Freedom Gas!

[Wayward Son]

Yes, you may still think of it as methane or "natural gas" that heats your water.  But when it is liquefied and exported to Europe, it becomes something more.  Something special.  Something that embodies the ideals and values of our great nation.  A symbol of America to the world.

Yes, it becomes...Freedom Gas!   

Because, after all, a fossil fuel that makes money for the oil conglomerates while adding CO2 to our atmosphere and increases global warming/climate change is a perfect symbol for this Administration. 

[TheDrake]

Given the results of our past freedom exports, I'm not sure this is great branding. Also, wasn't this administration supposed to restore respect for America in the world? I don't think it is working...

[Pete at Home]

Methane's relatively clean burning, Wayward, and if you do the chemistry and the math you''ll find that a methane home stove contributes less to global warming than your personal farts.  (Blue darting reduces global warming since CO2 is better than CH4 in the atmosphere.

Indeed, far more of the environmental progress that the US made under Obama resulted from increased methane access. It's done more than say Ethanol or any other Kyoto program.

[TheDrake]

it is not that great

[Crunch]

Time magazine, ok.   

Going past the propaganda to understand the issue rather than a inee jerk reaction, we find:

Earlier this month in an interview with reporters in Brussels, Secretary of Energy Rick Perry also referred to “freedom” gas, and told news site Euractiv who that “freedom” was for: Europeans.

Perry said that, after liberating Europe from the Nazis in the 1940s, “the United States is again delivering a form of freedom to the European continent,” adding that, “rather than in the form of young American soldiers, it’s in the form of liquified natural gas.”

So this gas does promote a freedom from dependance on Russia. The phrasing of “freedom gas” is directly targeted at Putin to get under his skin. Admittedly, not the best branding but promting energy independence of the US and its allies is good for the West and does, in fact, promote freedom throughout the western world - which undoubtably is why the left hates it.

Further, more exports of U.S. LNG to the world means more U.S. jobs and more domestic economic growth and cleaner air here at home and around the globe.

US jobs, economic growrh too, Yeah, it really is a perfect symbol for this administration.

[Wayward Son]

Methane's relatively clean burning, Wayward, and if you do the chemistry and the math you''ll find that a methane home stove contributes less to global warming than your personal farts.  (Blue darting reduces global warming since CO2 is better than CH4 in the atmosphere.

While methane in the atmosphere is marginally better for global warming than CO2 (it is a more potent greenhouse gas, but only lasts around 7 years in the atmosphere), burning methane converts it into CO2, thus increasing the atmospheric concentration, which is already way too high.

So fossil methane contributes to global warming even if burned.

[Pete at Home]

If we stop murdering the forests and oceans then CO2 is much less of a problem. If we grow the forests and coral reefs back to their pre-human state we could use methane all day and night without a signifiant greenhouse effect

[Crunch]

While methane in the atmosphere is marginally better for global warming than CO2 (it is a more potent greenhouse gas, but only lasts around 7 years in the atmosphere), burning methane converts it into CO2, thus increasing the atmospheric concentration, which is already way too high.

If it’s too high, what is the correct atmospheric concentration of CO2?

[DonaldD]

Lower

[Crunch]

If you don’t know what it should be, how do you know it’s too high? What should it be?

[TheDrake]

While methane in the atmosphere is marginally better for global warming than CO2 (it is a more potent greenhouse gas, but only lasts around 7 years in the atmosphere), burning methane converts it into CO2, thus increasing the atmospheric concentration, which is already way too high.

If it’s too high, what is the correct atmospheric concentration of CO2?

How about not the highest level in the past million years, aka human history?

Preferably back to pre-industrial levels, but I think everyone would settle for simply "not higher than right now". For which, we have to turn to Freedom Panels or Freedom Turbines - not Freedom Gas.

[DonaldD]

I love how those denying the effects of climate change think that asking for an absolute/correct number is some magic way of winning an argument.

Guess what?  Higher concentrations of CO2 than now will mean more cost to adjust/mitigate, more human suffering, more refugees.  Lower concentrations than now will mean lower costs, less suffering, less migration.

[D.W.]

If you don’t know what it should be, how do you know it’s too high? What should it be?

As long as we know how to put our hand on the dial and tune the planet to whatever we DO decide, I'm good. 

We seem to have the "turn up the thermostat" part well under way.  Instead of ringing our hands, I say we pat ourselves on the back for a job half done!  Gotta be prepared for those ice ages too ya know.

[Crunch]

I love how those denying the effects of climate change think that asking for an absolute/correct number is some magic way of winning an argument.

Guess what?  Higher concentrations of CO2 than now will mean more cost to adjust/mitigate, more human suffering, more refugees.  Lower concentrations than now will mean lower costs, less suffering, less migration.

And I love how warmists dodge the question and think it’s some way of being smart.

You say it’s too high but you’ve no idea what the right amount is, apparently not even a remote idea of it. If it too high now, what would not be too high?

Let’s see, it’s roughly 415 ppm today. I know you guys have been freaking out about the end of the world for at least 20 years now claiming it was too high and it was 12 years until the end of the world in 2000. Then, it was about 350 ppm. So 350 ppm is too high. Right? Is that a fair statement?

So if this is scientific, then there must be some ppm in mind that’s the target. If we had a dial and could control it easily, where would we set it so the planet isn’t destroyed in 12 years?

[D.W.]

You say it’s too high but you’ve no idea what the right amount is, apparently not even a remote idea of it. If it too high now, what would not be too high?

That's because your question implies we know the correct "natural" static amount.  But it's not static.  Use the "denier" logic and apply it to your own question.  For this, whether or not it's natural or man-made doesn't matter. 

The point is right now, the current levels and rate of increase means things are gonna increasingly "suck more" for large swaths of this planet and its inhabitants.  A "globalist" problem we're all gonna have to deal with unless we adopt a siege mentality and hope that enough of the lesser offenders don't decide to punish us because they perceive us as a threat to their lands.  (literally for some as sea levels rise) 

The "right amount" is less right now.  A crashing drop to offset the current repercussions of these levels.  That seems a ridiculous hope, so the "realistic amount" is... Less.  Not trying to be smarty pants here.  In fact, it's pretty a fairly K.I.S.S. response.

[Pete at Home]

If you don’t know what it should be, how do you know it’s too high? What should it be?

It should be what the unbroken planet would have it. When we cut down rain forests and tear up coral reefs with Chnese fishing guest, we break the process that converts co2 back into O2.

You don't deny the existence of photosynthesis, do you Crunch?

[Crunch]

If you don’t know what it should be, how do you know it’s too high? What should it be?

It should be what the unbroken planet would have it.

And what is that?

[Crunch]

You say it’s too high but you’ve no idea what the right amount is, apparently not even a remote idea of it. If it too high now, what would not be too high?

That's because your question implies we know the correct "natural" static amount.  But it's not static.  Use the "denier" logic and apply it to your own question.  For this, whether or not it's natural or man-made doesn't matter. 

The point is right now, the current levels and rate of increase means things are gonna increasingly "suck more" for large swaths of this planet and its inhabitants.  A "globalist" problem we're all gonna have to deal with unless we adopt a siege mentality and hope that enough of the lesser offenders don't decide to punish us because they perceive us as a threat to their lands.  (literally for some as sea levels rise) 

The "right amount" is less right now.  A crashing drop to offset the current repercussions of these levels.  That seems a ridiculous hope, so the "realistic amount" is... Less.  Not trying to be smarty pants here.  In fact, it's pretty a fairly K.I.S.S. response.

Iget it but it’s not a KISS response, it’s a meaningless one. Is it always going to be “lower”? It doesn’t matter what the level is, it should be lower?

Let’s say we can lower it somehow and avert planetary destruction. What do we have to get toin order to do that? If the answer is always “lower” then you’re effectively saying 0 ppm. Is that the level at which we save the planet?

[Crunch]

The closest to anyone having an idea of what it should be is looking at preindustrial levels as the amoiunt. That was about 280 ppm.

If we could set it, is that what you guys would set it to?

Or lower? For the 800,000 years prior to the industrial revolution, CO2  fluctuated between about 180 ppm  and 280 ppm. Would 180 ppm be the best CO2 level?

Or is it zero?

[Pete at Home]

If you don’t know what it should be, how do you know it’s too high? What should it be?

It should be what the unbroken planet would have it.

And what is that?

While you're being silly and irrelevant, What's the total weight of human beings killed by 9/11?

Look, if you think that cutting down Washington and Oregon hardwood old growth forests and selling the wood to China and buying it back as furniture for more money is how we should do business, you think that's sustainable, make an argument. Don't ask dumb questions.

We run into a dead guy with his heart torn out, does Crunch argue that if we can't say what his heart rate would be if he had a heart, then we can't say that tearing his heart out caused his demise?

Think harder, Crunch. I didn't ask you to endorse Kyoto and Paris. Just to stop dodging basic photosynthesis.

[Crunch]

If you don’t know what it should be, how do you know it’s too high? What should it be?

It should be what the unbroken planet would have it.

And what is that?
 G

While you're being silly and irrelevant, What's the total weight of human beings killed by 9/11?

WUT?

Look, if you think that cutting down Washington and Oregon hardwood old growth forests and selling the wood to China and buying it back as furniture for more money is how we should do business, you think that's sustainable, make an argument. Don't ask dumb questions.

That’s not what I said or even implied. Don’t just make things up.

Think harder, Crunch. I didn't ask you to endorse Kyoto and Paris. Just to stop dodging basic photosynthesis.

Ok, so I think you’re in the zero camp. Eliminate all CO2. I mean, what else can I conclude with your bizarre behavior?

[D.W.]

Is it always going to be “lower”? It doesn’t matter what the level is, it should be lower?

I don't believe it WILL always be "lower".  I think we'll, barring some apocalyptic event, need "higher!" as well. 

More importantly, MOST importantly, is that somewhere else, we'll likely need the ability to do both.  Goldilocks zone is only gonna get us so far out there in the black. 

The objective, rather than ignoring the problem or being all defeatist about it and claiming "not OUR fault!" is to live the lives we want, comfortably in a sustainable way.  I prefer economic and industrial changes to, "well... we COULD engineer a super bug or have a giant war to kill off X% of the population.  THAT might do the trick...

Is 0 ppm where we "save the planet?"  Let's be clear.  The Planet, is gonna survive current trends either way.  It's about saving OUR self-destructive, short sighted, all the modern comfort requiring asses.  Not the planet.

If THAT requires 0 ppm, then we're likely having a huge population die off situation either way.

I just don't get your position.  We don't need to "stop man-made-climate-change", we need the tools to change it in whatever direction we need.

Strike that.  I DO get that the republican position is "We refuse to make economic sacrifices NOW for positive changes down the line."  I just don't get how we as a country, with a government, aren't in a position to say.  Hey, quit trying to murder the future to line your pockets now dicks! 

It doesn't help my mood that the same "side" is also more heavily invested in religions with a, "Well the end times will sort *censored* out either way, so why fret about the future of the planet?"  It's bat*censored* insane to let either type of attitude, or the combination there of set climate policy.

[Crunch]

I don't speak for all republicans in that generalization you just made but I do prefer we approach this scientifically rather than the emotionally laden screeds we see in this thread.

At some point, you were told CO2 levels were too high and had the crap scared out of you with apocalyptic endings if we didn't do something *right now*. Did it never really occur to any of you to ask any questions about this? I mean I know that you're not supposed to question this but it's kind of human nature to be a little curious. If it's too high, there must be some kind of reference to compare it to. If there's not, as it seems you guys believe, then saying it's too high has literally no rational meaning. It's just scare tactics.

Here's some reference points.

• At 500 ppm CO2, plants begin to see significant impacts on growth and yield rates
• At 280 ppm, plants in the C4 category begin dying and others are severely impacted
• It's hard to get a perfect number but around 170 ppm we see all plant life dying
• In all our measurements throughout planetary history, the lowest we've ever seen is 180 ppm

The record low ppm's occur at the end of ice ages where the cold has driven CO2 levels down. As the planet warms, CO2 levels rise. Please note the order of events on that - temperature drives CO2, not the other way around. We saw 180 ppm as we exited the little ice age just as the industrial revolution kicked off. Any one of you can find this out if you just have the courage to ask a couple of questions instead of meekly going along.

OK, so, we're at 415 ppm today which is, according to you guys, is the end of the world stuff. So what you're saying is we want to get CO2 levels down as close as we can to a level that would result in the death of plants on a global scale. In fact, we're damn near there already.

So how low do you want to go? How close to the abyss do we need to get to satisfy warmist fears? We sure as hell don't want to go below 180 ppm and I doubt we could even if we wanted to but if you say it should go lower then you really are advocating for the end of life on the planet (maybe some bacteria survive). If your idea is getting around 280 ppm, then you're saying we want to be right at the razor's edge of killing off plant life. You guys really want to stare into the abyss.

The reality is, when we look at history and use some basic science rather than emotion, CO2 levels are catastrophically low. We need it to increase, a lot. Greenhouse operations routinely use CO2 generators to help their plants, routinely pushing CO2 levels to 1000-1500 ppm. Some even go as high as 1800 ppm.

So what should CO2 levels be? I'd say at least 1000 ppm to give us the safety margin we need. 1200 ppm would be even better.

[D.W.]

I don’t know a single person in real life, and haven’t talked with one online directly who believes the apocalyptic,  “OMG we’re all doomed in 2-3 decades!”  I’m sure there are several who believe that if we continue current trends that long our ability to correct things may never catch up to some cascade effect.
 
It’s “too high” ONLY because we are seeing negative symptoms.  That’s it.  You seem to think there is some magic number we have or need to hit.  Maybe this is a nationalist vs globalist outlook?  It’s not what WE need to hit as a nation.  It’s what the WORLD needs to manage to keep things stable or *gasp* improving for as much of the population as possible.

If sea levels wipe out coastal population centers, or weather systems become more destructive, or we are having massive species die-offs, or major population centers have air that is killing people, or our ability to feed people due to failed or unplanted crops are on the rise…  It’s “too high”. 

The right question to ask is what changes / costs are we willing to accept to improve things?  This isn’t about (or shouldn’t be about) quelling fears or convincing deniers.  It’s about environmental mastery.  Do we really want to just roll the dice on what this dirt ball comes up with once it reaches its own “new normal”?  As do-nothing-ist love to point out, the global climate has changes plenty over its time spinning.  As someone reaping the benefits of the western world… I like what we got now.  If we can make improvements, even better but let’s not make a mess of it and go, “well *censored*, guess it falls into the act-of-god category”.

But you go ahead and nail down that magical number.  And we’ll be all well and good till things start chilling out instead of warming up. 

[Fenring]

I don’t know a single person in real life, and haven’t talked with one online directly who believes the apocalyptic,  “OMG we’re all doomed in 2-3 decades!”  I’m sure there are several who believe that if we continue current trends that long our ability to correct things may never catch up to some cascade effect.

I actually know several IRL people who have posted material just like this, about how we are very near to the tipping point from which there is no return. It's typically not framed as even being 2-3 decades away, but generally has the tenor of "it's almost too late!" Some of the posts seem to even have the premise that it's already too late and who should we blame for it.

[D.W.]

Out of curiosity.  Let's say the world DID settle on a number and nations voluntarily participated in doing their part to reduce emissions. 

What happens when it's not enough?  What if the big emitters aren't willing to sacrifice THAT much to achieve that goal?  What happens when we feel that some heavy emitter is not doing enough?  Or if they opted out. 

Is the next world war a "war for the fate of the planet"? in which everyone else comes together to destroy enough infrastructure such that their emissions are curbed to where the rest of the world feels they should be?

It's no accident that those best able to apply military might are also the highest emitters... 


So how much wasteland are we willing to accept as long as we are following a NIMBY policy?  How many refugees or how much bloodshed are we willing to tolerate to continue doing nothing (or making token reductions) about it?

[DonaldD]

Just because temperature can have an effect on CO2 levels, this in no way means that there are no other ways to change CO2 levels. It also does not imply that changes in CO2 levels do not themselves have an effect on temperature.  These are two implicit non-sequiturs in his position that Crunch is repeatedly unable to grasp.

Observing that the effects of increased CO2 levels in the current environment will have negative consequences is also not an "emotional" argument, never mind a "screed"; but using such loaded, emotive language does seem to be one technique people use to enable themselves to ignore ideas and facts that inconveniently do not support their positions.

[D.W.]

I get the defeatist attitude.  The left and the right have their own flavors of it.  But there is a stark difference between "it's already too late" and "we're all gonna die REALLY SOON because of it."  The latter getting a lot of attention lately...  But AFAIK, it's still a fringe opinion.

We MAY be screwed, but anyone in a position to tweet or forward memes is probably not at risk of eminent extinction, nor are their children or grandchildren.*

*With the caveat of extreme life extension tech/medicine." 

[DonaldD]

Fenring, it already is too late to avoid some of the effects and costs, and some effects that are yet to come are already baked into the current CO2 levels - which will continue to accrue even if we were to reduce net CO2 increases to zero immediately. It is also "almost too late" to start doing things to reduce significant future effects not already destined to occur, because turning around complete economies takes time.  It is not, however, too late to do anything that would reduce long term costs.

[Fenring]

Fenring, it already is too late to avoid some of the effects and costs, and some effects that are yet to come are already baked into the current CO2 levels - which will continue to accrue even if we were to reduce net CO2 increases to zero immediately. It is also "almost too late" to start doing things to reduce significant future effects not already destined to occur, because turning around complete economies takes time.  It is not, however, too late to do anything that would reduce long term costs.

I wasn't addressing this sort of claim, but rather offering a contrast to D.W.'s saying he doesn't actually encounter people making this claim.

[D.W.]

I guess I live in my own purple state bubble. 

[Crunch]

Just because temperature can have an effect on CO2 levels, this in no way means that there are no other ways to change CO2 levels. It also does not imply that changes in CO2 levels do not themselves have an effect on temperature.  These are two implicit non-sequiturs in his position that Crunch is repeatedly unable to grasp.

Observing that the effects of increased CO2 levels in the current environment will have negative consequences is also not an "emotional" argument, never mind a "screed"; but using such loaded, emotive language does seem to be one technique people use to enable themselves to ignore ideas and facts that inconveniently do not support their positions.

Pretending that increased CO2 levels *only* have negative effects is emotional and not fact based.

 

Fenring, it already is too late to avoid some of the effects and costs, and some effects that are yet to come are already baked into the current CO2 levels - which will continue to accrue even if we were to reduce net CO2 increases to zero immediately. It is also "almost too late" to start doing things to reduce significant future effects not already destined to occur, because turning around complete economies takes time.  It is not, however, too late to do anything that would reduce long term costs.

It's been too late for 30+ years. It's always 12 years away from ... whatever it is that's going to happen, not sure you guys even know.

[Crunch]

Out of curiosity.  Let's say the world DID settle on a number and nations voluntarily participated in doing their part to reduce emissions. 

What happens when it's not enough?  What if the big emitters aren't willing to sacrifice THAT much to achieve that goal?  What happens when we feel that some heavy emitter is not doing enough?  Or if they opted out. 

Is the next world war a "war for the fate of the planet"? in which everyone else comes together to destroy enough infrastructure such that their emissions are curbed to where the rest of the world feels they should be?

It's no accident that those best able to apply military might are also the highest emitters... 


So how much wasteland are we willing to accept as long as we are following a NIMBY policy?  How many refugees or how much bloodshed are we willing to tolerate to continue doing nothing (or making token reductions) about it?

That’s a good question, I was wondering that myself.

But first, it’s important to understand there’s a reason the number is always “lower”. Because global warming is not about saving the planet. It’s about control. What these guys want is to tell you how to live your life, what choices you can make, how you speak and even how you think. If they have a number and we hit it, they’d lose that power they so badly crave. So whatever the CO2 level is, it must be lower so they can dictate how you live. That’s all this is about.

So, with that in mind, what will they do to nations that won’t go along? The US is reducing emissions, China and India are not. That’s a threat to the power as normal Americans notice these other countries are not complying and are, in fact, thwarting the US attempts to save the world. What will they do to save their power? History is full of people that achieved power and didn’t want to release it, we know what they do.

How much bloodshed, how much wastelands and refugees are they willing to accept?  Obviously, as much at it takes to get you to submit to their control. No less.

[DonaldD]

Pretending that increased CO2 levels *only* have negative effects is emotional and not fact based.

Why?  Are the only possible arguments that increased levels of CO2 have no beneficial effects emotional ones?  Also, you realize that nobody here has made any argument about increased CO2 levels having no beneficial effect, right?

As an aside, however, what would those beneficial effects be, and would they offset the costs associated with increased CO2 levels?

[D.W.]

You write as if you believe 'the other guys' don't want control.   

Spoiler:  Neither side is going to let us live how WE see fit.  I just prefer the side with their eyes set further down the road.

[DonaldD]

It's been too late for 30+ years. It's always 12 years away from ... whatever it is that's going to happen, not sure you guys even know.

There's no need to misrepresent: 

• AR1 (from IPCC working group 1, in 1990) was talking about a 2C increase over a 35-year period (2025) and a 3C increase by 2100 (with referenced uncertainties and assumptions, of course).
• Working group 2 in 2001 also made reference to the effects of climate change in 2100, and nothing as early as the 20-teens.
• AR5 produced in 2014 also focuses on 2100, with no reference to 2025 anymore

[TheDrake]

I've got to ask, is this kind of measurement commonly used? Can people argue that cutting corporate taxes is good without nailing down the precise perfect number? Or is it just an axiom that cutting them is fantastic, and the more the better?

[NobleHunter]

Rate of change also matters more than the absolute value. +3C over a millennia is much more tolerable than +3C over a century, even if it stays at +3C for the next 900 years..

[Crunch]

It's been too late for 30+ years. It's always 12 years away from ... whatever it is that's going to happen, not sure you guys even know.

There's no need to misrepresent: 

• AR1 (from IPCC working group 1, in 1990) was talking about a 2C increase over a 35-year period (2025) and a 3C increase by 2100 (with referenced uncertainties and assumptions, of course).
• Working group 2 in 2001 also made reference to the effects of climate change in 2100, and nothing as early as the 20-teens.
• AR5 produced in 2014 also focuses on 2100, with no reference to 2025 anymore

OK, let's prove you wrong.  From AP, June 29, 1989:

UNITED NATIONS (AP) _ A senior U.N. environmental official says entire nations could be wiped off the face of the Earth by rising sea levels if the global warming trend is not reversed by the year 2000.

Coastal flooding and crop failures would create an exodus of ″eco- refugees,′ ′ threatening political chaos, said Noel Brown, director of the New York office of the U.N. Environment Program, or UNEP.

He said governments have a 10-year window of opportunity to solve the greenhouse effect before it goes beyond human control.

Now March 28, 2019, the UN again:

Just over a decade is all that remains to stop irreversible damage from climate change, world leaders heard today as the General Assembly opened a high‑level meeting on the relationship between the phenomenon and sustainable development.

How is it that you don't know this has been going on for over 30 years? Seriously, you're knee deep in the cult of global warming and don't know it started over 30 years ago telling the same stories it's telling now? It's always the end of the world, just 10 or maybe 15 years away. It's literally been like that for over 30 years.

[Crunch]

You write as if you believe 'the other guys' don't want control.   

Spoiler:  Neither side is going to let us live how WE see fit.  I just prefer the side with their eyes set further down the road.

There are indeed people that want control. I just prefer the side that is trying to win me over with ideas and reason rather than force.

[Crunch]

I've got to ask, is this kind of measurement commonly used? Can people argue that cutting corporate taxes is good without nailing down the precise perfect number? Or is it just an axiom that cutting them is fantastic, and the more the better?

Taxes, is that science? No, it's politics. You're not making a reasonable comparison.

But yeah, you can talk to people and ask them what taxes should be and often get a number. In fact, we set what we think is the perfect number all the time. Sometimes people disagree and there's a debate, taxes get changed to another very precise number. Have you ever done your income taxes? Did they have a precise number for you? You bet they did.

[Fenring]

How is it that you don't know this has been going on for over 30 years? Seriously, you're knee deep in the cult of global warming and don't know it started over 30 years ago telling the same stories it's telling now? It's always the end of the world, just 10 or maybe 15 years away. It's literally been like that for over 30 years.

Unfortunately Crunch is correct about this part of it. It may or may not be the case that climate science is accurately predicting our doom, but if so the social regime has helped cause it by crying wolf one too many times. I've read stories dating back to the 70's about the end is nigh, from high profile climate sources.

[DonaldD]

It's always the end of the world, just 10 or maybe 15 years away.

Except this is not what you quoted:

He said governments have a 10-year window of opportunity to solve the greenhouse effect before it goes beyond human control.

The latter quote does NOT mean that the "end of the world" would occur within that ten year period, but that there would be unavoidable effects that would eventually occur if actions to reduce emissions had not been taken by then.  Was what was written hyperbolic? Yes. But Crunch's characterization of the quote is again a non sequitur.

[Crunch]

That change s nothing about my point which you seem hellbent on avoiding.  It’s always a few yeas left to avoid disaster. It has been for 30+ years. Deny that all you want, I’ve supplied the proof.

Your behavior is exactly what one would expect from cult members. Think about that.

[TheDrake]

https://www.popsci.com/article/science/why-did-global-warming-slow-down-nineties

Part of the change from 1989 was that we actually took some action, and we improved our models

I'm not sure I'm sold on the precision of these next ten years or it's too late to stop it predictions. What we do know is the longer we wait the more expensive it will be in lives, health, and economic activity.

[cherrypoptart]

I've noticed the same type of high pressure sales tactic in play as well. Buy now before it's too late. Limited time offer! Call within the next 30 minutes or you'll miss your chance. The same slick tricks used to sell a $20 piece of junk are being used to sell trillion dollar wastes of money in the scam belief that we can keep the climate from changing. The hucksterism involved is just so transparent. The boys and girls who cried wolf.

 "Ocasio-Cortez: "The World Is Going To End In 12 Years If We Don't Address Climate Change"

I'd like to put that to the test. Let's not do anything and see what happens.

This is the same doomsday nonsense we've seen going on for literally thousands of years. I don't want to say it's never been right. I suppose Noah called it. If there was a doomsayer warning about Atlantis I guess he or she was right too. But other than that these people have been wrong over 99.9% of the time.

[TheDrake]

Yeah, like my doctor telling me about the risks of smoking and telling me I should quit. She doesn't *know* I'm going to have a stroke in the next ten years! How do they even know that smoking causes cancer. People who don't smoke also get cancer.

[Crunch]

https://www.popsci.com/article/science/why-did-global-warming-slow-down-nineties

Part of the change from 1989 was that we actually took some action, and we improved our models

I'm not sure I'm sold on the precision of these next ten years or it's too late to stop it predictions. What we do know is the longer we wait the more expensive it will be in lives, health, and economic activity.

We don't know that. You say that. It's just your opinion. People like you have been saying that for decades. Other cults have been saying something like that for hundreds of years. You conflate opinion with fact and use junk science, and sometimes even faked data, to support it.

[DonaldD]

I know there is really very little point, but: https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-how-well-have-climate-models-projected-global-warming

[Crunch]

I know there is really very little point, but: https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-how-well-have-climate-models-projected-global-warming

There really is little point in mentioning, but https://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/11367272/Climategate-the-sequel-How-we-are-STILL-being-tricked-with-flawed-data-on-global-warming.html

The models do indeed get really accurate when you simply adjust the data to fit the model. It's not science but it does support your beliefs so it's all cool.