distance between the readings is more important that what either of the readings actually are.

Change is what is important.

Temperature can change. That is a significant component of climate.

 

Pointless semantics. You know what I meant.

Not me, scientists in these fields. There's a geological record, for example. Prevailing conditions leave their mark. Other things like oxygen levels we know from things like giant insects which couldn't survive on current oxygen levels given how they exchange gas. I'm not a geologist or climate scientist, but I know enough to leave it to them rather than politicians.

 

Continued gibberbabble and denial of mathematics.

 

You don't like subtraction?

 

You don't like mathematics?

 

They denied our completion of the Keystone Pipeline for one. They want us to drive electric cars before they are efficient. In more Progressive States they have outlawed two cycle engines. They make policies that cause us to suffer when we purchase gasoline.

 

Because you said "China is ahead in total greenhouse emissions ONLY because they have more people than we do." I am proposing that a large portion of the Chinese do not use energy that emit greenhouse emissions. Most Americans drive cars, fly in jets, and do things a very large segment of the population of China do not. So a larger population of China is no excuse for their larger emissions than us.

 

My, now I see all the freedoms you have lost and we haven't even started saving the Earth!

 

What are you trying to prove?

Yes, Americans emit 50% more greenhouse gas per capita than do Chinese.

Yes, China is 4X our population - the reason I pointed to for China emitting more total greenhouse gas.

Yes, China leads the world in clean energy - in patents, in manufacturing, in exports and in installation.

Besides that, China is making political headway in Africa, South America and other regions as it offers cheap clean locally created energy - while others try to sell them oil contracts.

 

China leads the world in new coal-fired power plants, both in China and abroad.

China To Build 43 New Coal-Fired Power Plants
2021 › 08 › 25 › china-to-build-43-new-coal-fired-power-plants
reduce coal use beginning in 2026. ... Despite the development of coal power plants, China is a ... China is planning to build 43 new coal-fired power plants and 18 new blast furnaces

China recolonizes Africa
2020 › 12 › 25 › china-recolonizes-africa
Meanwhile, as of 2019, China had 2,363 active coal-fired power plants and was building another 1 ... 2017 and May 2019 the US had shuttered 50 coal-fired power plants, with 51 more shutdowns announced, bringing

 

Electric cars are efficient NOW.

They have lower fuel cost. They have lower maintenance cost - no cooling systems/pumps, no oil systems/pumps, no pistons, no valves, no transmission, many have no differential, no oily exhaust flavored garages, no noise pollution.

2/3 of our oil consumption goes to transportation! Think how it would improve our balance of trade, our polluted cities, even climate change, if we cut in half our use of oil for transportation!

It's time we stopped subsidizing oil.

 

As an emerging nation it's going to take time for them to get on top of their full economic future.

WE are the ones who created this problem with our industrial age that so richly rewarded us.

Of course it would be great if China were now willing to pay for that by sacrificing their own future. And, nobody can scale up clean energy as fast as their stupendous economy requires.

Your comments about our coal plant shutdowns ignore that those plants were aged out dinosaurs.

The bigger deal is that they aren't being replaced with more coal fired plants.

And, THAT is because in the USA the business case for natural gas plants is so much better.

 

In the US, oil companies pay more in taxes than any combination of what are called subsidies.
Debunking Myths About Federal Oil & Gas Subsidies - Forbes
https://www.forbes.com › drillinginfo › 2016/02/22 › d...

Feb 22, 2016 — The government only allows the “subsidy” for independent producers. Integrated oil companies such as Exxon, BP etc. are not allowed the ...