placeholder

There's also this for you to contemplate: Cost overruns and delays risk nuclear’s place in energy transition https://archive.ph/4Aoky

And here's something else for you to contemplate whilst you are doing your research: https://tradingeconomics.com/commodity/coal

While you are busily engaged with your research, I though I might share this with you.

Right., It's a case of Big Green showering them with cash while the bullied and impoverished teensy fossil fuel interests, unable to compete for the favor of the major financial institutions, cower helplessly. So sad.

Addled much? Gotta give you credit for packing so much nonsense into so few words

Links? Got some evidence to support that?

Unfortunately your comments about the sources of CO2 are false. We know that they are false for 2 reasons. The main reason is Carbon 14. Carbon 14 is continually created in the upper atmosphere by cosmic rays striking carbon atoms. After about 14,000 years, virtually all that carbon 14 decays into Carbon 12. The entire rise in CO2 since the onset of the industrial revolution is is composed of CO2 that contains no C14 but only C12. That would be coming from ancient and sequestered stocks of Carbon like OIl, natural gas, and coal. Similarly, volcanoes are a source of CO2 some if which is made up of Carbon 13, another isotope of Carbon, as well. There has been no rise in the gross production of CO2 that has a C13 component. In other words, you've got nothing.

If we didn't have your word for it, one would think that you were in in the bag for Trump. Ignoring stuff like this much? Jury Hears Tape of Trump and Cohen Discussing Hush-Money Deal On it, Mr. Cohen discusses a hush-money deal that the parent company of The National Enquirer made on Mr. Trump’s behalf with the former Playboy model Karen McDougal, as well as the question of how to deal with “the financing” — that is, repaying — the supermarket tabloid’s publisher, David Pecker. “What financing?” Mr. Trump asked, suddenly snapping to attention. He then directed Mr. Cohen to “pay with cash.” https://archive.ph/XjcM8

But you are the one with whom he disagrees about Brexit. And for him, that's what makes it an annoyance.

Here's some evidence from 3 of the worlds leading financial analysis companies: Lazard, Ernst & Jung, and Mackenzie Woods. Got any evidence to rebut this? https://www.lazard.com/media/2ozoovyg/lazards-lcoeplus-april-2023.pdf Solar LCOE now 29% lower than any fossil fuel option, says EY A report from Ernst & Young (EY) shows that despite inflationary pressures, solar remains the cheapest source of new-build electricity. The global weighted average levelized cost of electricity (LCOE) for PV is now 29% lower than the cheapest fossil fuel alternative. https://www.pv-magazine.com/2023/12/08/solar-lcoe-now-29-lower-than-any-fuel-fossil-option-says-ey/ According to Wood Mackenzie’s latest analysis of the levelized cost of electricity (LCOE) for the Asia Pacific (APAC) region, the LCOE from renewables reached a historic low in 2023. This is significant because it marks a shift toward making renewables increasingly competitive with coal, a mainstay in APAC’s energy mix. The driving force behind this trend is the substantial reduction in capital costs for renewable energy projects. https://electrek.co/2024/02/29/utility-solar-dethrones-coal-as-the-cheapest-power-source-in-asia/#:~:text=Renewable energy costs in Asia,according to a new study.

This comment is just nonsensical. A hypocrite is a kind of liar. I'm not surprised that you think accusing someone of being a kind of liar isn't an insult. What makes it even less intelligent, which is a pretty hard thing to do, is that you characterized me as being a hypocrite on the basis of absolutely no evidence. What evidence is there in my comments that I am a hypocrite?

In that case, it looks like all the dictionaries I consulted, are also woke. More nonsense from you.

I decided to look at the definition of "denialist" offered by several dictionaries. None of them mentioned the holocaust. I think all of them used climate change denialist as an example. Some also used covid denialist as an example. I recognize that you used the more generic term "denier". But denialist is the word commonly used to characterize those who, like you, reject a widely accepted scientific theory.

Here's the first definition of denialist courtesy of the Oxford English Dictionary: de·ni·al·ist /dəˈnī(ə)ləst/ noun a person who does not acknowledge the truth of a concept or proposition that is supported by the majority of scientific or historical evidence; a denier. "the small minority of very vocal climate change denialists" https://www.google.com/search?q=denialist&oq=denialist&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUyBggAEEUYOdIBCDUxMjhqMGo3qAIIsAIB&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

Denier is not a personal slur. It's entirely based on the words you wrote here. But what did I write here that justified this comment directed at me: "And you're a hypocrite because you aren't part of the solution to your imaginary problem."

Got any evidence to support this?

The surest tell of when someone has got nothing is when they make it personal. You've got nothing.

And your utter lack of knowledge of the huge advances that have already been made in renewable energy is telling. Renewable energy prices are plulnging. Already, renewable energy is cheaper than coal. And gas peaker plants - the ones that come online when power demand is high - are being displaced by batteries.

Can you share with us the evidence of this global conspiracy? How thousands of climatologists are engaging in a massive fraud. You've got nothing.

As I noted, the reason that only those studies were included was because far from all climatological research addresses climate change. Why would anyone include in their inventory a research paper that doesn't address this issue? As I pointed out, apparently to no avail, most papers in the field of biology don't address the issue of evolution. Does this mean that only a small percentage of biologists accept the theory of evolution?

Actually, in the 1970's some scientists working for exxon predicted the effect of increased CO2 levels on global warming. Oddly enough, Exxon suppressed that research.

At this point in time, it's no longer an hypothesis. It's a full-blown theory with massive confirmation to back it.

Vincent RJ was referring to the fact that currently cold weather accounts for more deaths than hot weather. Maybe you think it's irrelevant that the same stuff that is mostly fueling the rise in CO2 and other greenhouse gasses is irrelevant. I don't.

I should also point out to you that the criticism of Powell's method which you claim Cook levelled at Powell (he didn't) was exactly the same criticism that denialists level at Cook.

This is nonsense. It's like claiming that biologist don't support the theory of evolution because mostly it's not mentioned in their research. Lots of climatological research has nothing to do with global warming. So the research papers were chosen that in some way addressed that issue. What's more, Cook would be greatly amused to learn that his research from 2013 undermined Powell's from 2015. According to Cook, in 2013 the consensus was at 97%. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0301421514002821#:~:text=Introduction-,Cook et al.,real and largely human-made.