Climate alarmists are wrong.

[wmLambert]

Data shows no catastrophic warming. No catastrophic climate change. Yet the Democrat policy is that Climate Change is the number one issue.

From meteorologist Anthony Watts:

…89% of the stations used by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) to calculate average U.S. temperatures failed to meet the National Weather Service’s (NWS) siting standards, which stipulate stations must be 30 meters (100 feet) or more away from any artificial or radiating reflecting heat source.

…NOAA rolled out a new network of temperature stations: the U.S. Climate Reference Network (USCRN). The USCRN comprises a subset of existing temperature gauge locations that meet all NWS conditions for unbiased, high-quality temperature data that are not expected to be affected by nearby development or the placement of artificial heat sources for at least the next 50 years. Describing the USCRN, the National Climate Data Center wrote, “[t]he USCRN measures temperature with superior accuracy and continuity in places that land-use change will not likely impact during the next five decades. Built specifically for this purpose … [t]he USCRN serves, as its name and original intent imply, as a reference network for operational estimates of national-scale temperature.”

…, NOAA developed a second new temperature reporting network, adding thousands of stations from the Global Historical Climatology Network to NOAA’s Historical Climate Network of 1,218 stations for a new dataset it called “nClimGrid.” This new system collects data from more than 10,000 high-quality (unbiased) and low-quality (biased) stations alike.

…Sadly, in its monthly and annual reports on temperature and weather trends, NOAA does not use or cite the data from the unbiased USCRN. Instead, the federal government’s official reports cite data from the woefully inadequate, fatally compromised nClimGrid network.

…The simple truth is simple: it is not getting as hot as fast as climate alarmists within and outside the government say it is.

This is from H. Sterling Burnett, Ph.D. (hburnett@heartland.org) is the director of the Arthur B. Robinson Center on Climate and Environmental Policy at The Heartland Institute, a nonpartisan, nonprofit research center headquartered in Arlington Heights, Illinois.

https://www.heartland.org/_template-assets/documents/publications/2022_Surface_Station_Report.pdf

In Vegas, The temperature is too hot for accurate temperature reporting - to scare off tourists - so most of the temperature gathering stations used are the opposite. They are often in the shade and near cool-air pockets. As in most data collecting, you've got to get past the bureaucrats before you can trust the numbers.

[msquared]

Now when you say non partisan what do you mean by that?

Here is the wiki on the group.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heartland_Institute


Please note they also worked with Big Tobacco to oppose smoking regulations.

So your claim that it is non partisan seems not be true. They may be non profit but that just means they can be bought and from the looks of it they have been.

[TheDrake]

The worshippers of digging stuff up and burning it like cavemen are, as usual, either disingenuous or delusional or incompetent.

https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/44905/did-the-us-climate-reference-network-show-no-new-warming-since-2005-in-the-us

[Tom]

I saw William's description of the Arthur B. Robinson Center -- which isn't too far from my in-laws' place -- and choked. Please Google Arthur Robinson before continuing.

[rightleft22]

Should Climate change be the only reason for society to work towards clean water, clean air, clean earth policies.
Everyone of course wants clean water and air... but economics trumps that especially when the problem of pollution or impact of weather events isn't felt directly. Passed along to the "neighbors"

[msquared]

Don't build your coal power plant where the smoke blocks my view of the mountains. Build it over there where the poor people live.

[TheDrake]

Some people just won't be happy until we've turned our world into Arrakis or Giedi Prime.

[Fenring]

Some people just won't be happy until we've turned our world into Arrakis or Giedi Prime.

But the spice must flow...

[jc44]

I saw William's description of the Arthur B. Robinson Center -- which isn't too far from my in-laws' place -- and choked. Please Google Arthur Robinson before continuing.

If you Google "Arthur Robinson" you get a well respected cartographer who has an eponymous map projection. "Arthur B. Robinson" gets you a climate change denier.

[yossarian22c]

Data shows no catastrophic warming. No catastrophic climate change. Yet the Democrat policy is that Climate Change is the number one issue.

...

Define catastrophic?

Some points:
1) The data shows warming. And significant warming. Yes it is on the order of magnitude of a few tenths of a degree a year but that adds up to a lot more energy in the climate system.
2) Global temperature estimates depend on a lot more than US ground stations. Satellite data is used in conjunction with worldwide ground based stations.
3) It is known trees help keep the ground cooler. No one is surprised if you point out its hotter on a NYC street than it is in the nearest forest. That's a human living space problem that exacerbates global warming.

Effects of the extra energy in the Climate system.
1) Weirdly hot weather in the UK and Europe. 100+ degrees is really hot that for that region.
2) Stronger storms, see Kentucky.
3) More and hotter fires, see anywhere in the West, Australia, and recently western Europe.
4) Changing rainfall patterns. Ask the farmers in the great plains, draught is turning what could have been a windfall year for wheat and grains into a disaster for them.
5) Melting Tundra, whole Alaskan villages are having to move because the ground is literally melting under them.

The list could go on. But are you going to respond we're just overdue for increasing glaciation when glaciers and ice are melting at an increasing rate worldwide?

[Wayward Son]

And let's not forget ocean acidification, from the higher levels of CO2 mixing with the ocean waters to produce carbonic acid.

And why does the temperature of the oceans keep getting hotter?

And why is it that there are vineyards in England now producing high-quality wines, something that has never happened before because the temperatures in England are too cold for high-quality wines?

...89% of the stations used by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) to calculate average U.S. temperatures failed to meet the National Weather Service’s (NWS) siting standards, which stipulate stations must be 30 meters (100 feet) or more away from any artificial or radiating reflecting heat source.

Even if that is true, why do those "artificial or radiating reflecting heat source(s)" keep getting hotter??  You'd think that most of such sources (concrete, metal, stone, etc.) would at best increase the readings for the temperature, like adding 1/10 of a degree or something.  But the readings keep increasing over the years.  So how is that the temperatures keep increasing at about the same rate as other temperature stations around them?  How is it that these "artificial sources" first add 1/10 degree, then 2/10 degree 10 years later, then 3/10 degree 20 years later, at about the same rate as all the other "artificial sources" around them?

Of course, you don't know and won't find out.  You have your authority, and you believe whatever he says.  "He said it; I believe it; that settles it."  Don't ask questions, don't doubt, thinking for yourself and asking questions only leads you to error.  Just believe.  Right? 

[NobleHunter]

Didn't the Romans grow wine in England? I seem to recall they did but I don't care enough to look it up. Of course, no way to tell if it was "high-quality wine."

[rightleft22]

you can make wine from dandelions so...
I think the point is that the UK is now producing grapes of a quality similar to that as in France which is now having trouble maintaining that quality.   

[Fenring]

And why is it that there are vineyards in England now producing high-quality wines, something that has never happened before because the temperatures in England are too cold for high-quality wines?

This is a more complex issue than you'd see in a climate article. Wine can be made in less than ideal conditions using various technology, although you do still need a growing season of a minimal length. Over the years the Niagara region, for instance, has grown in skill to the point where they are producing excellent whites and some very good reds as well, depending on your price point. They don't, however, have the economy to produce a good red at a low price, so reds there tend to be pricier compared with a Spanish equivalent of similar quality. But that is improving as well. And Ontario, generally speaking, is going to be a far colder climate than most (or all?) of England. I did check one article about this and it referred to a team of economists making projections based on climate data. That is a far cry from making some kind of statement about the potential for the wine industry in England to take off due to becoming more like France. Maybe it would make it easier for large production industry to be more successful, since huge production requires an economy of scale that does get helped with optimal conditions. But even sub-optimal conditions can be overcome with experience. For instance regions of Spain that are hotter than what Italian and the French growers are used to developed the ability to make lots of great wine in that climate. So it's also about how 'climatized' the geographical area is to what their capabilities are and maximizing those.

Sorry if this was a side track...

[wmLambert]

...Sorry if this was a side track...

Almost all the replies are inadequate side tracks. The report specifically indicates the 2009 temperature-gathering sites that were found by the alarmists, themselves, to be inadequate or compromised. See the "MMTS placement near a ground mounted power transformer at USHCN station in Glens Ferry, OR. This station was surveyed as part of the original 2009 report and was identified as being biased, but has not been corrected as of 2022." on P. 24. This is just an example of what you are all attesting to believe. Like, I said, The real climate scientists agree we are in a long-lived Ice Age, with glaciation in our future, Science - not me or you - says that warming in the midst of this is a good thing.

Will anyone make the simple argument as to why anyone should be against the short-lived warming period we are currently experiencing?

Yes, many alarmists have said we had only a few years to live - several decades ago. Almost every model has been proved wrong. Science is only believed by alarmists if it is pushed by bureaucrats and seekers of political power Talk to a scientist and you are insulted and mocked.

19 years ago, S. Fred Singer said in the WSJ:

...The Summary of the UN-IPCC science panel report (but not the report itself), bases its conclusion about existence of human-induced global warming on three major claims. Although widely publicized, none of them pass muster; they have been or are being disproved by actual data.

• The IPCC claim, that the climate is currently warming, is based solely on surface thermometer data. It is contradicted not only by superior observations from weather satellites but also by independent data from radiosondes carried on weather balloons. In addition, proxy (non-thermometer) data from tree rings, ice cores, etc. confirm that there is no current warming.
• The IPCC claim that the 20th century was the warmest in the past 1000 years is based entirely on a misuse of such proxy data. Two Canadian scientists have just published a detailed audit that exposes a shocking set of errors; it permits anyone to independently verify their counter-claim. Note that even if these two IPCC claims were valid, they would not by themselves prove a human cause; the warming could well be a natural climate fluctuation of the kind frequently observed in the past.
• The third IPCC claim is that climate models which incorporate the observed increase in atmospheric greenhouse gases can accurately reproduce the temperature record of the past 100 years. That assertion is inaccurate. True, the models employ enough adjustable parameters to mimic the global average temperature. But once the record is reconstructed according to latitude and altitude, any agreement with model results disappears.

Thus, human-induced climate warming, although expected from greenhouse theory, appears to be difficult to demonstrate and is likely to remain insignificant in comparison to natural variations of the climate.

What has changed since then? What changed is that the alarmists stopped calling it Anthropomorphic Global Warming and started calling it Climate Change. Go back and look at the Global Cooling research that has been suppressed. It was solid and authenticated, yet vanished from most electronic archives. One of the Wikipedia founders did admit that he deleted thousands of such articles.

[wmLambert]

As for "real climate scientists" agreeing on a coming Ice Age, see https://www.sott.net/article/441917-British-astrophysicists-mini-ice-age-is-accelerating-New-Maunder-Minimum-has-begun-look-at-changes-in-Beaufort-Gyre

Science is easy to disinform about. One can state a conclusion, and then search for anything that tends to support the position. If one's position agrees with the politically-correct position, odds are conflicting research articles have been deleted or hidden away - so anything one finds stand a chance to support the disinformation.

126,000 years ago, temperatures over Greenland were as much as 8 degrees warmer than at any time during the last one thousand years. There is only disinformation because politicians see a benefit in inventing it.

[Tom]

Okay, look, I've tried to stay out of this for the most part, because I think it's not helpful to engage your delusions -- but are you seriously presenting Piers Corbyn as a "real climate scientist?"

[msquared]

I thought the world was only 6,000 years old?

[TheDrake]

"Carbon dioxide levels do not have any impact -I repeat, any impact- on climate," states Corbyn, "the CO2 theory is wrong from the start."

Tell that to Venus.

[rightleft22]

Climate alarmist - Economic alarmist?  The Sky is always falling

As long as thier this duality of being, this either or, all or nothing type of reasoning (mistaken for reason) I see no chance of real dialog (Says the duality alarmist).
When did we lose the ability to seek out the solution between extremes? 

[yossarian22c]

...
What has changed since then? What changed is that the alarmists stopped calling it Anthropomorphic Global Warming and started calling it Climate Change. Go back and look at the Global Cooling research that has been suppressed. It was solid and authenticated, yet vanished from most electronic archives. One of the Wikipedia founders did admit that he deleted thousands of such articles.

Wikipedia isn't an electronic archive for academic research. It's a crowd sourced and edited encyclopedia. No one is "deleting" the past editions of nature or other more specific academic journals about climate change. The Global cooling research was written in the seventies when we saw a couple decades of very small cooling in a row. The slope of that cooling if you pick the most extreme years is significantly less than the slope of the warming we're seeing now.

Let me ask you again one more time.
1) What model is predicting cooling?
2) How accurate has that model been over the last 50 years or since its creation?

[Tom]

When did we lose the ability to seek out the solution between extremes?

There is a part of me that honestly wants to just slap anyone who's, like, "can't we please try to find a compromise in the exact center of this question of fact?"

2+2 is not 7. But maybe it's rude to insist that it's four, and everyone should just agree that it's 5 to be nice about it.

[TheDrake]

...
What has changed since then? What changed is that the alarmists stopped calling it Anthropomorphic Global Warming and started calling it Climate Change. Go back and look at the Global Cooling research that has been suppressed. It was solid and authenticated, yet vanished from most electronic archives. One of the Wikipedia founders did admit that he deleted thousands of such articles.

Wikipedia isn't an electronic archive for academic research. It's a crowd sourced and edited encyclopedia. No one is "deleting" the past editions of nature or other more specific academic journals about climate change. The Global cooling research was written in the seventies when we saw a couple decades of very small cooling in a row. The slope of that cooling if you pick the most extreme years is significantly less than the slope of the warming we're seeing now.

Let me ask you again one more time.
1) What model is predicting cooling?
2) How accurate has that model been over the last 50 years or since its creation?

How does wikipedia have thousands of articles on any topic? Of course they are shutting down advocacy pages like the "list of scientists who disagree with climate change". They also will not allow "historians who disagree with accounts of the holocaust." Or "list of deadly vaccines". Or "members of the illuminati"

[rightleft22]

When did we lose the ability to seek out the solution between extremes?

There is a part of me that honestly wants to just slap anyone who's, like, "can't we please try to find a compromise in the exact center of this question of fact?"

2+2 is not 7. But maybe it's rude to insist that it's four, and everyone should just agree that it's 5 to be nice about it.

There are Climate alarmists who demand we jump to 'clean energy' and end all dependence on fusel fuels immediately. Close the coal plant before we have the means to replace the energy via other means.
There are Economic alarmist who see any move away from fusel fuels as the end of thier prosperity and the world.

Common ground - both want to live in a economically healthy community with clean air, clean water, and clean earth. Talking about, finding and implementing the best method of how to get there is not a attempt to make 2 + 2 = 7.  That many think it is is part of the problem.

Their is no requirement or need to believe that Climate Change is happening in order to work towards a healthy community and their is a lot of evidence that moving towards clean will be economically beneficial and a even stronger economic driving force then fusel fuels were. Yes change is scary but the driving force behind the economy is always changing. (hell for a few years it was tulip bulbs) 

If anything the last 30 years ought to have taught everyone that those who don't adapt get left behind.  "boohoo the industry I've worked in all my life, and my father before me, has become obsolete... lets stop time so we can pretend it isn't".  2+2=4 move forward or get out of the way. How smartly we move forward and transition that is the question.

[msquared]

It is like the whining about light bulbs.  I love the LED's in my house. The fact that they save me money by using them is great, but to me the real bonus is the fact I am not replacing some light bulb in my house every month or so.  Now it is maybe one every year or so and that is only because the CFL's I got  10 years ago are now finally wearing out. Once I replace them with LED's I expect the number of bulbs replaced in a 10 year period could be counted on 1 hand.

Our porch and street lamp bulbs are both on a light sensor, so they turn on and off as it gets dark/light.  I love them. They have worked for 5+ years, every day, no matter the weather conditions. From 8 hours a day in the summer to 14 hours a day in the winter.

[wmLambert]

When did we lose the ability to seek out the solution between extremes?

There is a part of me that honestly wants to just slap anyone who's, like, "can't we please try to find a compromise in the exact center of this question of fact?"

2+2 is not 7. But maybe it's rude to insist that it's four, and everyone should just agree that it's 5 to be nice about it.

There are Climate alarmists who demand we jump to 'clean energy' and end all dependence on fusel fuels immediately. Close the coal plant before we have the means to replace the energy via other means.
There are Economic alarmist who see any move away from fusel fuels as the end of thier prosperity and the world.

Common ground - both want to live in a economically healthy community with clean air, clean water, and clean earth. Talking about, finding and implementing the best method of how to get there is not a attempt to make 2 + 2 = 7.  That many think it is is part of the problem.

Their is no requirement or need to believe that Climate Change is happening in order to work towards a healthy community and their is a lot of evidence that moving towards clean will be economically beneficial and a even stronger economic driving force then fusel fuels were. Yes change is scary but the driving force behind the economy is always changing. (hell for a few years it was tulip bulbs) 

If anything the last 30 years ought to have taught everyone that those who don't adapt get left behind.  "boohoo the industry I've worked in all my life, and my father before me, has become obsolete... lets stop time so we can pretend it isn't".  2+2=4 move forward or get out of the way. How smartly we move forward and transition that is the question.

Totally agree. No one is requesting  to stop LED technology and go back to all filament bulbs. What people resent is the political cleansing of anything that the Free Enterprise system has not yet deemed replaceable. Personally, I used to enjoy building models. I had the George Washington submarine that the USSR bought thousands of kits of, because it was too accurate. Then a few people suicided by glue-sniffing - so the plastic cement was taken away from us. Every time a plastic item breaks, I sure wish that glue was still available. I hate the mandated gas can spouts that no one can use without spilling more than any old-style spouts ever did. ...And toilets that need three flushes to work use more water than the old reliable ones did are annoying. I concur we shouldn't fix what's not broken.

I also resent the idea that species that have been replaced by newer offshoots should not be allowed to naturally disappear. Thousands of species go extinct every year, yet snail darters must be protected.

[Tom]

I'm assuming you still keep a set of lawn darts in your basement for when any neighborhood children visit.

[msquared]

I get around the small gas can spout problem by having an electric lawn mower. It's quiet and works great.  And now my wife does not have an excuse that she is not able to start the lawn mower because she is not strong enough to use the pull starter.

My issue with the toilets is not the flushing as much as the cleaning of the sides of the bowl.  All the stuff goes down on the first flush, but sometimes the bowl side are not 100% clean. Not sure if that is a low water usage problem.

[yossarian22c]

...

Totally agree. No one is requesting  to stop LED technology and go back to all filament bulbs. What people resent is the political cleansing of anything that the Free Enterprise system has not yet deemed replaceable.
...

How the the Free Enterprise system do getting rid of lead paints? Adding seat belts and air bags to cars? In getting rid of dumping your waste in the river or burning it in a pit out back? Adding catalytic converters to cars? Using scrubbers on coal power plants to remove a majority of the most carcinogenic and harmful compounds from the exhaust? Etc.

These are all things where a company can profit by cutting corners because the cost is societal. You have to have rules that prevent personal/corporate profit with societal costs. The "Free Enterprise" system doesn't solve any of those problems. It makes them worse because all the responsible corporations get undersold by the ones who don't care what they destroy in the process.

[rightleft22]

But if you pray real hard to the Market gods.... in the market we trust

[wmLambert]

I get around the small gas can spout problem by having an electric lawn mower. It's quiet and works great.  And now my wife does not have an excuse that she is not able to start the lawn mower because she is not strong enough to use the pull starter.

My issue with the toilets is not the flushing as much as the cleaning of the sides of the bowl.  All the stuff goes down on the first flush, but sometimes the bowl side are not 100% clean. Not sure if that is a low water usage problem.

Agree. Generally, electric lawn mowers and snow blowers do work - but battery models do badly compared to gas machines. Some people with small yards may cut their whole yard without recharging, but the batteries in our string trimmer run out faster and faster as the batteries age. Some folks with small yards swear by their battery mowers. They are easier than pulling a 15-amp cord around.

BTW, the non-Chilton gas spouts do spill far more gas than the old spouts ever did. Prior to the new government intrusive edicts, most burn incidents have involved consumers pouring gasoline on a fire.

I live in Michigan. We have more than enough water to make power flushes applicable. Why do we suffer because California has less water? There is no trade-off from my area to theirs.

As for plastic cement, if you crack a tray in a refrigerator, the replacement part is costly compared to a simple squirt of cement to mend it. Dr. Kevorkian argued suicide should be painless, but plastic cement must not be existent. The Mash song from M. Altman and J. Mandel never mentioned plastic cement, but PC is all that was outlawed, neh?

[TheDrake]

pouring gasoline on a fire

What? who is pouring gasoline onto a fire, and why would it matter which spout was used?

I live in Michigan. We have more than enough water to make power flushes applicable. Why do we suffer because California has less water? There is no trade-off from my area to theirs.

Because as we have seen with other state laws, jackasses that can't get with the program would smuggle in out of code items to California, most likely. Meanwhile, there are all kinds of videos on how to convert low flow toilets precisely because people can't be trusted to sacrifice for the greater good.

Also, not everything is about water levels. It also is about treatment plant volume, local water distribution, etc. Conserving water use is a net benefit everywhere.

[wmLambert]

Okay, look, I've tried to stay out of this for the most part, because I think it's not helpful to engage your delusions -- but are you seriously presenting Piers Corbyn as a "real climate scientist?"

No, he's an astrophysicist who realizes sun activity drives climate much more than does anthropomorphic global warming or CO2. Are you one of those climate alarmists who call him a conspiracy theorist because he calls out failed Climate change models and incorrect data? see https://noqreport.com/2022/09/10/astrophysicist-piers-corbyn-burns-the-climate-change-argument-to-the-ground/

[wmLambert]

Any one see the Tesla S with a gas generator built into the rear window? Matt Mikka built a 400-cc gas generator onto his Tesla. https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/gas-generator-electric-vehicle-drive-1-800-miles

Better than dragging a dozen solar panels from his rear bumper.

[rightleft22]

Any one see the Tesla S with a gas generator built into the rear window? Matt Mikka built a 400-cc gas generator onto his Tesla. https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/gas-generator-electric-vehicle-drive-1-800-miles

Better than dragging a dozen solar panels from his rear bumper.

So he turned his Tesla into a badly performing plug in hybrid? Seems he ought to have done a better job of finding a vehicle that better suited his needs

[yossarian22c]

Okay, look, I've tried to stay out of this for the most part, because I think it's not helpful to engage your delusions -- but are you seriously presenting Piers Corbyn as a "real climate scientist?"

No, he's an astrophysicist who realizes sun activity drives climate much more than does anthropomorphic global warming or CO2.
...

Can you (or he) explain why the rate of change of the temperature is so far out of line with historical records? The solar fluctuations are 10,000+ year cycles. It deals with the very slight differences in solar energy in the North during the winter. Ice reflects more heat than water. So more ice for longer each year in the artic is cooling over the long term. The fluctuations due to Earth's orbit don't cause rapid changes.

[Tom]

No, he's an astrophysicist who realizes sun activity drives climate...

Let's try this sentence on for size: "he's a dentist who realizes that dental plaque causes heart disease."

[Wayward Son]

Meanwhile, European rivers are drying up.

Drought conditions not seen in some places since the Renaissance are becoming the continent’s new normal, with perilous knock-on effects for food security and supply chains in the European Union, the world’s third-biggest economy. Water levels on European rivers have been shrinking now for six years, with farmland drying up and Alpine glaciers in retreat.  ...

While heat and drought are also afflicting regions from Asia to East Africa, Europe is a climate change front-runner, warming at twice the rate as other inhabited continents, according to Copernicus. Last year was 1.4C (2.5F) warmer than normal and right on the cusp of the 1.5C temperature-increase limit that scientists have set to keep life more-or-less normal this century.

It's getting bad, folks.

[Mynnion]

Don't bother with any warnings.  They won't convince anyone who isn't already.  Even if they agree that climate change is occurring they will never admit man as the source. 

It is the same with those screaming about electric vehicles.  Anyone with half a brain understands that fossil fuels are a thing of the past.  As clean energy continues to expand and we move towards a world fueled by fusion electric will replace nearly everything.  It is going to happen whether anyone wants it or not.  Yes there are current barriers with storage, batteries, and charging but how many people regularly drive more than 100 miles a day?  As we move in to the new electric world the free market will push innovation and drive new tech growth the same way as it always has.  Unless of course we end up destroying ourselves on the way.

[Wayward Son]

Except this isn't a warning.  This is the expected result.

And with each new drying river, each new melted glacier, each new grove of peaches dying in Georgia, for every new high-quality vineyard in England, with each new hundred-year or five-hundred-year storm, a few more people realize that something unusual is happening.  That maybe those who have been talking about this and predicting it for decades may be onto something.  And those who have been predicting that nothing is going to change just might be wrong.

Because any conspiracy that includes the cooperation of nature is more than just a conspiracy.

In the end, most people listen when reality bites them in the buttocks.

[TheDrake]

Don't bother with any warnings.  They won't convince anyone who isn't already.  Even if they agree that climate change is occurring they will never admit man as the source. 

It is the same with those screaming about electric vehicles.  Anyone with half a brain understands that fossil fuels are a thing of the past.  As clean energy continues to expand and we move towards a world fueled by fusion electric will replace nearly everything.  It is going to happen whether anyone wants it or not.  Yes there are current barriers with storage, batteries, and charging but how many people regularly drive more than 100 miles a day?  As we move in to the new electric world the free market will push innovation and drive new tech growth the same way as it always has.  Unless of course we end up destroying ourselves on the way.

Well they need 100 gallons of fuel for their jeep when they have to bug out because of civil unrest caused by the effects of global warming.