Bkk Brian

The graph shows that even 43 years ago the majority of science literature predicted global warming. Yet you said you went rushing out to buy fur coats. In future I suggest you stick with the majority which has grown and continues to do so.

You'd think those right wing techies who complain about current AI would build their own versions.

Wait till Trump gets a hold of this, he's already been complaining about Fox news and the unflattering photos of him they publish. Donald Trump arraignment oddsmakers offer bets on how much he will weigh at Georgia booking According to BetOnline employee Dave Mason, 77 percent of gamblers have taken the over bet on Trump's weight so far, spurring the sportsbook to increase the total by eight pounds. That might rankle the former president, who on Thursday lashed out at Fox News, accusing the network of using unflattering photographs that make him look 'big' and 'orange' with his 'chin pulled way back'. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12422135/Donald-Trump-arraignment-betting-odds.html

Good to see the justice system is working, I was under the impression that it was all part of a conspiracy led by Biden, well according to Trump and his minions.

The cult climate change deniers have been out in force with their latest debunked nonsense that once the atmosphere becomes saturated with CO2 adding more CO2 will not have a significant impact on the planet's temperature. There is zero scientific evidence for this. The idea that CO2 can become saturated is based on the assumption that there is a limit to how much heat a gas can trap. However, this is not the case. CO2 can absorb an infinite amount of heat, and the more CO2 there is in the atmosphere, the more heat it will trap. In addition, even if the effect of CO2 on the atmosphere were to become saturated, this would not mean that CO2 would no longer contribute to climate change. Other greenhouse gases, such as methane and nitrous oxide, are also increasing in the atmosphere, and they are much more potent than CO2 Other quacks then go onto claim it will be good for plants but miss out the dire consequences for plant life. Nutrients, temperature and water being just a few. New study undercuts favorite climate myth ‘more CO2 is good for plants’ A 16-year study found that we’re at a point where more CO2 won’t keep increasing plant production, but higher temperatures will decrease it https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2016/sep/19/new-study-undercuts-favorite-climate-myth-more-co2-is-good-for-plants Plants cannot live on CO2 alone Plants cannot live on CO2 alone; a complete plant metabolism depends on a number of elements. It is a simple task to increase water and fertilizer and protect against insects in an enclosed greenhouse but what about doing it in the open air, throughout the entire Earth? Just as increasing the amount of starch alone in a person's diet won't lead to a more robust and healthier person, for plants additional CO2 by itself cannot make up for deficiencies of other compounds and elements. https://skepticalscience.com/co2-plant-food.htm How Climate Change Will Affect Plants Elevated levels of CO2 from climate change may enable plants to benefit from the carbon fertilization effect and use less water to grow, but it’s not all good news for plants. It’s more complicated than that, because climate change is also impacting other factors critical to plants’ growth, such as nutrients, temperature, and water. https://news.climate.columbia.edu/2022/01/27/how-climate-change-will-affect-plants/

Sure and as my previous link indicated, he's been financed in his entire career by the fossil fuel industry and dark money. Yet we have members here that post his reports as credible.

Gregory Wrightstone also just happened to be a policy advisor at the Heartland Institute and executive director of the Koch-funded CO2 Coalition. He spent decades working for the natural gas industry and also director of geology at Texas Keystone, an oil and gas company based in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. A profile on the now-defunct Wrightstone Energy Consulting website describes him as an American Association of Petroleum Geologists (AAPG)-certified petroleum geologist who “has been deeply involved in the exploration and exploitation of unconventional Appalachian Basin reservoirs for 35 years.” https://www.desmog.com/gregory-wrightstone/

You read it and missed out that its evidence was up till 2020. What you didn't highlight was the portion after that in which they said and I repeat: "Overall, fossil CO2 emissions are expected to rise by around 4.9% in 2021 with many countries/regions contributing to the recovery in emissions from 2020 lows. Global emissions will almost fully rebound, remaining only around 0.8% below 2019’s record levels, and putting the world on track to likely set a new record for fossil CO2 emissions in 2022." From 2022, their prediction was correct: Global greenhouse gas emissions at all-time high, study finds Yes I also understand trends, 10 years does not make a trend, this is a trend https://sustainableshrewsbury.org/climate/

Already debunked in my previous post: The CO2 Coalition is a successor to the George C. Marshall Institute, a think tank focusing on defense and climate issues which closed in 2015 (The think tank received extensive financial support from the fossil fuel industry.[3]). William O'Keefe, a chief executive officer of the Marshall Institute and former CEO of the American Petroleum Institute, continued as CEO of the CO2 Coalition You obviously don't look at who funds them

From Gregory Writhtstone inconvinentfacts.xyz ???? Do share the web link and context text so I can fact check it.

Yes I know, do you? I also know what he's asking, if he knows he should reveal it. The dynamics of global public research funding on climate change, energy, transport, and industrial decarbonisation The Baseless Claim That Climate Scientists Are ‘Driven’ by Money The misallocation of climate research funding Climate Change Research Grants

Did you read it all? From your own link: "Overall, fossil CO2 emissions are expected to rise by around 4.9% in 2021 with many countries/regions contributing to the recovery in emissions from 2020 lows. Global emissions will almost fully rebound, remaining only around 0.8% below 2019’s record levels, and putting the world on track to likely set a new record for fossil CO2 emissions in 2022." From 2022, their prediction was correct: Global greenhouse gas emissions at all-time high, study finds

So you know and yet ask me................. Be my guest, go ahead and list them all.

Not the fossil fuel industry, who do you think funds them?

The CO2 Coalition is a successor to the George C. Marshall Institute, a think tank focusing on defense and climate issues which closed in 2015 (The think tank received extensive financial support from the fossil fuel industry.[3]). William O'Keefe, a chief executive officer of the Marshall Institute and former CEO of the American Petroleum Institute, continued as CEO of the CO2 Coalition You obviously don't look at who funds them

Pure deflection and as pointed out numerous times that is the whole point of the IPCC reports for policy makers to introduce measures. Like you say "using virtually every day necessities" until those indispensable everyday things are replaced with climate friendly alternatives we have no choice. Its happening now, you may remember the ozone layer holes, well that's on its way to a remarkable success due to policies that were initiated: On track to full recovery The ozone layer is on track to recover within four decades, with the global phaseout of ozone-depleting chemicals already benefitting efforts to mitigate climate change. If current policies remain in place, the ozone layer is expected to recover to 1980 values (before the appearance of the ozone hole) by around 2066 over the Antarctic, by 2045 over the Arctic and by 2040 for the rest of the world. https://www.unep.org/news-and-stories/press-release/ozone-layer-recovery-track-helping-avoid-global-warming-05degc

It's still B.S no matter how you wrap up your hypocrisy.

A blog link that references a debunked claim from https://joannenova.com.au/ who self-published[8] the book The Skeptics Handbook, which rejects the scientific consensus on climate change and promotes various falsehoods about climate change.[11] The book argues that temperatures have not increased, and that greenhouse gases do not contribute to climate change.[11][5] The book promotes the myth that there is already so much CO2 in the atmosphere that adding more will not have an impact on temperatures https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joanne_Nova

I detect B.S.

I took that as pure projection from his part. Total nonsense

Well I'm not sure that was his point at all, so I'll wait for him to articulate it. Unlike you I don't have a crystal ball so can't predict whether it would take millions of years to get to that stage again, we do know that only around some 3 million years ago, sea levels were around 30 feet higher (but possibly much more). The Pliocene was a significantly warmer world, likely at some 5 degrees Fahrenheit (around 3 degrees Celsius) warmer than pre-Industrial temperatures of the late 1800s. Much of the Arctic, which today is largely clad in ice, had melted. Heat-trapping carbon dioxide levels, a major temperature lever, hovered around 400 parts per million, or ppm. Today, these levels are similar but relentlessly rising, at some 418 ppm. We also know that the IPCC wants to target a 1.5% increase only and that can only be achieved with rigorous intervention by policy makers. The IPCC also spells out what the world would be like if it warmed by 4 degrees Celsius, which is what scientists are nearly unanimously predicting will happen by the end of the century if no significant policy changes are undertaken. The current warming trend is much more rapid than any natural climate change that has occurred in the past. https://www.wri.org/insights/ipcc-climate-report

Yes perhaps do some further reading, ankle bracelets are often used to detect house arrest violations

542 million to 485.4 million years ago There were no humans to worry about then, what's your point?

Ice cores drawn from Greenland, Antarctica, and tropical mountain glaciers show that Earth’s climate responds to changes in greenhouse gas levels. Ancient evidence can also be found in tree rings, ocean sediments, coral reefs, and layers of sedimentary rocks. This ancient, or paleoclimate, evidence reveals that current warming is occurring roughly 10 times faster than the average rate of warming after an ice age. Carbon dioxide from human activities is increasing about 250 times faster than it did from natural sources after the last Ice Age.3 https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence

If there are people out there that believe the debunked anti climate studies out there which claim the current global warming is due to natural cycles then more fool you. They are funded mainly by ExxonMobil, Chevron, and Shell. Along with Conservative think tanks who often receive funding from fossil fuel companies. Rich donors with ties to the fossil fuel industry have also donated millions of dollars to climate denial groups. Including Koch brothers, Richard Mellon Scaife, and David H. Koch