Bkk Brian

Wow the hate spews out, surely a RIP is in order along with best wishes to her family and friends who will miss her.

No its not that. For instance South Africa relies on coal fired plants heavily, however most are old and not functioning well. Even now there is not enough to keep the lights on. Replacing them with renewable solutions require less than 2-year build time (coal requires 10-12 years).

The impact of climate change on grape yields: Evidence from Australia You don't think it affects all grapes in just about every country whether its for wine or the table? In some area's it will have a positive effect in others it can lead far lower yields

If you say so, the professionals base it on more than one or two time periods

Indeed a huge impact on wine in Cal Climate Change Forces California Winemakers to Reconsider What Grapes Grow Where How rising temperatures are altering Napa's wine-growing season winemakers from Bordeaux to California are struggling

Not quite: Reversals are based on overall price direction and are not typically based on one or two periods/bars on a chart.

Back on topic: This chart provides estimates on current policies to reduce, or at least slow down growth, in CO2 and other greenhouse gas emissions will have some impact on reducing future warming. https://ourworldindata.org/co2-and-greenhouse-gas-emissions

Off topic nonsense again. But happy to hear your speechless, perhaps less now of the waffle you sprout every time your asked for a link to back up your beliefs

Your claim: You can't remember me asking numerous times? You can't recall me beating you over the head about not answering? You think I'm going to believe that you can't remember me asking? So you didn't ask me directly numerous times, as I thought. Now back to the topic at hand which is something you'd rather avoid I know. Guess what I'm waiting from and have asked you directly for? If you want to debate, link to credible peer reviewed studies from climate scientists that have sources attached and I'll be more than happy to do so. Still waiting for some credible peer reviewed scientific studies if you want to debate. And all you have is belief and prayer since you have no credible sources that you've posted, at least not yet, still waiting.

That was a quote from NASA what do you find so amusing about it? It’s important to remember that scientists always focus on the evidence, not on opinions. https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

You could try here https://paleorobbie.com/grocery#Cod

Quote these numerous posts where you have actually asked me that before in a straight questions? I'll ignore your nonsense remarks about dead horses and whether I'm a serious poster, its serves nothing to deflect from the facts I provide.

Put a laughing emoji on it then if that all you've got.

You asked me if consensus = truth? Can't remember that. But if you did and I missed it then the simple answer to that is, of course not. As an example of that the vast majority of MAGA are of the consensus that Trump won the previous election. However all evidence is that is not the case. Whereas the vast majority of actively publishing climate scientists – 97 percent – agree that humans are causing global warming and climate change. This is based on over a century of scientific evidence It’s important to remember that scientists always focus on the evidence, not on opinions. See the difference? No probably not, I'm sure it will revert back to word games rather than you providing peer reviewed studies that dispute the facts already provided.

Another snippet from a new filing: Buried in Trump trial date filing from Jack Smith is a key Secret Service detail One of the key frustrations from the House Select Committee investigating Jan. 6 and the attempt to overthrow the 2020 election was that the Secret Service "accidentally" deleted every text communication between agents and officials from that day. But Smith revealed in his filing that the 3.1 million pages of Secret Service emails did exist – and he has them. https://www.rawstory.com/secret-service-emails-obtained-jack-smith

Numerous links have been provided to the above. I've asked you to back up your beliefs numerous times too. You have nothing aside from deflection and trolling.

You are being pedantic yet again. Previously you were focusing on the term Consensus. So to please you, her is an alternative to both that and the hypothesis distraction that you have now focused on: "The vast majority of actively publishing climate scientists – 97 percent – agree that humans are causing global warming and climate change. Scientific evidence continues to show that human activities primarily the human burning of fossil fuels have warmed Earth’s surface and its ocean basins, which in turn have continued to impact Earth’s climate. This is based on over a century of scientific evidence forming the structural backbone of today's civilization."

You've posted enough dis info on climate change, lets not go way off topic with covid eh, all your doing is peeking out of that cozy little bunker to see how much you can get away with.

And there's no need to drag up the fabled "97% consensus", because that is and always was a vague and pointless mess. I agree with that 97% consensus because the questions were so broad - Has the earth warmed since 1850? Can human beings change the climate? Its only your imagination that is claiming the consensus is political and only based on broad questions of earth warming & can human beings change the climate Scientific Consensus: Earth's Climate Is Warming It’s important to remember that scientists always focus on the evidence, not on opinions. Scientific evidence continues to show that human activities (primarily the human burning of fossil fuels) have warmed Earth’s surface and its ocean basins, which in turn have continued to impact Earth’s climate. This is based on over a century of scientific evidence forming the structural backbone of today's civilization. Scientific consensus on climate change The current scientific consensus is that: Earth's climate has warmed significantly since the late 1800s. Human activities (primarily greenhouse gas emissions) are the primary cause. Continuing emissions will increase the likelihood and severity of global effects. Regards politics, there is numerous guidance for the policy makers in the IPCC report that is separate to the studies and data.

You are going against logic now. Any studies contradicting the present scientific consensus can be published and independently reviewed. Including where there funding comes from. Got any?

I know what you believe but you've never provided any credible links to it.

If you get lost because of a change in phrase then no wonder you have no idea of the science involved: “Climate change” encompasses global warming, but refers to the broader range of changes that are happening to our planet. These include rising sea levels; shrinking mountain glaciers; accelerating ice melt in Greenland, Antarctica and the Arctic; and shifts in flower/plant blooming times. These are all consequences of warming, which is caused mainly by people burning fossil fuels and putting out heat-trapping gases into the air.

That's exactly why consensus matters, thanks

Because I always go to the CIA for Climate matters but a link to that quote is required. I found a link to the NOAA quote but of course totally out of context: Google link

* Deleted post edited out * Yea, I agree but for me the saddest part is that Biden keeps getting knocked for claiming his son Beau died in Iraq. Technically not true of course but Joe does believe that the cause of his death was related to it and this is obviously still emotionally hurting him. Beau served in Iraq while President Biden was vice president and earned a Bronze Star Medal and was awarded both the Legion of Merit, and the Delaware Conspicuous Service Cross. He died from cancer caused by the burn pits he was around while serving in Iraq.