Most of The World Could Be 100% Powered With Renewables by 2050

[Lord of Planar]

LOL.

You don’t know what a review paper is!

LOL

You also neglected to cite anything. Don’t you always wonder why they have little numbers in superscript in those papers after every fact?

And why a third of the paper is a bunch of authors, titles and numbers in a numbered list at the end?

I read the actual science. Not someones dressing on top.

I see you are too lazy to quote any material. Must be you are incapable of comprehending it.

 

[Threegoofs]

I read the actual science. Not someones dressing on top.

I see you are too lazy to quote any material. Must be you are incapable of comprehending it.

I gave you two reviews, again, I can keep citing, although you don’t understand a literature review and would, as usual, flip out when I told you the IPCC AR reports were also reviews.

The only cite you gave was you cosplaying a scientist in your apartment.

 

[Lord of Planar]

I gave you two reviews, again, I can keep citing, although you don’t understand a literature review and would, as usual, flip out when I told you the IPCC AR reports were also reviews.

The only cite you gave was you cosplaying a scientist in your apartment.

Citing them without comment only shows you are clueless.

What do you understand of this?



Please explain to the class what that represents and what it means.

 

[Threegoofs]

Citing them without comment only shows you are clueless.

What do you understand of this?

View attachment 67506808

Please explain to the class what that represents and what it means.

LOL- you don’t know the literature, can’t cite it, and obviously barely comprehend it, but you want me to do your homework for you.

 

[Lord of Planar]

LOL- you don’t know the literature, can’t cite it, and obviously barely comprehend it, but you want me to do your homework for you.

I do understand it. I know you do not.

It always amazes me that people like you can argue a topic as much as you do, without knowing jack shit of what you claim. Most people know better than to recite what they do not understand as fact.

I will hold that for a while, and see if any of your friends in you cult understand it. I'll bet that even as bright as you all think Buzz is, he does not recognize what it represents.

I lay odds that Longview sees it for what it is.

Longview... please do not spoil this for cult followers of AGW. I want to see if any of them understand what this is.

 

[Threegoofs]

I do understand it. I know you do not.

It always amazes me that people like you can argue a topic as much as you do, without knowing jack shit of what you claim. Most people know better than to recite what they do not understand as fact.

I will hold that for a while, and see if any of your friends in you cult understand it. I'll bet that even as bright as you all think Buzz is, he does not recognize what it represents.

I lay odds that Longview sees it for what it is.

Longview... please do not spoil this for cult followers of AGW. I want to see if any of them understand what this is.

You didn’t even know what a review article was!

LOL

You think all the National Acadamies of Science are lying.

What a clownshow.

 

[Lord of Planar]

You didn’t even know what a review article was!

LOL

You think all the National Acadamies of Science are lying.

What a clownshow.

I asked you to quote some of it. You did not. Stop accusing me of not knowing. You furnished what is useless, and you are too naive to even know that.

I want the science. Not a review of it. Unlike you, I understand the science and do not need a review of it. I do not let others review material to tell me what to think.

Do you like being an indoctrinated sheeple?

 

[Threegoofs]

I asked you to quote some of it. You did not. Stop accusing me of not knowing. You furnished what is useless, and you are too naive to even know that.

You want me to copy and paste some text?

Why?

I want the science. Not a review of it. Unlike you, I understand the science and do not need a review of it. I do not let others review material to tell me what to think.

Yeah- you do your ‘own research’

LOL

Do you like being an indoctrinated sheeple?

Do I understand that in matters outside my own scientific field that I defer to expert opinion?

Yes.

 

[Lord of Planar]

You want me to copy and paste some text?

Why?

I want you to do that and explain to us with your limited understanding of science, what you think it means.

Do I understand that in matters outside my own scientific field that I defer to expert opinion?

Yes.

But you are not listening to the experts. You are listening to people who lie about what the experts say. That is why I want you to read what the experts say, and explain it in your own words.

 

[Bergslagstroll]

It's human nature and how bureaucracies work. Follow the money. Follow the promotions. Being a suck-up is how you get ahead in many ventures of life.

You only provide propaganda. You are such a good little sheeple.

You have provided no sources for your claims.

Scientific reports about the urgent need to reduce CO2 emissions have also been published during periods and of Republican control of the federal government. Like for example this report published during Trump's presidency.

"Climate change creates new risks and exacerbates existing vulnerabilities in communities across the United States, presenting growing challenges to human health and safety, quality of life, and the rate of economic growth.
The impacts of climate change are already being felt in communities across the country. More frequent and intense extreme weather and climate-related events, as well as changes in average climate conditions, are expected to continue to damage infrastructure, ecosystems, and social systems that provide essential benefits to communities. Future climate change is expected to further disrupt many areas of life, exacerbating existing challenges to prosperity posed by aging and deteriorating infrastructure, stressed ecosystems, and economic inequality. Impacts within and across regions will not be distributed equally. People who are already vulnerable, including lower-income and other marginalized communities, have lower capacity to prepare for and cope with extreme weather and climate-related events and are expected to experience greater impacts. Prioritizing adaptation actions for the most vulnerable populations would contribute to a more equitable future within and across communities. Global action to significantly cut greenhouse gas emissions can substantially reduce climate-related risks and increase opportunities for these populations in the longer term."

Fourth National Climate Assessment: Summary Findings

This report is an authoritative assessment of the science of climate change, with a focus on the United States. It represents the second of two volumes of the Fourth National Climate Assessment, mandated by the Global Change Research Act of 1990.

nca2018.globalchange.gov

That scientists had the integrity to follow the evidence even then they worked for federal agencies under the control of climate denying presidents like Trump.

 

[Bergslagstroll]

Reducing car dependency can reduce CO2 emissions and toxic air pollution while also having a lot of economical and social benefits. Like for example that more car dependent American households pay more for transport than European households that have greater access to public transport, bike paths and walkable neighborhoods.

The High Cost of Transportation in the United States

What does the average American pay to get around every day in 2024? What portion of their income is devoted to transportation? Is that cost typical across developed countries? Unfortunately, the portion of household expenditure spent on transportation in the United States is often a larger...

itdp.org

The Negative Consequences of Car Dependency

Auto-oriented towns experience serious challenges that negatively impact small businesses, community health, and financial success for everyone.

www.strongtowns.org

15-minute cities: What are they and how do they work? – DW – 03/15/2023

City planners say we have to rethink the way we build urban areas to make them more sustainable, healthy and just. The so-called 15-minute city is one idea. But are they viable?

p.dw.com

 

[Threegoofs]

I want you to do that and explain to us with your limited understanding of science, what you think it means.

But you are not listening to the experts. You are listening to people who lie about what the experts say. That is why I want you to read what the experts say, and explain it in your own words.

You really don’t understand review papers.

They’re written by the experts, ‘Mr Scientist’.

LOL

 

[Volunteer]

follow the money.

Follow the money? You're kidding, right? Oil companies earned $200 billion in profits last year. The entire U.S. solar power market is worth one tenth of that.

Follow the money, ha ha!

 

[longview]

Follow the money? You're kidding, right? Oil companies earned $200 billion in profits last year. The entire U.S. solar power market is worth one tenth of that.

Follow the money, ha ha!

How much did the governments of the world take in in taxes, how does that compare to what oil companies made?

 

[Lord of Planar]

You have provided no sources for your claims.

I have plenty of time, but more important, I have explained the science. I am sorry you cannot comprehend the science to see what i say is fast. You do not even understand the propaganda you post.

Scientific reports about the urgent need to reduce CO2 emissions have also been published during periods and of Republican control of the federal government. Like for example this report published during Trump's presidency.

Nothing specific here. Just words with no source backing up the claim the Co2 must be reduced.

"Climate change creates new risks and exacerbates existing vulnerabilities in communities across the United States, presenting growing challenges to human health and safety, quality of life, and the rate of economic growth.

Non-specific "climate change." A catch-all to scare ignorant people. Note that they do not distinguish between natural and man made. As for heath problems, that is the pollutants in the our. Not CO2.

The impacts of climate change are already being felt in communities across the country. More frequent and intense extreme weather and climate-related events, as well as changes in average climate conditions, are expected to continue to damage infrastructure, ecosystems, and social systems that provide essential benefits to communities.

This extreme weather is bullshit.The long history dispels this lie.

Future climate change is expected to further disrupt many areas of life, exacerbating existing challenges to prosperity posed by aging and deteriorating infrastructure, stressed ecosystems, and economic inequality. Impacts within and across regions will not be distributed equally.

Yes, their models using fake numbers with impossible scenarios show it worse than it will be.

People who are already vulnerable, including lower-income and other marginalized communities, have lower capacity to prepare for and cope with extreme weather and climate-related events and are expected to experience greater impacts.

This is true throughout history. The measures the AGW cult nutters want us to do will make everything even more expensive for the poor.

Prioritizing adaptation actions for the most vulnerable populations would contribute to a more equitable future within and across communities.

This has nothing to do with climate change. Again, throughout history, their are the rich and the poor. Spending tons on money and making food production and good production more expensive will harm the poor even more.

Global action to significantly cut greenhouse gas emissions can substantially reduce climate-related risks and increase opportunities for these populations in the longer term."

Fourth National Climate Assessment: Summary Findings

This report is an authoritative assessment of the science of climate change, with a focus on the United States. It represents the second of two volumes of the Fourth National Climate Assessment, mandated by the Global Change Research Act of 1990.

nca2018.globalchange.gov

Not enough to matter. What would matter is if we stopped polluting the biosphere with actual pollution. Plant food like CO2 is good for the biosphere. Not bad.

That scientists had the integrity to follow the evidence even then they worked for federal agencies under the control of climate denying presidents like Trump.

If you believe that, I have a bridge to sell you.

I will bet the person writhing that had a journalism major. Not a science major.

As long as they use wishy-washy wording, never trust them.

 

[Lord of Planar]

You really don’t understand review papers.

Stop slandering me. I do understand them. You are too ignorant to see do, and arrogant to think you are smart enough to correct me.

They’re written by the experts, ‘Mr Scientist’.

LOL

Yes, the papers are. The bullshit you read is from journalists and lying bloggers. What you read is not what the papers reflect.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Follow the money? You're kidding, right? Oil companies earned $200 billion in profits last year. The entire U.S. solar power market is worth one tenth of that.

Follow the money, ha ha!

Yes. The AGW agenda easily spend hundreds times more money.

 

[Threegoofs]

Stop slandering me. I do understand them. You are too ignorant to see do, and arrogant to think you are smart enough to correct me.

LOL. You didn’t even know what a review paper was before this conversation. I posted a review, and you complained it ‘didn’t even have original science’ in it!

Yes, the papers are. The bullshit you read is from journalists and lying bloggers. What you read is not what the papers reflect.

Ask an author what they meant. Oh right. You never actually talked to a scientist.

 

[Lord of Planar]

LOL. You didn’t even know what a review paper was before this conversation. I posted a review, and you complained it ‘didn’t even have original science’ in it!


Ask an author what they meant. Oh right. You never actually talked to a scientist.

You just don't stop. Do you.

A review paper is not what i was looking for. No matter what you do, you just show you do not know squat, and find others to confirm your beliefs.

THAT IS NOT SCIENCE!

 

[Volunteer]

Yes. The AGW agenda easily spend hundreds times more money.

You have no data to support that. It is a joke that the fossil fuel industry, which has many trillions of future sales dollars at stake amid declining public approval of its pollution-causing products, isn't outspending makers and installers of solar panels and windmills in marketing and public relations.

 

[Threegoofs]

You just don't stop. Do you.

A review paper is not what i was looking for. No matter what you do, you just show you do not know squat, and find others to confirm your beliefs.

THAT IS NOT SCIENCE!

The discussion was that AGW and its consequences were regarded as simple scientific fact. You hilariously disagreed.

told you I was going to post a review. I then posted a couple reviews.

You said:


“I see you are too lazy to quote any of the body of it. Did you realize too late that these are just talking about other papers, and have no real research themselves?”

I realize you don’t want to see them because you can’t posture on “disproving’ one narrow fact.

 

[longview]

You didn’t even know what a review article was!

LOL

You think all the National Acadamies of Science are lying.

What a clownshow.

You have no data to support that. It is a joke that the fossil fuel industry, which has many trillions of future sales dollars at stake amid declining public approval of its pollution-causing products, isn't outspending makers and installers of solar panels and windmills in marketing and public relations.

The oil companies sell finished fuel products, and well continue to sell finished fuel products after oil is no longer
an economically viable feedstock.
Let's compare, how much money do you think oil companies have spent on saying that CO2 based climate change is not an issue?

 

[Lord of Planar]

You have no data to support that. It is a joke that the fossil fuel industry, which has many trillions of future sales dollars at stake amid declining public approval of its pollution-causing products, isn't outspending makers and installers of solar panels and windmills in marketing and public relations.

It is a fact. The data has been presented in the past.

 

[longview]

It is a fact. The data has been presented in the past.

As for how much has been spent by Governments in support of the narrative of Human caused catastrophic climate change,
I found this reference.
The misallocation of climate research funding

This article analyzes a new dataset of research grants from 333 donors around the world spanning
4.3 million awards with a cumulative value of USD 1.3 trillion from 1950 to 2021.
Between 1990 and 2018, the natural and technical sciences received 770%
more funding than the social sciences for research on issues related to climate change.

 

[Lord of Planar]

As for how much has been spent by Governments in support of the narrative of Human caused catastrophic climate change,
I found this reference.
The misallocation of climate research funding

Hep.

Trillions of dollars to get to where they are with trying to tax and control people's CO2 emissions, and they still have not proven anything except the earth loves more CO2.