Can Solar & Wind Fix Everything (e.g., Climate Change) with a battery break-through?

[aenyc]

All government employees in the U.S. take an oath to defend the Constitution that they take with true faith, without obligation, and without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion. Most of them are honest hard working Americans and not only mean it but take pride in their service.

The UN has a similar oath and similar transparency, I believe that most of them have the same pride in doing what they can to make the world a better place. But the ones that rise to power have a poor track record.

You seriously believe these things? This is a very naïve thing to believe. While some "rank and file" may feel that way, the vast majority are "grey mice" that will simply do what they are told (And will say "I was just following orders if questioned"). And the ones that give orders never have benefit of humankind on their agenda. At best, they are lining their own pockets, at worst, they are control freaks with "god" complex. I have been observing it on Federal Government (and local government) projects over the last 20 years in the industry. The system is so corrupt, that when we as contractors are attempting to save taxpayer money, govt officials say in the open that they are NOT interested in saving money. They want to spend the maximum amount, because this guarantees funds for the following year! They are not even hiding it in front of dozens of contractors. Contractor management loves it! Govt Bosses love it! And not one person is listening to the tech (some of whom) genuinely try to do what's best.
This is true for FedGov, DoD, State of NY, State of NJ, and NYC (just the ones i have personal experience working with).

The ones at the top have been caught lying under oath time and time again, and they feel absolutely no shame and no remorse. They often double and triple down on their lies. The 3 branch system (like the US one) is broken when all 3 parts have been corrupted and paid off by special interest, which anyone not blind will see.

Its eerie to see how similar the systems are now to the system of mid-late USSR, with corruption totally and completely envelop all layers of government, from the town clerk to the supreme court judge. They have all been absolutely bought and paid for by special interest.

 

[svetz]

NOAA's January report: https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/news/global-climate-202301

 

[aenyc]

I would not trust anything that these organizations are publishing. After the last 3 years every single government scientific think tank (NOAA, CDC, FDA, the list is endless) has been severely compromised and politicized. Almost all top officials in these organizations are through the revolving door with the very corporations they are supposed to monitor. Its disgusting. It is going to be next to impossible for them to regain any trust that they have lost.

 

[LeoThomson]

I would not trust anything that these organizations are publishing. After the last 3 years every single government scientific think tank (NOAA, CDC, FDA, the list is endless) has been severely compromised and politicized. Almost all top officials in these organizations are through the revolving door with the very corporations they are supposed to monitor. Its disgusting. It is going to be next to impossible for them to regain any trust that they have lost.

The conspiracy nutters will reject all evidence that contradicts the conspiracy theory as being part of the conspiracy.

The idea that thousands of climate scientist all over the world are somehow secretly working together for over a century to create evil governments that control every one, including those scientists and their families, is insane...

 

[svetz]

Exxon is backing out of a biofuel effort that the company has for years centered as part of its work in clean energy in support of reducing climate change. Bloomberg reported that ExxonMobil has cut ties with Viridos Inc., a California-based company that has worked with the oil giant since 2009 on its exploration into the possibilities of using algae to create alternative energy. The company has also ended its partnership with an algal research project at the Colorado School of Mines. Vijay Swarup, Exxon’s senior director of technology who ran algae research, told Bloomberg. “We need to get on the deployment curve for carbon capture, for hydrogen, for biofuels. Algae still needs some more work.”

​ Algae has always looked promising due to it's high yields per acre.

One of the key problems that Manning cites is that though these ponds may look dense like pea soup, the algae only makes up one percent of the total volume of the pond. The rest of the floating biomass is water. This presents one of the primary challenges in large-scale cultivation of algae: To produce a high density, a lot of water needs to be removed from the equation (much of which is eventually reused in the system). From Manning’s estimate, the harvesting and dewatering process can take up 70 percent of capital costs. [ref]

A recent collaborative paper reports experiments with duckweed that produce seven times more oil per acre than soybeans. Duckweeds are the smallest and fastest-growing aquatic flowering plants. Although being aquatic it might suffer from the same dewatering issues. One advantage of using salt water to grow biofuel is big in that it doesn't compete with human food sources. So hopefully someone will figure out how to make it viable. Soybean economics have been studied, and from last summer fuel prices (see image right) B100 (100% renewable biodiesel) the prices are only 6.8% higher than fossil diesel. Seems to make far more sense to replace diesel with B100 and phase out non renewable fuels over the next 30 years than it does to mandate the elimination of ICE.

Well, congress's composition will change a lot before then so fingers crossed we can get some fiscally responsible members.

I did see a 2022 paper on the economics of algae and duckweed, but all it really says is it's in it's infancy and needs work. If you're curious about the conversion process, I found a paper from 2012. Essentially they make methanol which is then converted to gasoline, diesel, or jet fuel.

 

[aenyc]

One of the biggest idiocies of our time is using literal food (corn ethanol) as fuel.
Keep dreaming about responsible politicians. They do not exist (and will never exist due to the very nature of high power - it attracts the worst of the kind, always, forever. Because to achieve high power you are simply required to step on people and abandon any kind of morals. There is no high power otherwise.

 

[svetz]

Keep dreaming about responsible politicians. They do not exist ...

They can exist and do a good job, but we do need some changes. For example, if you want to fix public health care all you need do is have a mandate that the congressional health care system must use the public system. What's good enough for the people is good enough for congress. That's what I meant about checks and balances, when they do a crappy job some liberal lawyer needs to take it to the supreme court or the president needs to deal with it. If neither happens, time for recalls.

 

[LeoThomson]

One of the biggest idiocies of our time is using literal food (corn ethanol) as fuel.

Agree, politicians did not think it through, the idea was to use the wast products but the free market uses whatever gives the best returns.

Keep dreaming about responsible politicians. They do not exist (and will never exist due to the very nature of high power - it attracts the worst of the kind, always, forever. Because to achieve high power you are simply required to step on people and abandon any kind of morals. There is no high power otherwise.

And that is just utter nonsense, there are plenty of politicians who try to be responsible, but in countries like the US, they do not stand much of a chance when such large amounts of corporate money and hostile nations, led by corrupt dictators, influence elections. What do you propose as the alternative? Dictatorships? Anarchy?

 

[aenyc]

They can exist and do a good job, but we do need some changes. For example, if you want to fix public health care all you need do is have a mandate that the congressional health care system must use the public system. What's good enough for the people is good enough for congress. That's what I meant about checks and balances, when they do a crappy job some liberal lawyer needs to take it to the supreme court or the president needs to deal with it. If neither happens, time for recalls.

This is very very naive viewpoint, one that ignores hundreds of years of human history.
While i fully agree that congress critters must use public system, that will never ever happen, because, as we can proverbially speak its "bugs for you, and angus steak for them". It has always been that way and will always be that way. They are all bought and paid for. All of them, no exception. Why do you think people get into power?
As was said 'The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule."

 

[aenyc]

Excellent new presentation on IPCC
The whole thing is basically made up scam - they made an assumption from the very beginning that "Climate chage" is DE FACTO "Man made climate change". Then they just went from there.

Here is the official doc from 1992

http://unfccc.int/files/essential_background/background_publications_htmlpdf/application/pdf/conveng.pdf

He does a great job explaining ALL the little details with ALL the links to OFFICIAL documents

Is the IPCC Rigged? – Questions For Corbett #096 | The Corbett Report

www.corbettreport.com

 

[LeoThomson]

Excellent new presentation on IPCC

An "excellent" description of James Corbett.

Among many, many others, here are some of the conspiracy theories James Corbett promotes:

• 9/11 and the JFK assassination being false flag attacks.
• Government mind control.
• Water fluoridation and chemtrails lowering IQ to make it harder to wake up sheeple.
• The “Clinton Body Count”.
• 5G sends toxic EMF.
• Bill Gates is a Nazi eugenicist.
• GMOs cause tumours.
• Climate change is a hoax.
• Vaccines never worked and are also a hoax.
• Moon landing is hoax.
• Eugenics is still alive.
• America is secretly a socialist country.
• Pizzagate is real.
• Trump wants to establish a New World Order.

 

[svetz]

Excellent new presentation on IPCC...

I wouldn't say excellent, although technique-wise it is a pretty good job of being entertainingly deceptive.
If that's all you look at without asking questions about the facts raised I can get how you'd have that opinion about the IPCC. Keep in mind it's not just him. News outlets do the same tricks to keep and increase their viewership. It's not just deniers that do that either... pro-climate talking heads do it too.

So, I'm skipping over the handwaving and hyperbole in the video to just concentrate on the foundational facts.

At 5:29 there's a clip of Tim Ball saying "Maurice Strong (UNEP founding director) wrote the terms of reference which is the definition of climate change and he limited it to deliberately only to the human causes of climate change and that effectively eliminated all the natural causes which is why you see them not looking at things like the sun and a whole bunch of other issues". That's not vague at all. But, it was used as evidence to damn the IPCC. Paraphrasing the rest, the first 600 scientists were constrained by that and the rest were all non-consequential as they could only work with the data from the first team. So, toss out the fruit of the poisonous tree.

As Tim Ball has been built up to be an expert, the thing to ask at this point is... who is Tim Ball? From Wikipedia, he's an energy-funded lobbiest that writes books and speaks out against climate change. He doesn't have a degree in climate science. To quote Tim:

The deception is the hypothesis that human production of CO2 is causing global warming. The hypothesis is referred to as Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW). The agency that carried out the deception was the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

His proof is that the IPCC mandate forbids them from looking at natural causes. Of course, just because his opinion is paid for doesn't mean he's lying. Well, that doesn't require a decree in climate science... so he's not arguing the science, just that the foundation is flawed.

As the quote from earlier Corbett reports said, the only way to know if it's real is to test it. So, let's see if the IPCC report fails to mention solar, or volcanos, or .... To the right is a snapshot from the chapter 2 ToC on the Physical Science Basis What do you know? They're mentioned.

They have to be mentioned (along with a lot of other things like El Nino, zonal modes, the Cryosphere, etc) because changes in climate drivers are important. So, if they do consider that, the tree wasn't actually as poisoned as they want you to believe.

In my opinion, I don't care if it's manmade or not. It's there, the models have successfully predicted the global mean temperature rises which have been observed by satellite and validated by ground stations. The models also consider a lot of factors besides GHGs (like solar irradiance). It's not unreasonable to think if the temperature continues to climb there will be unrest that is far more costly than solving the problem.

What, still reading? Okay... the next factoid is at 16:14 there's a bit about the UNFCCC that its stated objective is "preventing dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system". The point they want you to take away is that their mission is to prove man-made GHGs are bad, so of course it is what they will find.... aka they're biased.

This is a very calculated deception of taking something out of context to prove your point. The mission is stated that way as the science had already proved before then that mankind's contribution of GHGs was indeed having an effect, so of course the UN framework convention was established that way, it's why the UN set them up. But, their goal isn't to prove the science or do science (the IPCC doesn't actually take measurements or do science either), it's to figure out how to prevent climate catastrophes without bankrupting the world.

Corbett then goes on to claim that the UN's mandate does not include natural climate change. Which is true, the UN isn't trying to reverse natural climate change, they're trying to reverse anthropogenic changes. That's an example of non-sequitor argument.
But even so, the mandate and the science aren't the same thing and the science can't be studied separately. Scientists don't study CO2 in the atmosphere just from coal, they look at it as a whole.

At 18:39 there's the startling revelation that the summary is a negotiated political document before the science comes out. Note that it's coming from an opinion piece with only one facts to support it (e.g., timeframes of document publications). It is true that the preliminary summaries come out before the final reports, but that's because it takes a long time to fact-check the final reports.

Fortunately, facts are easy to come by: The final ARC6 IPCC summary for policymakers was released on 9/9/21 [ref]. The ARC 6 document, "The Physical Science Basis" was released the same day. The preliminary summary was available in June.

There's also the bit about it being political and they point to quotes that look like politicians are approving the summary and the scientists have to backfill the reports to match the summary. Like all good lies, there is some truth to the first part of that. The IPCC provides summaries for "Policy Makers", these are simpler documents that try to use tiny words for politicians, and the language in them is approved to try and eliminate any possible misunderstanding. The second part is unsubstantiated conjecture.

Hope that's of some help to you.

 

[D71]

If

They can exist and do a good job, but we do need some changes. For example, if you want to fix public health care all you need do is have a mandate that the congressional health care system must use the public system. What's good enough for the people is good enough for congress. That's what I meant about checks and balances, when they do a crappy job some liberal lawyer needs to take it to the supreme court or the president needs to deal with it. If neither happens, time for recalls.

you want honest politicians get honest IRS to check all their income sources and balance it vs their claimed taxes. Al Capone style audits.... = jail. Stop insider trading by govt.

 

[Bob B]

This may be a question that has already been asked and answered in this thread but, if so I will ask it again.

Is there a consensus .... or better yet, a full understanding ... of the causes of previous ice age cycles? I did a quick search and found an article ... focused on CO2 ..... that theorized that during ice ages, more CO2 was captured an stored in Antarctic oceans ... and further theorized that was due to a change in Arctic wind patterns .... with no real theory of what caused changing wind patterns. The article ended with ... this need more research.

What I am thinking is that without a full and complete understanding of what caused previous ice ages to come and go .... we are simply shooting in the dark to figure out how to influence that pattern.

 

[LeoThomson]

we are simply shooting in the dark to figure out how to influence that pattern.

Climate scientists are not in the dark. They all agree that dumping the waste products of burning fossil fuels (greenhouse gasses) into the atmosphere, is one one the factors that influences the average temperature on earth.

 

[svetz]

Is there a consensus .... or better yet, a full understanding ... of the causes of previous ice age cycles?

Great question!

It's always imbalance, that is there are drivers that make it so - both to cool it and to warm it. I know that's not exactly what you're asking, but I doubt there's one cause that fits all problems.

According to this ref:

Over at least the past million years, glacial and interglacial cycles have been triggered by variations in how much sunlight reaches the Northern Hemisphere in the summer, which are driven by small variations in the geometry of Earth’s axis and its orbit around the Sun. But these fluctuations in sunlight aren’t enough on their own to bring about full-blown ice ages and interglacials. They trigger several feedback loops that amplify the original warming or cooling.

For example, we know NASA says that the Milankovitch (Orbital) Cycles aren't enough for a full-blown ice age, but if combined with other things it could be. Supervolcano eruptions and asteroid impacts could probably do it too. There are a ton of videos on various theories, and some from prestigious resources like Science, the History Channel, or National Geographic. But for the most part, they're representing a single theory dumbed down.

From the graphic to the right, we can make a guess at a few things. The first is they look pretty cyclic, about 90,000 years of cooling followed by 10,000 years of warming. The graphic to the right is showing CO2, but before mankind started modifying the atmosphere it's thought to be a pretty good indicator of mean global temperature based on correlation with fossil records. The reason for this is the oceans are a CO2 sponge. As it gets warmer, they release CO2 into the atmosphere, and as it gets colder it dissolves back into the ocean (this was the fundamental misunderstanding that caused Al Gore's book so much ridicule). I don't believe CO2 PPM isn't a good indicator for the temperature in modern times as we pump so much into the atmosphere, but thanks to science we've been using the modern thermometer since 1709).

The eccentricity cycles are about 100,000 years but pretty mild impacts. The wobble is about every 26,000 years, and the tilt cycle is
about 41,000 years. When they all coincide I could see where it could trigger an ice age. But it also might be that plant life starts to take off with the CO2 rich atmosphere and suck the CO2 out...triggering the ice age which kills off the plants... and then the cycle repeats.

When Miltun Milankovic linked past ice ages to the Earth's orbital characteristics in his 1941 paper, scientists started wondering why it wasn't colder. Guy Callendar published in 1956 that it might be due to greenhouse gases. Headlines have been crazy ever since ; -)

Based on the combination of cycles and historical patterns, we're supposed to be entering an ice age now. But, we're still experiencing warming.

I remember reading about where the Earth was blanketed by snow/ice over the earth, apparently it's happened a few times. What always seemed more surprising to me was coming out of an ice age. When the Earth was covered by snow the reflectivity is so high it doesn't seem like there would be enough energy to tip it back. Possibly, there is a CO2 buildup from volcanic sources as there's not enough life to convert it (that is the half-life shoots into the thousands of years).

I have heard one reason why the warming cycle is shorter (if you call 10,000 years short) is because as the ice retreats the overall albedo decreases (e.g., less reflected back into space) causing a strong feedback loop (e.g., it gets warmer so more ice melts which decreases the albedo even more).

What I am thinking is that without a full and complete understanding of what caused previous ice ages to come and go .... we are simply shooting in the dark to figure out how to influence that pattern.

It is tougher to get a conviction with circumstantial evidence. But opportunity and motive have convinced many a jury. The models and observations are saying the same things, the earth is warming. The half-life of GWGs and the PPM measurements (both satellite and ground) prove there is a substantial build-up at unprecedented historical rates. It's also easy to predict the strife that will occur if the temperature isn't checked.

I'm okay with going GHG neutral as there isn't any need to have excessive amounts in the atmosphere and reducing them seems to work with the models at holding the temperature line. Renewables are already cheaper where natural ESS (e.g., pumped hydro) can be used and ESS is already close to be at least on par with existing fossil fuels. By 2050, given nearly all the existing energy plants will need to be replaced by then, it seems reasonable to think they can be replaced with net-zero options. So, seems good to me. Some countries are not only ahead of schedule, but also growing their GDPs. We can do it.

But, I agree with you 100% there's a lot we still don't know... while I'm fairly confident in the GHG models... alternative solutions pushed by climate hysterics seem dangerous to me as there are too many unknowns.

 

[Bob B]

If the oceans release more CO2 when it gets warmer it would seem that the earth would just continue to get warmer and warmer ... if the CO2 is the cause for warming.
There must be some other variable that causes the earth to go back into the cooling phase besides CO2 .... doesn't seem to like it is even being considered. Kinda seems like we have latched onto the whole CO2 thing because that's something we can easily measure and think we can control.

It still seems like folly to me to think we can change the outcome when we don't have a full understanding of what caused previous cycles ..... if we completely eliminated CO2 released by man ... the planet will still continue it's own natural cycle.

Maybe we need to invest a LOT more research into what is causing this natural cycle .... seems like we've got the cart before the horse.

 

[D71]

If the oceans release more CO2 when it gets warmer it would seem that the earth would just continue to get warmer and warmer ... if the CO2 is the cause for warming.
There must be some other variable that causes the earth to go back into the cooling phase besides CO2 .... doesn't seem to like it is even being considered. Kinda seems like we have latched onto the whole CO2 thing because that's something we can easily measure and think we can control.

It still seems like folly to me to think we can change the outcome when we don't have a full understanding of what caused previous cycles ..... if we completely eliminated CO2 released by man ... the planet will still continue it's own natural cycle.

Maybe we need to invest a LOT more research into what is causing this natural cycle .... seems like we've got the cart before the horse.

Now you have hit on it...... the control freak climate nutters "have latched onto CO2 and think they can control it"

bingo to soon ? ?

we did not cause climate problems .... the heating and cooling existed long before us. We are effecting it to a small degree and our efforts to control it will be fruitless. We are more then likely living on a SUN that has went deactivated. Our core is reported still burning and molten hence geo thermals

 

[42OhmsPA]

If the oceans release more CO2 when it gets warmer it would seem that the earth would just continue to get warmer and warmer ... if the CO2 is the cause for warming.
There must be some other variable that causes the earth to go back into the cooling phase besides CO2 .... doesn't seem to like it is even being considered. Kinda seems like we have latched onto the whole CO2 thing because that's something we can easily measure and think we can control.

It still seems like folly to me to think we can change the outcome when we don't have a full understanding of what caused previous cycles ..... if we completely eliminated CO2 released by man ... the planet will still continue it's own natural cycle.

Maybe we need to invest a LOT more research into what is causing this natural cycle .... seems like we've got the cart before the horse.

I think we need to think outside the box globe and look towards the mother star and it's minimum and maximum cycles. Who knows maybe I'm just spewing a bunch of conspiracies and gibberish.

 

[D71]

I think we need to think outside the box globe and look towards the mother star and it's minimum and maximum cycles. Who knows maybe I'm just spewing a bunch of conspiracies and gibberish.

I read a short story once but can't find it now: a group of aliens landed on planet earth and after they opened the door humans like intergalactic cock roaches scampered out of the ship and took over. Imagine the ship docks where rats from other countries climb down the mooring ropes to their new homes. It was an interesting story. 'The aliens look at Earth and say what did we do" Hahaha

it was FICTION

 

[42OhmsPA]

I read a short story once but can't find it now: a group of aliens landed on planet earth and after they opened the door humans like intergalactic cock roaches scampered out of the ship and took over. Imagine the ship docks where rats from other countries climb down the mooring ropes to their new homes. It was an interesting story. 'The aliens look at Earth and say what did we do" Hahaha

it was FICTION

Nice.

 

[LeoThomson]

 

[MurphyGuy]

If the oceans release more CO2 when it gets warmer it would seem that the earth would just continue to get warmer and warmer ... if the CO2 is the cause for warming.
There must be some other variable that causes the earth to go back into the cooling phase besides CO2 .... doesn't seem to like it is even being considered. Kinda seems like we have latched onto the whole CO2 thing because that's something we can easily measure and think we can control.

It still seems like folly to me to think we can change the outcome when we don't have a full understanding of what caused previous cycles ..... if we completely eliminated CO2 released by man ... the planet will still continue it's own natural cycle.

Maybe we need to invest a LOT more research into what is causing this natural cycle .... seems like we've got the cart before the horse.

We don't need to know every single little detail to figure out we're causing the warming. We also don't need a "full understanding" to change the outcome.

A car is driving down the road during a snow storm, looses control and crashes. We want to know what caused the accident.
Do we need to calculate the frictional coefficient of the road at that time?
Do we need to know the durometer of the rubber tires and their frictional coefficient?
Do we need to know the wind direction and speed? The humidity? Temperature? Weight of the vehicle?

Or do we just need to know that the driver was going too fast for the road conditions?

In the military, commanders on a battlefield will always tell you they wished they had more information. Commanders are forced to make decisions with the information they have, not the information they wish they had.

Same thing rings true with global warming. We know that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, we know why it is a greenhouse gas, and any grade school child can demonstrate it is a greenhouse gas with a couple pop bottles.

We are bringing up carbon from inside the earth and pouring it into our atmosphere.. it doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand that carbon is going to warm the planet up.

There may be other causes for the warming.... it doesn't matter, we are adding to it and we're going to make it worse.

Some people think that no matter what humans do, we are too insignificant to affect the climate.. Here's an interesting fact: For the three days after 911 when the planes were grounded, our climate warmed by 2 degrees C. Why? Because the bright white contrails left behind the planes were no longer there to reflect sunlight back into space. Please feel free to google it. Wondering how much affect contrails have? Here's a picture from NASA:

 

[D71]

Name someone in this thread that denies climate change.
Climate Change will happen with or without you. The speed it changes can be a difference but to say ppl deny climate change is wrong.
It is a proven factor that it has happened over and over throughout history hot then cold cycles....back and forth... Many times according to the scientist. Do you deny Earth has by nature cycled back and forth as claimed by scientist?

What is not proven is a method to stop our effect on it and how much we can actually alter vs what will naturally occur.
I doubt spending any amount of money for 0.5-1 degree will have any effect. Eventually Mother Nature wins.

10 ways you can help fight the climate crisis

While climate change is accelerating, there is still a lot individuals can do to combat the warming of the planet.

www.unep.org

BTW That was the last number heard 0.5 -1 degree and at what cost? there is a higher number 1.5 in link. Paying carbon taxes is just more fraud in my book. So I do deny we can alter the increase or effected normal cycle of it now. .
Leo... What amount does your country pay for carbon tax? You are overly worried with the USA when we are but ~330 million ppl vs 7-8 billion ppl. Carl Sagan has said "it is pointless if the whole world is not onboard". Our only real technology to solve it is nuclear winter. Carl Sagan discussed nuclear winter.

When chat with you it reminds me of chatting with a lesser version of chatgpt. Basically if ppl are not all LOCK STEP WITH LEO and his foreign meddling then they are wrong and get the meme Hahaha Way to go Leo. A meme means nothing in most conversations What country are you in. We would like to evaluate it for USA tax payer contributions aka money from the USA. Do you have no pride in where you live? Is everything in your country sorted and proper?

you pushing and expecting ~330 million ppl over and over is a waste. Go get the 7-8 billion other ppl onboard. Put you hand in their pockets to pay for it. I am personally sick of your type expecting USA to solve things for 7-8 billion ppl. worse part is your type mentally effects weaker minds in my country.
I worked and retired from a large corporation The union bosses would talk crap about the company loads and loads of crap on and on.... then they would at first hiring session say "can you get my son a job." Remember same person talking crap then get my son a job.
That is what ppl in this world do and say about the usa then they say on btw can you fix and pay for climate change.... send us some money. Got anymore tax payer paid vaccines.
i think it is time for ~330 million ppl to turn pure nationalist. Let the 7-8 billion solve their own created problems. The tail can't wag the dog.
Do you see that GDP in attached picture we be broke bozz. Kick the can down the road look at that GDP. We make nothing here anymore Go talk with china india or africa. Have a nice day USA closed for business and hand outs

 

[LeoThomson]

Name someone in this thread that denies climate change.
Climate Change will happen with or without you. The speed it changes can be a difference but to say ppl deny climate change is wrong.
It is a proven factor that it has happened over and over throughout history hot then cold cycles....back and forth... Many times according to the scientist. Do you deny Earth has by nature cycled back and forth as claimed by scientist?

This is a typical denier misdirection.

Climate change refers to long-term shifts in temperatures and weather patterns. These shifts may be natural, but since the 1800s, human activities have been the main driver of climate change, primarily due to the burning of fossil fuels (like coal, oil and gas), which produces heat-trapping gases. And when we talk about climate change we talk about climate change that is due to human activity. You'd have to be dense not to know that.