placeholder

Are you claiming that they're not associated? That the big increase in CO2 in the atmosphere doesn't come from burning fossil fuels which also create toxic pollution? The IMF did a study that said that direct and indirect subsidies of fossil fuel amount to about 6% of global GDP. Most of that comes in the form of indirect subsidies. And most of that cost of those indirect subsidies comes in the form of damage to health due to fossil fuels.

Thank you so much for sharing with us this nonsense from that notorious crank D.J. Easterbrook. https://www.desmog.com/don-easterbrook/ The importance of scientific papers and books is gauged by how many citations it earns. Easterbrook's book, from which your quote comes from, has just one. Here's something from Easterbrook from 2008 “We are entering a solar cycle of much reduced sunspots, very similar to that which accompanied the change from the Medieval Warm Period to the Little Ice Age, which virtually all scientists agree was caused by solar variation. Thus, we seem to be headed for cooler temperatures as a result of reduced solar irradiance.” [2] It is to laugh.

Once again someone who not only doesn't understand the difference between weather and climate, but also doesn't understand the difference between regional and global. And there's this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_in_Australia

Well, maybe for you England.is the world But believe it or not, there's a lot of globe out there beyond its borders. Remember that the issue at hand is global climate change. Not English climate change.

There is no such thing as a single "the climate narrative". The "narrative" if that's the word you want to use, that I'm using is based on IPCC reports that over time have grown steadily grimmer as instrumentation grows more sophisticated and more data is collected.

What don''t you understand about rates and degree? In this case frequency and severity. These concepts are so basic it seems to someone would have to be purposely obtuse not to understand this.

Early 20th century warming was in large part due to rising solar activity and relatively quiet volcanic activity. However, both factors have played little to no part in the warming since 1975. Solar activity has been steady since the 50's. Volcanoes have been relatively frequent and if anything, have exerted a cooling effect. https://skepticalscience.com/global-warming-early-20th-century-intermediate.htm As for correlating Chinese CO2 production to temperature change... Even though China produces a lot of CO2, on a yearly basis it's only a tiny fraction of all the CO2 that has accumulated in the atmosphere since the start of the Industrial Revolution. Now if air didn't move, i.e., if there was no such thing as wind, over time CO2 levels would rise disproportionately in the air over China. But obviously that's not the case. Wind doesn't respect borders. And weather is all about moving masses of air. So that CO2 gets dispersed worldwide. I'm guessing you're claim that temperatures in China are not up over the last 6 years is based on the same kind of methodology (if such a high-falutin' word can be used for your simplistic criterion) you used for Africa. Once again, a baseline can't be derived from a single arbitrarily chosen datum. Here's a graph with a trendline also included. It shows a rising trend in Chinese temperatures: https://climateknowledgeportal.worldbank.org/country/china/climate-data-historical

This same class objection was used by years for denialists in regards to global warming because 1998 was an anomalously warm year. And for a few years afterwards the global temperature was lower. That was because of the phenomenon called el nino. It was almost as nonsensical and objection as yours. I say almost because the data you are citing is only about africa. And Africa does not cover the entire globe. So what's your point?

I think you should try out on a scientist or statistician your notion that establishing a baseline derived from one anomalous datum is a valid way to determine a trend. If nothing else, you'll give them a good laugh.

But you don't seem to understand is that it's statistically invalid the cherry pick a starting point and move on from there. It should be obvious that one year does not get to define a trend. Apparently not for some.

I don't think you understand the concept of trends. What does the trend show?

What does the word "global" mean to you?

This is utterly false. I'm on my mobile now but later I will link to official climate reports that show The last 5 years have in fact been the hottest on record. In fact 19 out of the 20 hottest years have occurred in the 21st century.

For someone so interested in investments you seem curiously unaware of the significance of rates. In the case of climate, it's all about the rates of change.

Clearly you have mastered the complexity of the various causes of climate change. You should definitely share your insights with climatologists.

You probably think you're making a point here. Care to share what it is with the rest of us?

Sure. And Jesus is coming back any day now... If all you've got as evidence is predictons about the future, then you've got nothing.

Thank you for your fact-free rant. In fact, the official scientific assessments about the consequences of climate change have mostly been underestimates of the consequences of anthropogenic climate change and repeatedly have to be revised to reflect the reality of the situation.

It's telling that you feel condescended to by the presentation of facts.

Well, actually, in that case it's even more impressive since they have so little but give relatively so much. Especially considering that they don't even come close to sharing a border with Russia and aren't directly threatened by it.

Did you think about adjusting these figures for population? For instance there are almost twice as many Japanese as Brits yet Japan doesn't even have 50% more millionaires. And while the UK has about 81% as many residents as Germany, it has 84% as many millionaires.

It's funny. Just today I cited how Republicans created the strong economy under Bill Clinton to measures taken by Ronald Reagan. I call it wormhole economic theory. Somehow the effects of Reagan's programs bypassed the Bush years and surfaced 2 years after Clinton was elected. Now in your case it's the A&E of Obama's early years somehow tunneled through the Trump years and surfaced now. Can you provide a mechanism of how that works? For most of the last 10 years inflation was hovering at around 2%. Just maybe, just possibly you might look at more proximate causes for the sharp jump in prices. For one things, Covid created a shift in demand away from services and towards good. Unfortunately, given labor shortages and supply disruptions the supply of goods couldn't keep up with demand. What happens when demand outpaces supplies? Things like used car prices selling for more than the list price of new ones because new cars just aren't available. Also, there's a war going on and supplies of energy have been restricted. As for US petroleum supply. I guess you're not aware that unlike Saudi Arabia, or the UAE or Russia, oil companies are not official or defacto arms of the govt. So they can't be ordered by the govt to increase supplies. In the case of oil companies prices really weren't high enough to justify drilling in increasingly cost sites. "Crude oil prices have generally increased since April 2020, resulting in increased crude oil production." https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=51318#:~:text=We forecast that crude oil production in the United States,Federal Offshore Gulf of Mexico. In the case of natural gas it was even worse with major companies going out of business because of the low prices. As I've noted elsewhere, people like you seem to believe that all you have to do is stick a spigot in the ground and out comes petroleum or gas or both. They take time. . In fact, drilling and production is picking up in response to demand. "We forecast that crude oil production in the United States will rise by 630,000 b/d in 2023 to average 12.6 million b/d. We expect more than 80% of that crude oil production growth to come from the Lower 48 states (L48), which does not include production from Alaska and the Federal Offshore Gulf of Mexico. https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=51318#:~:text=We forecast that crude oil production in the United States,Federal Offshore Gulf of Mexico.

And who are "they" exactly? And how exactly will this sinister organization use its enablers?

You seem to believe that predictions are evidence. I got news for you. They're not.

It's a fact that if a President is in power when economic time are tough, then generally his party suffers during midterms. But just because a President is in power when economic times are tough, doesn't mean that he's the cause of them. And I would remind you that Donald Trump pulled a much more amazing feat by leading his party to midterm disaster when the economy was doing well.