Yeah, but it wasn’t proposed as the reason to initiate centralized government interference in all areas of life back then, like it is today.
Yeah, actually, you claimed that CO2 was “provably” … “bad for climate change.” You used the NASA article as your “Is so” reply to my post.
So now you are backing away from claiming something “substantial” from that NASA citation?
So CO2 isn’t “provably” bad for climate change since the article you claimed to prove your claim you now admit doesn’t demonstrate anything substantial?
That is a different discussion. I am not arguing for any centralized government interference, or indeed for any specific remediation measures. I am only arguing for the scientific facts.
Nope. You said:
CO2 is provably good for plant growth, it is NOT “in excess… bad for climate change.”
The word “provable” is applied only to CO2 being good for plant growth - a point I did not dispute. I did not say it is “provably bad for climate change”. You switched the words around and changed the meaning. I saw what you did.
See above for an explanation of your misunderstanding.
china and india will build new coal plants for the next 10 years, how much co2 will that add?
on a side note, your new electric car won’t burn any…
Oh, you thought the Green New Deal was all about fighting climate change? Well, think again.
Turns out it’s a green-glossed Trojan horse designed to increase government control over the economy.
You’d think there were people here too young to remember the “controversy” over acid rain (which lasted until the marble statues started to dissolve…). Or the “controversy” over whether smoking was really bad for your health. Or the “controversy” over whether the use of DDT was affecting predatory birds like bald eagles.
Yeah, it’s always been those alarmist environmental scientists with the secret plan to take over the world who were spreading the false rumors. Experience says you can count on that…
Heaven forbid that we try to lower our dependence on fossil fuels or that we act as if health care and food and housing were things that only “successful” people who aren’t stuck doing “dead end” work need to have. Goodness, if we start listening to stuff like that, before we know it we could all be forced to become Wiccans.
yeah, because india and china being allowed to build new coal plants for the next 10 years shows how dire it really is…
I did not realize we had made China and India our colonies, so we could dictate the energy uses of 2.7 billion other people who naturally wonder why only residents of the US of A are allowed to want a certain “standard of living.”
Or were we offering to give up the 63.5% of our utility-generated electricity that comes from all our fossil-fuel powered plants? (https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=427&t=6) No, I didn’t think so, not considering that this is on top of the 14 million barrels of petroleum-based fuel that we use for transportation on an average day.
So, yeah, let’s face it, China and India have a ways to go before they approach our per capita CO2 generation. (As of 2014, ours was about 16.5 metric tons per capita. China was at 7.5 and India at 1.7.)
yeah, because their air is different than ours and when according to AOC and the dems in 12 years when the world ends india and china will be okay.
if it was so dire, we should be putting new green energy in india and china now! after all green energy is cheaper, job-producing, etc, etc, etc.
Look at the figures I posted. Explain how we get to claim the right to generate somewhere between 2 and nearly 10 times as much CO2 per person as they do. Sure, they’re going to go for that math. What country wouldn’t do that for the great nation with the cool MAGA hats?
you miss the point
adding new plants for 10 years.
how much will be put into the air
they claimed we have 12 years
please do this math
why aren’t they installing new green energy? you didn’t answer. if it is so dire
I have a question. As a person who literally work with Carbon emissions on a daily basis. I am (for some reason) very interested in this thread from a different viewpoint.
Are there any persons who actually changed their viewpoint because if this thread?
The answer is that the US has dropped the ball in leadership in a cooperative way on this issue (for example, by withdrawing from the Paris Accords). Without that leadership, nations are not as inclined to get out ahead, especially if it looks they might lose out competitively in the world economy by doing so.
we got out because it was a bad deal. it was an executive order. from the start, it was an economic redistribution policy with no mandated reductions.
even today nobody really has any idea what’s going on. it is all smoke and mirrors and money being moved to where the globalist want it to go.
Many of the Paris pledges remain fairly opaque, and nations are often vague on what specific policies they will take to meet them. There is still no official mechanism for quantifying progress. As a result, groups like Climate Action Tracker have had to make rough estimates as to whether countries are on pace to meet their pledges and how much further each country would need to go for the world to stay well below 2 degrees of global warming.
(from the dec 2018 NYT. )
I’d phrase this differently
Why does Earth’s Temp go up and down and up and down?
Earth’s Temp is directly proportional to the Am’t of Solar Irradiance reaching Earth’s Surface.
Particulates/Black Carbon/Soot and SO2 acid - from e.g,. Volcanic Emissions block Solar Irradiance.
Periods of Exceptional COLD have always been detrimental to LIFE in varying degrees…
Impact upon Flora / food supply along with extreme cold and even loss of rainfall during extremes (b/c much water is locked up as ICE) likewise impact upon Fauna… contribute to Drought, Mass Migrations…
During the last glaciation in the history of modern man… c 12,000 give and take YBP, for starters, In the E.G. Northern Hemisphere, ALL of Canada and portions of The USA - were completely covered in v.very thick ICE…
Globally, Sea Levels were down an astounding 400 feet!
w/the exception of some regional areas of relatively shortish periods of Time,
periods of WARMTH are associated with Lush & GREEN.
You are deflecting from my answer to your question of why China is not doing more to install green energy. The answer is the US is not leading in this effort. I know you think we have good excuses for not leading (The Paris Accords were a bad deal…) but that does not alter the fact that we are not leading. And that’s partly because the administration thinks climate change is a hoax and so of course they are not going to lead.
This is all irrelevant since we are not cooling down, but heating up. So the dangers of extreme cold are not the dangers we are facing, but the opposite.
Just the coal plant used to send power through the transmission lines and used to build parts in china and India and parts of the US. Not to mention the batteries are terrible for the environment and the cars are net neutral.
The electric cars may not save on total carbon, but they do reduce local ozone and other pollutants which in high heat conditions creates smog, which in turn has been found to be as harmful as smoking cigarettes, causing Emphysema.