Marine Heatwaves Leading To Rapid Hurricane Intensification Before Landfall

[etudiant]

43 minutes ago, blizzard1024 said:

And one more thing, when the price of energy goes sky high because of wind and solar which now dots the landscape and degrades the environment, people resort to burning wood because they can't afford to heat their homes. Deforestation goes up. We have been seeing this in Europe. It's a huge problem in the 3rd world when they don't have access to cheap fossil fuels. So they raze their environment causing massive deforestation and mass extinctions. So yeah the green new deal or anything similar before the technology and cost supports it is the biggest threat to our environment in so many ways. If you are an environmentalist like me don't let the name fool you. It is a disaster for our wildlife and natural habitats. 

At least in Europe, the deforestation is not because people cannot afford to heat their homes, it is because the 'green' incentives for 'renewable' energy have made it attractive to use pelletized wood chips instead of coal to fuel the power stations. So vast stretches of old forest have been razed to provide these pellets, which incidentally are a much dirtier fuel.

This kind of senseless policy has been vigorously condemned by conservationists, but is hugely profitable for the recipients of the incentives, so ihe damage continues.

[donsutherland1]

1 hour ago, etudiant said:

At least in Europe, the deforestation is not because people cannot afford to heat their homes, it is because the 'green' incentives for 'renewable' energy have made it attractive to use pelletized wood chips instead of coal to fuel the power stations. So vast stretches of old forest have been razed to provide these pellets, which incidentally are a much dirtier fuel.

This kind of senseless policy has been vigorously condemned by conservationists, but is hugely profitable for the recipients of the incentives, so ihe damage continues.

Numerous scientists do not view wood-burning as green energy. I believe their case is strong.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B9HP_Rf4_eHtQUpyLVIzZE8zQWc/view

[donsutherland1]

7 hours ago, blizzard1024 said:

Carbon pollution? CO2 is not pollution. If it is, then we should stop breathing.  I noticed everyone is ducking the potential environmental degradation from wind and solar. A disaster. 

No one is ducking anything. I recognize that renewable energy is still evolving and that their are some issues. @skierinvermont provided some concrete data. Exaggerated claims don’t accurately reflect the situation. Ignoring the CO2 emissions of fossil fuels skews the picture, as the true costs and hazards are set aside to sustain an inaccurate picture of costs, trade-offs, etc. 

[skierinvermont]

3 hours ago, blizzard1024 said:

And one more thing, when the price of energy goes sky high because of wind and solar which now dots the landscape and degrades the environment, 

This is a lie, as I have explained 11 times now. Still don't think this guy is a liar bdgwx? I've posted this 11 times now and he has continued to make the same false claim, with zero evidence. He is not here in good faith.

On 10/4/2020 at 3:49 PM, skierinvermont said:

As the numbers I posted just showed, everything you just wrote is a lie. Wind and solar are equally as cheap and efficient as natural gas, and getting cheaper, and the free-market does embrace them equally with natural gas already.

 

 

[LibertyBell]

3 hours ago, donsutherland1 said:

Numerous scientists do not view wood-burning as green energy. I believe their case is strong.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B9HP_Rf4_eHtQUpyLVIzZE8zQWc/view

Yes, burning wood, is just another way to release more carbon ....

[LibertyBell]

4 hours ago, etudiant said:

At least in Europe, the deforestation is not because people cannot afford to heat their homes, it is because the 'green' incentives for 'renewable' energy have made it attractive to use pelletized wood chips instead of coal to fuel the power stations. So vast stretches of old forest have been razed to provide these pellets, which incidentally are a much dirtier fuel.

This kind of senseless policy has been vigorously condemned by conservationists, but is hugely profitable for the recipients of the incentives, so ihe damage continues.

Incentivizing green energy is a good thing, the thing we need to stop is subsidizing the fossil fuel industry with taxpayer money.  About burning wood, it needs to be disincentivized by taxing it, the same way Ireland decided to tax Subway "bread" higher because it isn't real bread (10% sugar) and not part of a healthy diet.

[blizzard1024]

18 hours ago, skierinvermont said:

As the numbers I posted just showed, everything you just wrote is a lie. Wind and solar are equally as cheap and efficient as natural gas, and getting cheaper, and the free-market does embrace them equally with natural gas already.

You seriously want the landscape covered in solar and wind farms?  That is what would be needed. I don't. I like wildlife and nature. 

[donsutherland1]

2 hours ago, blizzard1024 said:

You seriously want the landscape covered in solar and wind farms?  That is what would be needed. I don't. I like wildlife and nature. 

As with other technologies as they advanced, one will likely see efficiency gains with renewables. That will lead to more output relative to the size of solar and wind farms, meaning fewer or smaller solar and wind farms would be necessary for a given level of output. There is also nuclear power.

Finally, even as it is invisible, the dumping of greenhouse gas emissions into the climate system is having a growing adverse impact. The changing climate poses major risks to nature, including wildlife e.g., reduced biodiversity.

Some recent papers:

https://www.pnas.org/content/117/8/4211

https://science.sciencemag.org/content/367/6478/685

https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/4/2/eaaq1819.short

If one truly cherishes nature and wildlife, why would one advocate a continuation of the very practices that pose perhaps the greatest long-term threat to nature and wildlife?

[skierinvermont]

5 hours ago, blizzard1024 said:

You seriously want the landscape covered in solar and wind farms?  That is what would be needed. I don't. I like wildlife and nature. 

I already refuted this lie as well.

[donsutherland1]

4 hours ago, skierinvermont said:

I already refuted this lie as well.

One plausible explanation is status quo bias. Bias for the status quo, with which people are familiar, can impede rational judgment about choices. In status quo bias, perceptions of risk are disconnected from objective factors and are skewed in favor of the present state of affairs. Change from the status quo is seen as inherently risky. Thus, when it comes to cost-benefit analysis, the benefits of the present are overstated while the costs of some new state are exaggerated. Therefore, even when the status quo is unsustainable and costly—as is the case with fossil fuels and the impact of resulting greenhouse gas emissions—and an alternative state offers more long-term benefits (reduction of the discounted future costs of climate change), the status quo is embraced. This bias impairs judgment, nourishes motivated reasoning (which reinforces preferences for the status quo), and contributes to the common phenomenon where companies and societies often fail to make necessary changes until a crisis has erupted. 

[blizzard1024]

5 hours ago, donsutherland1 said:

Finally, even as it is invisible, the dumping of greenhouse gas emissions into the climate system is having a growing adverse impact. The changing climate poses major risks to nature, including wildlife e.g., reduced biodiversity.

Our bird species evolved 2 million years ago and have seen massive swings in climate, plus at least in North America it was 2-4C warmer 8000 years ago and the birds we see today survived. This is not true and is part of absolute junk science. The land use of proposed wind and solar farms will decimated a lot of our bird species. Plus it destroys the aesthetics of the rural countryside. God knows we have already done enough to destroy this with current forms of energy extraction but now this too???  Just add it on to the plethora of threats our birds face to save them?  It won't save them it will lead to further declines. If an energy company truly starts to see profits from renewables they will go on a binge in development and this will be disastrous.  There has to be lands that are off limits. But we know how that all works. Ask the Ivory Billed Woodpecker ghosts that persisted in the Singer Tract in the 1940s...look how that turned out. Extinction.  

[skierinvermont]

47 minutes ago, blizzard1024 said:

Our bird species evolved 2 million years ago and have seen massive swings in climate, plus at least in North America it was 2-4C warmer 8000 years ago and the birds we see today survived. This is not true and is part of absolute junk science. The land use of proposed wind and solar farms will decimated a lot of our bird species. Plus it destroys the aesthetics of the rural countryside. God knows we have already done enough to destroy this with current forms of energy extraction but now this too???  Just add it on to the plethora of threats our birds face to save them?  It won't save them it will lead to further declines. If an energy company truly starts to see profits from renewables they will go on a binge in development and this will be disastrous.  There has to be lands that are off limits. But we know how that all works. Ask the Ivory Billed Woodpecker ghosts that persisted in the Singer Tract in the 1940s...look how that turned out. Extinction.  

As someone who has lived around oil fields and wind farms I can say with absolute certainty you have not. Oil fields sprawl across Utah and Colorado and the trucks and gas leaks give us some horrendous air quality, noise pollution, and dirt roads, wells, and trucks crawling all over our natural land scapes. I also been around wind farms and most everyone finds them quite peaceful and unobtrusive. Farmers in the center of the country beg for these to be put on their land for the royalties. It’s free money with almost no effect on the farm.

[skierinvermont]

1 hour ago, donsutherland1 said:

One plausible explanation is status quo bias. Bias for the status quo, with which people are familiar, can impede rational judgment about choices. In status quo bias, perceptions of risk are disconnected from objective factors and are skewed in favor of the present state of affairs. Change from the status quo is seen as inherently risky. Thus, when it comes to cost-benefit analysis, the benefits of the present are overstated while the costs of some new state are exaggerated. Therefore, even when the status quo is unsustainable and costly—as is the case with fossil fuels and the impact of resulting greenhouse gas emissions—and an alternative state offers more long-term benefits (reduction of the discounted future costs of climate change), the status quo is embraced. This bias impairs judgment, nourishes motivated reasoning (which reinforces preferences for the status quo), and contributes to the common phenomenon where companies and societies often fail to make necessary changes until a crisis has erupted. 

Absolutely I have seen this many times. I led a Sierra club trip once and many felt that natural gas was the only choice because they thought it was cheaper than wind and less damaging than coal. However when presented with hard numbers they gradually changed their minds. I’ve had coworkers skeptical of renewables but when presented with data they acknowledge they are cheaper and cleaner. But then six months later they forget and have to be explained again, but always come around to the basic facts when presented with hard evidence. The cost of wind isn’t particularly complicated, it’s just a basic fact. I’d attribute their mistakes on this to the status quo bias you mention. 
 

The difference here is even when blizzard is given hard evidence that wind and solar are cost competitive, use much less space than he claimed, can be placed on already disrupted landscapes like farms(wind) and cities(solar), and don’t kill a significant number of birds, he doesn’t even acknowledge these facts and just repeats the same falsehoods. That’s what makes him a liar. He’s not here in good faith and doesn’t care what the truth is. This is a political and cultural issue for him and has nothing to do with truth. He intentionally avoids and subverts rational discourse. Some people are just bad people with bad motives.

[LibertyBell]

7 hours ago, skierinvermont said:

As someone who has lived around oil fields and wind farms I can say with absolute certainty you have not. Oil fields sprawl across Utah and Colorado and the trucks and gas leaks give us some horrendous air quality, noise pollution, and dirt roads, wells, and trucks crawling all over our natural land scapes. I also been around wind farms and most everyone finds them quite peaceful and unobtrusive. Farmers in the center of the country beg for these to be put on their land for the royalties. It’s free money with almost no effect on the farm.

I thought Colorado was a progressive state but Hickenlooper basically let the cartel run his state and they got away with causing so much property damage from fracking induced earthquakes.

 

[LibertyBell]

8 hours ago, donsutherland1 said:

One plausible explanation is status quo bias. Bias for the status quo, with which people are familiar, can impede rational judgment about choices. In status quo bias, perceptions of risk are disconnected from objective factors and are skewed in favor of the present state of affairs. Change from the status quo is seen as inherently risky. Thus, when it comes to cost-benefit analysis, the benefits of the present are overstated while the costs of some new state are exaggerated. Therefore, even when the status quo is unsustainable and costly—as is the case with fossil fuels and the impact of resulting greenhouse gas emissions—and an alternative state offers more long-term benefits (reduction of the discounted future costs of climate change), the status quo is embraced. This bias impairs judgment, nourishes motivated reasoning (which reinforces preferences for the status quo), and contributes to the common phenomenon where companies and societies often fail to make necessary changes until a crisis has erupted. 

I always come back to Max Planck.....

Planck experienced the truth of his own earlier observation from his struggle with the older views in his younger years: "A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it."

[LibertyBell]

8 hours ago, blizzard1024 said:

Our bird species evolved 2 million years ago and have seen massive swings in climate, plus at least in North America it was 2-4C warmer 8000 years ago and the birds we see today survived. This is not true and is part of absolute junk science. The land use of proposed wind and solar farms will decimated a lot of our bird species. Plus it destroys the aesthetics of the rural countryside. God knows we have already done enough to destroy this with current forms of energy extraction but now this too???  Just add it on to the plethora of threats our birds face to save them?  It won't save them it will lead to further declines. If an energy company truly starts to see profits from renewables they will go on a binge in development and this will be disastrous.  There has to be lands that are off limits. But we know how that all works. Ask the Ivory Billed Woodpecker ghosts that persisted in the Singer Tract in the 1940s...look how that turned out. Extinction.  

you're not aware of the mass extinction we're in right now?  One third of all bird species and even 40% of plant species will be extinct by 2100

[donsutherland1]

8 hours ago, LibertyBell said:

I always come back to Max Planck.....

Planck experienced the truth of his own earlier observation from his struggle with the older views in his younger years: "A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it."

There is a lot of merit to that Planck quote. Fortunately, at least as far as climate science is concerned, the science has triumphed. No credible opposition to AGW remains. From the sidelines, there continues to be noisy objections—most of it from those who have no background in climate science and a vanquished few who proved unable to build a credible alternative scientific case—but the literature reflects the reality that AGW is the dominant cause of contemporary climate change. Uncertainties in various areas e.g., feedbacks, persist, but the overarching idea about the causation of contemporary climate change has been established.

Where inroads remain to be made is on the policy front. At present large carbon emitters are permitted to dump their emissions into the climate system with impunity. Their products are underpriced, as the costs of their emissions are isolated from their cost structures and instead incurred by society. They also receive billions of dollars in subsidies that incentivize increases in such pollution. Thus, market function is actually impaired by these distortions and shifts toward cleaner energy are impeded. 

That will likely gradually begin to change. But once the Millennials and Generation Z, whose life exposure to climate change is far greater than that for preceding generations, gain political clout, much more rapid change is likely. Opinion surveys show that they do not view the fossil fuel industry as sufficiently sacrosanct that it must be held immune to the costs and consequences of its emissions. The worldview that seems to arise out of the polling is the idea that society isn’t built around industry, but that industry is part of society. With that comes responsibilities to society.

That’s where the issue of externalities (carbon pollution in this case) arises. Under the former mindset, it’s accepted (and acceptable by industry advocates) that the costs of externalities be borne by society. In the latter, all costs, including those associated with externalities, should be borne by those responsible. In a way, even as the language appears absent from what I have read about the rising younger generations, this amounts to a rediscovery of the old idea of individual responsibility.

[blizzard1024]

14 hours ago, LibertyBell said:

you're not aware of the mass extinction we're in right now?  One third of all bird species and even 40% of plant species will be extinct by 2100

yeah that's because in the third world they are wrecking the environment. deforestation mainly. nothing to do with CO2. 

[donsutherland1]

3 hours ago, blizzard1024 said:

yeah that's because in the third world they are wrecking the environment. deforestation mainly. nothing to do with CO2. 

The scientific literature disagrees. Here is the abstract from one recent paper:

Climate change may be a major threat to biodiversity in the next 100 years. Although there has been important work on mechanisms of decline in some species, it generally remains unclear which changes in climate actually cause extinctions, and how many species will likely be lost. Here, we identify the specific changes in climate that are associated with the widespread local extinctions that have already occurred. We then use this information to predict the extent of future biodiversity loss and to identify which processes may forestall extinction. We used data from surveys of 538 plant and animal species over time, 44% of which have already had local extinctions at one or more sites. We found that locations with local extinctions had larger and faster changes in hottest yearly temperatures than those without. Surprisingly, sites with local extinctions had significantly smaller changes in mean annual temperatures, despite the widespread use of mean annual temperatures as proxies for overall climate change. Based on their past rates of dispersal, we estimate that 57–70% of these 538 species will not disperse quickly enough to avoid extinction. However, we show that niche shifts appear to be far more important for avoiding extinction than dispersal, although most studies focus only on dispersal. Specifically, considering both dispersal and niche shifts, we project that only 16–30% of these 538 species may go extinct by 2070. Overall, our results help identify the specific climatic changes that cause extinction and the processes that may help species to survive.

https://www.pnas.org/content/117/8/4211

 

[blizzard1024]

3 hours ago, donsutherland1 said:

The scientific literature disagrees. Here is the abstract from one recent paper:

Don't you get it? Science is corrupted.  Climate has been changing for millions of years. There have only been mass extinction events related to either massive volcanic eruptions or asteroid or comet impacts.  Do you really believe a small amount of warming, similar to what we saw 8000 year ago is going to cause mass extinctions?   Why is it different now?  It's the people of the third world destroying tropical forests, mangroves, other habitats and unregulated hunting that is the biggest threat to biodiversity. It is urgent that this is addressed. Instead scientists go off on this tangent of climate change which takes away from the REAL efforts to improve conditions in the third world.   It's terrible. Like I said, all the "go green" bullshit and other "save the planet" crap is distracting us from what really needs to be done. We need to be helping the third world get out of poverty and have access to cheap energy (fossil fuels). By denying them that, you destroy the planet and more importantly people's lives. Its awful. 

[skierinvermont]

25 minutes ago, blizzard1024 said:

Don't you get it? Science is corrupted.  Climate has been changing for millions of years. There have only been mass extinction events related to either massive volcanic eruptions or asteroid or comet impacts.  Do you really believe a small amount of warming, similar to what we saw 8000 year ago is going to cause mass extinctions?   Why is it different now?  It's the people of the third world destroying tropical forests, mangroves, other habitats and unregulated hunting that is the biggest threat to biodiversity. It is urgent that this is addressed. Instead scientists go off on this tangent of climate change which takes away from the REAL efforts to improve conditions in the third world.   It's terrible. Like I said, all the "go green" bullshit and other "save the planet" crap is distracting us from what really needs to be done. We need to be helping the third world get out of poverty and have access to cheap energy (fossil fuels). By denying them that, you destroy the planet and more importantly people's lives. Its awful. 

As I've said 12 times now, fossil fuels are not the cheapest source of fuel anymore. Wind and solar are and the free-market is rapidly adopting them. 12 times, and yet you repeat the lie.

[skierinvermont]

On 10/4/2020 at 3:49 PM, skierinvermont said:

As the numbers I posted just showed, everything you just wrote is a lie. Wind and solar are equally as cheap and efficient as natural gas, and getting cheaper, and the free-market does embrace them equally with natural gas already.

 

26 minutes ago, blizzard1024 said:

Don't you get it? Science is corrupted.  Climate has been changing for millions of years. There have only been mass extinction events related to either massive volcanic eruptions or asteroid or comet impacts.  Do you really believe a small amount of warming, similar to what we saw 8000 year ago is going to cause mass extinctions?   Why is it different now?  It's the people of the third world destroying tropical forests, mangroves, other habitats and unregulated hunting that is the biggest threat to biodiversity. It is urgent that this is addressed. Instead scientists go off on this tangent of climate change which takes away from the REAL efforts to improve conditions in the third world.   It's terrible. Like I said, all the "go green" bullshit and other "save the planet" crap is distracting us from what really needs to be done. We need to be helping the third world get out of poverty and have access to cheap energy (fossil fuels). By denying them that, you destroy the planet and more importantly people's lives. Its awful. 

 

[donsutherland1]

39 minutes ago, blizzard1024 said:

Don't you get it? Science is corrupted.  

No. That’s an extraordinary claim I cannot accept. 

Those who reject AGW as the explanation for the most recent ongoing climate change have no credible evidence to undercut AGW. They cannot dismiss the rising greenhouse gas forcing and its impact without overturning the laws of physics and the basic properties of carbon dioxide and methane. They cannot counter the reality that natural forcings alone—solar and volcanic—would have produced slight cooling in recent decades, not the dramatic warming that has occurred. 

Without sufficient and credible evidence to support anti-AGW arguments, there is no alternative scientific case. There is only an alternative belief. Nothing more.

Beliefs are not science. One either believes something or one doesn’t. No evidence, facts, or logic are necessary to sustain beliefs.

The claim that science is “corrupted” is an attempt to evade the reality that there is no credible scientific case against AGW. That science and scientists will not embrace the largely unfounded beliefs of those who wish to avoid the scientific conclusion concerning climate change that has been drawn from an overwhelming and still growing body of evidence does not make science “corrupted.”

Quite frankly, that line of attack on science has no merit. It seeks to demean science as a profession. It seeks to discredit the enormous number of people in all scientific fields who have devoted their lives to pushing the frontiers of human knowledge and whose efforts have made possible much of the progress that humanity has achieved from applications of that knowledge.

[blizzard1024]

9 hours ago, donsutherland1 said:

Without sufficient and credible evidence to support anti-AGW arguments, there is no alternative scientific case.

You are assuming scientists understand the climate system enough to predict all the non-linear effects. You don't understand how modeling works. GCMs are full of assumptions, parameterizations and can't even handle convection or clouds explicitly. These are major factors in the Earth's climate. So many of us with experience in atmospheric science who understand this can't believe the hubris presented by climate scientists who think they have it all figured out. The debate is over they say. That is anti-science itself. I have seen the corruption in climate science firsthand too.  

 

[blizzard1024]

10 hours ago, skierinvermont said:

As I've said 12 times now

who do you think YOU are?  Why should I listen to YOU! Say it 100 times. You are highly biased and very arrogant. You are a bully on this forum and should have been removed a long time ago.   have a nice day. 

[donsutherland1]

2 hours ago, blizzard1024 said:

You are assuming scientists understand the climate system enough to predict all the non-linear effects. You don't understand how modeling works. GCMs are full of assumptions, parameterizations and can't even handle convection or clouds explicitly. These are major factors in the Earth's climate. So many of us with experience in atmospheric science who understand this can't believe the hubris presented by climate scientists who think they have it all figured out. The debate is over they say. That is anti-science itself. I have seen the corruption in climate science firsthand too.  

 

I accept that the climate scientists have gained sufficient understanding of what is happening (observed warming) and its dominant cause (greenhouse gases) to reach valid conclusions. The literature is very explicit about uncertainties where they exist (feedbacks, etc.).

The debate isn’t “over,” because scientists have arbitrarily said it is over. It is over, because no scientifically-valid alternative to AGW has been advanced in the literature. Objections have been empty—not backed by literature. At the same time, understanding of the role greenhouse gases are playing has increased and the expected warming has materialized. 

Should credible scientific research emerge, I have to reason to believe climate scientists, like their peers in other scientific fields, would not examine that data with the kind of open-mindedness that is a hallmark of science. Unfortunately, those who reject AGW refuse to look at the now overwhelming body of evidence in favor of AGW with that kind of open-mindedness. They simply dismiss AGW or minimize its consequences without having any body of credible research to back their objections. 

[donsutherland1]

2 hours ago, blizzard1024 said:

who do you think YOU are?  Why should I listen to YOU! Say it 100 times. You are highly biased and very arrogant. You are a bully on this forum and should have been removed a long time ago.   have a nice day. 

He provided a chart from the U.S. Energy Information Administration that shows the production costs per megawatt hour.

Of course, that’s a financial not economic cost perspective. Fossil fuel financial costs don’t consider externalities, the costs of which are borne by society. That leads to an understatement of such costs from a full cost perspective. Once those costs are considered, the advantage for renewables is even larger.

[skierinvermont]

4 hours ago, blizzard1024 said:

who do you think YOU are?  Why should I listen to YOU! Say it 100 times. You are highly biased and very arrogant. You are a bully on this forum and should have been removed a long time ago.   have a nice day. 

It's not me saying it. The information I have provided comes from the EIA and from power companies. Also just look around - power companies are installing wind and solar everywhere because it's cheap. This will make the 13th time I have posted this. I am sorry you find fact-based corrections of your lies to be 'bullying'. If you don't like being 'bullied' stop posting lies.

On 10/2/2020 at 9:41 AM, skierinvermont said:

This is a lie and you know it is. As I have explained 7 times to you over the last month, wind and solar energy cost approximately the same as natural gas, and much less than coal. This is why wind and solar are already being chosen by the free-market and comprise nearly 50% of new electric generation capacity over the last 5 years. In other words, when a power company has to decide what new power to build, they choose either wind or natural gas, and occasionally solar, because these are the cheapest sources. With a modest investment at the federal level, this process could be sped up dramatically without any increase in electric costs (with a small cost to the taxpayer). It would dramatically improve our ozone and PM2.5 pollution in addition to reducing future climate change. Countries like Germany have already succeeded in this with only 39% of energy coming from fossil fuels, while maintaining a very high standard of living.

Your Haiti and economic destruction scare tactics are despicable, fly in the face of the most basic facts (that have been shared with you 8 times now), and reveal your complete lack of objectivity. Your lies do not fool or convince anybody.

https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/pdf/electricity_generation.pdf

 

 

[blizzard1024]

7 hours ago, donsutherland1 said:

It is over, because no scientifically-valid alternative to AGW has been advanced in the literature. Objections have been empty—not backed by literature.

Because the "gate-keepers" of the peer review process  are climate alarmists and won't entertain anything else.  

[blizzard1024]

7 hours ago, donsutherland1 said:

Fossil fuel financial costs don’t consider externalities, the costs of which are borne by society.

Assuming that fossil fuels leads to dangerous global warming which is a circular argument. You can't make this assumption.  Humans have made tremendous advances in quality of life to a level not ever seem by Homo Sapiens.  This is because of cheap energy.  Go ahead, go to renewables before the technology is ready and you will see global economic collapse. And poor people already struggling would suffer the most. The agenda of the radical climate activists would be exceptional cruel to a lot of poorer people. It is an anti-human campaign.  So do you folks still drive gas power cars? Use heat from fossil fuels? Use products that were derived from fossil fuels?