Wyoming stands up for coal with threat to sue states that refuse to buy it

[KingLeo]

There are places were there is no natural gas, and only coal or wood for heat and electricity. Coal will not die as long as their is a need, and there will always been a need some place.

Strange since in 2019 Wyoming produced 1.4 billion cubic feet of natural gas.

 

[Glitch]

CO2 above a the level needed to maintain plant life can be toxic because it contributes to the Greenhouse Effect.

It requires 30,000 ppmV, or 3% of the total atmosphere, before CO2 becomes toxic to humans according to OSHA.

CARBON DIOXIDE | Occupational Safety and Health Administration

www.osha.gov

You can't live on CO2 also.

We can't live without CO2.

 

[Glitch]

It is not being hotly debated that global climate change, fueled by global warming, is real and a current threat to the well being of humankind.

There is no "threat to the well being of humankind." What complete and utter nonsense. It is pure leftist propaganda, nothing more.

The only "debate" on the subject is between politicians and pundits who know nothing. The science is proven beyond a reasonable doubt, and agreed on by every scientific organization world wide.

That is yet another leftist lie. Boy, you certainly do enjoy spewing nonsensical propaganda. Too bad you can't back any of that garbage up.

Yes, there are other greenhouse gasses, and yes, water vapor is one of them. Moreover, water vapor is both a cause and an effect of global warming: As the air gets warmer, there is more water vapor, and as there is more water vapor, the air gets warmer. It's a catch 22. What that does is magnifies the effect of CO2 on the climate. More CO2, more warming, more warming, more water vapor, more water vapor, more warming. I believe it's referred to as the "tipping point" when we can no longer mitigate global warming by limiting the amount of carbon dioxide emitted .

And yet the mean surface temperature of the planet remains at 14.8°C, which is 7.2°C below the mean surface temperature of the planet when not in an ice-age. Where is this so-called "tipping point" nonsense you were referring to, and why didn't work when atmospheric CO2 levels were 10 times current levels?

You are also ignoring the 800 year lag. First the mean surface temperature increase, then ~800 years later CO2 increases correspondingly. Which would appear to eliminate any possibility of a "tipping point."

Oh, and sure, we humans can live with more CO2 in the atmosphere. It really doesn't hurt us until the concentration gets a lot higher than it is now. What we can't live with very well is the effects of global warming, i.e., more extremes of weather. Anyone who doesn't recognize that we're having more extremes of weather is simply asleep.

It looks like I got my geologic periods mixed up. I'll give you that.

A warming planet with more CO2 has also greened the planet more, and significantly increased the carrying capacity of this planet. You are probably too young to remember the constant famines that plagued Africa and many Asian nations. When the planet began warming up we began growing more food because there were now more arable lands than ever before. Now those famines are a distant memory, all thanks to a warming planet.

The overall warming of the climate has been, and always will be, a huge beneficial boon to humanity. It improves both our technology and our economies. Just consider how much humans have developed since the Modern Warming period began in 1880.

 

[Glitch]

Strange since in 2019 Wyoming produced 1.4 billion cubic feet of natural gas.View attachment 67355393

So?

It depends on where the natural gas is located. Not everyone has access, and that is the niche where coal fits and will stay. Those locations where natural gas either does not exist, or is not provided. There are still many homes across the US that depend on either coal, or fuel oil, as their primary source of heat because they can't obtain natural gas. There are also quite a few Alaskan villages that depend entirely on diesel-fueled electric generators.

There is no single fuel source that is the panacea here. People will use the cheapest and most abundant energy source that is available in a given area.

 

[PirateMk1]

If you live in California your car must pass California emission standards. For many years cars sold in California had exhaust systems different from every other state. I'm not sure that's still true but back then if you wanted to register a car from another state you had to modify it to pass inspection or sell it out of state and buy a California car.

I often vacation at a friend's place in Oregon. When we drive to California we sometimes get stopped and asked to leave any fruit we may have behind. Draw your own conclusions.

California was forced to allow out of state cars that people bought. They just have to go through hoops to get them registered.

 

[Big Steve]

I wonder if that strategy would work for Blockbuster? Rent our movies, or we'll sue!

Well, there's only one Blockbuster left, so I don't think it's too big a deal...

 

[Dittohead not!]

1 There is no "threat to the well being of humankind." What complete and utter nonsense. It is pure leftist propaganda, nothing more.


1 That is yet another leftist lie. Boy, you certainly do enjoy spewing nonsensical propaganda. Too bad you can't back any of that garbage up.


2 And yet the mean surface temperature of the planet remains at 14.8°C, which is 7.2°C below the mean surface temperature of the planet when not in an ice-age. Where is this so-called "tipping point" nonsense you were referring to, and why didn't work when atmospheric CO2 levels were 10 times current levels?

3 You are also ignoring the 800 year lag. First the mean surface temperature increase, then ~800 years later CO2 increases correspondingly. Which would appear to eliminate any possibility of a "tipping point."


4 A warming planet with more CO2 has also greened the planet more, and significantly increased the carrying capacity of this planet. You are probably too young to remember the constant famines that plagued Africa and many Asian nations. When the planet began warming up we began growing more food because there were now more arable lands than ever before. Now those famines are a distant memory, all thanks to a warming planet.

5 The overall warming of the climate has been, and always will be, a huge beneficial boon to humanity. It improves both our technology and our economies. Just consider how much humans have developed since the Modern Warming period began in 1880.

1 It has nothing to do with "leftist" or "rightist." It is the consensus of every scientific organization on Earth. Only the silly pundits try to dispute established science.

2 That is your unsupported opinion, no links to any actual studies. You are by yourself arguing not just with me, but with every scientific organization on Earth. They are saying this:

The world is getting warmer. Thermometer readings around the world have been rising since the Industrial Revolution, and the causes are a blend of human activity and some natural variability—with the preponderance of evidence saying humans are mostly responsible.

According to an ongoing temperature analysis conducted by scientists at NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), the average global temperature on Earth has increased by a little more than 1° Celsius (2° Fahrenheit) since 1880. Two-thirds of the warming has occurred since 1975, at a rate of roughly 0.15-0.20°C per decade.

3 There is no 800 year lag to ignore.

4 I do remember. In fact, it is still happening, and getting worse due to global warming. One example:

Drought in Madagascar​

The southern part of Madagascar, the island nation off the southeast coast of Africa, is facing its worst drought in 40 years. The lack of rainfall and other environmental factors have taken a toll on the region’s vegetation and agricultural production, leaving many in the region facing severe hunger.

5 Good. Now, let's see you show a causative link between global warming, which you claim isn't happening, and human progress since 1880. Good luck with that one. It should be about as easy as arguing with every scientific organization on Earth.

​

 

[Glitch]

1 It has nothing to do with "leftist" or "rightist." It is the consensus of every scientific organization on Earth. Only the silly pundits try to dispute established science.

That is a lie, as usual. Only the uneducated leftist filth buy into this AGW scam to spread their Marxist ideology. There isn't a single scientist on the planet that believes the stupidity you are pushing.

2 That is your unsupported opinion, no links to any actual studies. You are by yourself arguing not just with me, but with every scientific organization on Earth. They are saying this:

Repeating a deliberate lie does not make it true. You can't even lie well since it was NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) that published this:


This above NASA GISS graph shows an average temperature increase of 0.04°C per decade, or a 0.39°C increase per century. Where is your evidence that temperatures are twice what NASA GISS claims them to be? Or do you just make up your lies like all the other leftists?

3 There is no 800 year lag to ignore.

So much for your understanding of the science. Scientists have been reporting on the 800-year CO2 lag for the last two decades.

Climate and atmospheric history of the past 420,000 years from the Vostok ice core, Antarctica - Nature, Issue 339, 429-436 (1999)
Ice Core Records of Atmospheric CO2 Around the Last Three Glacial Terminations - Science, Volume 283, Issue 5408, 1712-1714 (1999)
Atmospheric CO2 Concentrations over the Last Glacial Termination - Science, Volume 291, Issue 5501, 112-114 (2001)
Timing of Atmospheric CO2 and Antarctic Temperature Changes Across Termination III - Science, Volume 299, Issue 5613, 1728-1731 (2003)
A record of atmospheric CO2 during the last 40,000 years from the Siple Dome, Antarctica ice core - Journal of Geophysical Research, Volume 109, Issue D13 (2004)
Stable Carbon Cycle–Climate Relationship During the Late Pleistocene - Science, Volume 310, Issue 5752, 1313-1317 (2005)

4 I do remember. In fact, it is still happening, and getting worse due to global warming. One example:

Drought in Madagascar​

Yet another leftist lie. More people are being fed today than ever before in the history of the planet, thanks entirely to a warming planet. Leftists are so mentally deranged that they truly hate all of humanity and want to do everything they can to wipe out the entire species. As was evident from the 100+ million leftist filth killed during the century before this one. So it must really chap your hide to see how well humanity is doing in this warming climate. Better technology, better social evolution, more food sources, and a greening planet. The only down-side to a warming planet is putting up with leftist filth who want to see humanity destroyed.

5 Good. Now, let's see you show a causative link between global warming, which you claim isn't happening, and human progress since 1880. Good luck with that one. It should be about as easy as arguing with every scientific organization on Earth.

This is where an education would have served you better than your leftist indoctrination. Your inability to comprehend what you read explains why you are so uneducated on the subject. If you cannot identify the huge leaps in technology that humanity has made over the last 140 years, there is absolutely no hope for you. In 1880 we couldn't even feed the 1.4 billion people on the planet, but by 2020 we are now feeding 7.8 billion people - thanks entirely to a warming planet.

 

[Dittohead not!]

That is a lie, as usual. Only the uneducated leftist filth buy into this AGW scam to spread their Marxist ideology. There isn't a single scientist on the planet that believes the stupidity you are pushing.


Repeating a deliberate lie does not make it true. You can't even lie well since it was NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) that published this:
View attachment 67355530

This above NASA GISS graph shows an average temperature increase of 0.04°C per decade, or a 0.39°C increase per century. Where is your evidence that temperatures are twice what NASA GISS claims them to be? Or do you just make up your lies like all the other leftists?


So much for your understanding of the science. Scientists have been reporting on the 800-year CO2 lag for the last two decades.

Climate and atmospheric history of the past 420,000 years from the Vostok ice core, Antarctica - Nature, Issue 339, 429-436 (1999)
Ice Core Records of Atmospheric CO2 Around the Last Three Glacial Terminations - Science, Volume 283, Issue 5408, 1712-1714 (1999)
Atmospheric CO2 Concentrations over the Last Glacial Termination - Science, Volume 291, Issue 5501, 112-114 (2001)
Timing of Atmospheric CO2 and Antarctic Temperature Changes Across Termination III - Science, Volume 299, Issue 5613, 1728-1731 (2003)
A record of atmospheric CO2 during the last 40,000 years from the Siple Dome, Antarctica ice core - Journal of Geophysical Research, Volume 109, Issue D13 (2004)
Stable Carbon Cycle–Climate Relationship During the Late Pleistocene - Science, Volume 310, Issue 5752, 1313-1317 (2005)


Yet another leftist lie. More people are being fed today than ever before in the history of the planet, thanks entirely to a warming planet. Leftists are so mentally deranged that they truly hate all of humanity and want to do everything they can to wipe out the entire species. As was evident from the 100+ million leftist filth killed during the century before this one. So it must really chap your hide to see how well humanity is doing in this warming climate. Better technology, better social evolution, more food sources, and a greening planet. The only down-side to a warming planet is putting up with leftist filth who want to see humanity destroyed.


This is where an education would have served you better than your leftist indoctrination. Your inability to comprehend what you read explains why you are so uneducated on the subject. If you cannot identify the huge leaps in technology that humanity has made over the last 140 years, there is absolutely no hope for you. In 1880 we couldn't even feed the 1.4 billion people on the planet, but by 2020 we are now feeding 7.8 billion people - thanks entirely to a warming planet.

There is nothing "leftist" about global warming. It is a scientific theory, supported by facts and not by opinions. You have your opinions, unsupported by any facts, and label anything you disagree with as "leftist."

You have cause and effect backwards in your last paragraph. Human progress has caused global warming, not the other way around.

and global warming has not caused the green revolution. Advances in agriculture has done that. What global warming has done is what it continues to do, which is to cause extremes of weather.

Once again, you are not arguing with me. You are arguing against every scientific organization on Earth, all of them, no exceptions.

 

[KingLeo]

So?

It depends on where the natural gas is located. Not everyone has access, and that is the niche where coal fits and will stay. Those locations where natural gas either does not exist, or is not provided. There are still many homes across the US that depend on either coal, or fuel oil, as their primary source of heat because they can't obtain natural gas. There are also quite a few Alaskan villages that depend entirely on diesel-fueled electric generators.

There is no single fuel source that is the panacea here. People will use the cheapest and most abundant energy source that is available in a given area.

Does not change the fact that use of coal, by both residential and commercial use, is down by huge numbers.
And it will continue to decrease as alternative energies become cheaper and more abundant, which will take time.
Wyoming should be planning for the eventual end of coal.

 

[ALiberalModerate]

That is a lie, as usual. Only the uneducated leftist filth buy into this AGW scam to spread their Marxist ideology. There isn't a single scientist on the planet that believes the stupidity you are pushing.


Repeating a deliberate lie does not make it true. You can't even lie well since it was NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) that published this:
View attachment 67355530

This above NASA GISS graph shows an average temperature increase of 0.04°C per decade, or a 0.39°C increase per century. Where is your evidence that temperatures are twice what NASA GISS claims them to be? Or do you just make up your lies like all the other leftists?


So much for your understanding of the science. Scientists have been reporting on the 800-year CO2 lag for the last two decades.

Climate and atmospheric history of the past 420,000 years from the Vostok ice core, Antarctica - Nature, Issue 339, 429-436 (1999)
Ice Core Records of Atmospheric CO2 Around the Last Three Glacial Terminations - Science, Volume 283, Issue 5408, 1712-1714 (1999)
Atmospheric CO2 Concentrations over the Last Glacial Termination - Science, Volume 291, Issue 5501, 112-114 (2001)
Timing of Atmospheric CO2 and Antarctic Temperature Changes Across Termination III - Science, Volume 299, Issue 5613, 1728-1731 (2003)
A record of atmospheric CO2 during the last 40,000 years from the Siple Dome, Antarctica ice core - Journal of Geophysical Research, Volume 109, Issue D13 (2004)
Stable Carbon Cycle–Climate Relationship During the Late Pleistocene - Science, Volume 310, Issue 5752, 1313-1317 (2005)


Yet another leftist lie. More people are being fed today than ever before in the history of the planet, thanks entirely to a warming planet. Leftists are so mentally deranged that they truly hate all of humanity and want to do everything they can to wipe out the entire species. As was evident from the 100+ million leftist filth killed during the century before this one. So it must really chap your hide to see how well humanity is doing in this warming climate. Better technology, better social evolution, more food sources, and a greening planet. The only down-side to a warming planet is putting up with leftist filth who want to see humanity destroyed.


This is where an education would have served you better than your leftist indoctrination. Your inability to comprehend what you read explains why you are so uneducated on the subject. If you cannot identify the huge leaps in technology that humanity has made over the last 140 years, there is absolutely no hope for you. In 1880 we couldn't even feed the 1.4 billion people on the planet, but by 2020 we are now feeding 7.8 billion people - thanks entirely to a warming planet.

Global temperatures have actually increase at .32c per decade since 1980. https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-global-temperature

With positive feedbacks increasing, the trend will almost certainly accelerate in the coming decades. The threat from climate change is not as severe as some activists portray it, but it is certainly a bigger issue than you seem to think it is.

 

[ALiberalModerate]

Does not change the fact that use of coal, by both residential and commercial use, is down by huge numbers.
And it will continue to decrease as alternative energies become cheaper and more abundant, which will take time.
Wyoming should be planning for the eventual end of coal.

Even if coal were not an issue in regards to climate change, the fact is that we would have to be burning tires for warmth to have a dirtier fuel than coal. In any given year, coal mining alone does more ecological damage than every other form of energy combined has for the entire last century.

 

[Glitch]

There is nothing "leftist" about global warming. It is a scientific theory, supported by facts and not by opinions. You have your opinions, unsupported by any facts, and label anything you disagree with as "leftist."

What makes it entirely a leftist Marxist scam is the fact that only leftists are pushing the nonsensical notion that humans cause climate and only by paying massive taxes can a solution (which is never presented) can be found. How exactly is massively taxing people going to alter the climate?

None of your bullshit is supported by anything resembling a fact. I post peer-reviewed papers on the topic that shows an actual consensus among scientists, and what do you post? Unsupportable leftist propaganda as usual.

You have cause and effect backwards in your last paragraph. Human progress has caused global warming, not the other way around.

Now you are the science denier. I just posted peer-reviewed studies that demonstrate an 800 year lag between an increase in temperature and an increase in CO2. Unless you are trying to blame those humans who lived during the Renaissance during the 13th century for the increases in CO2 are seeing today. I certainly wouldn't put it past you considering your lack of education.

and global warming has not caused the green revolution. Advances in agriculture has done that. What global warming has done is what it continues to do, which is to cause extremes of weather.

Advances in agriculture don't increase arable lands. Melting permafrost does that. In the last 30 years the number of farms in Alaska have doubled in number due to the melting permafrost. A warming planet with an increase in CO2 does in fact mean a greener planet, regardless of agriculture.

Once again, you are not arguing with me. You are arguing against every scientific organization on Earth, all of them, no exceptions.

More completely unsupported leftist bullshit, as usual. When you get anywhere near an actual fact be sure to let someone know, because so far you aren't even close.

 

[Glitch]

Does not change the fact that use of coal, by both residential and commercial use, is down by huge numbers.

Not in Alaska its not. We may even build a new coal power plant in the near future. We will not, however, be buying coal from WY.

And it will continue to decrease as alternative energies become cheaper and more abundant, which will take time.
Wyoming should be planning for the eventual end of coal.

Alternative energies are not getting cheaper or more abundant. They remain on the fringe, and are extremely expensive by comparison. They also have very limited use in Alaska. The only alternative energy source that we can use all year round is hydroelectric. Wind generators cannot function in sub-zero temperatures, and solar power is useless when we actually need it because the sun isn't shining. When the sun is shining, we don't need the solar power. Besides batteries and cold weather do not go together very well. So we will continue to burn our fossil fuels since it is the only reliable source of energy that can be used year round.

Where coal or fuel-oil deliveries are a problem many Alaskans are now using biomass generators. They still use wood-burning stoves for their heat, but now with biomass generators they can also generate their electricity needs using wood as well. It is not as efficient as burning coal, but you use the resources you have.

 

[noonereal]

Wyoming is faced by a transition to renewable energy that’s gathering pace across America, but it has now come up with a novel and controversial plan to protect its mining industry – sue other states that refuse to take its coal.

A progressive state with progressive people would run to take the lead on renewables.

Of course deplorables always want to live in the past. They try to drag as many as possible backwards with them.

 

[Glitch]

Global temperatures have actually increase at .32c per decade since 1980. https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-global-temperature

Except that they haven't. As I demonstrated using NASA's GISS data. There has only been a net increase in temperature in the US of 0.51°C between 1880 and 2010. Also, if you think the IPCC is a scientific source, or even remotely credible, you are sorely mistaken. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is, as the name suggests, pure government propaganda, nothing less. They misstate and take out of context the peer-reviewed studies of other actual scientists.

Despite being commonly cited by idiots who frequent this sub-forum, there is absolutely nothing scientific or credible about any of the IPCC publications.

With positive feedbacks increasing, the trend will almost certainly accelerate in the coming decades. The threat from climate change is not as severe as some activists portray it, but it is certainly a bigger issue than you seem to think it is.

What positive feedback? You are just making up complete bullshit now. The only threat we face is the outrageous hyperbole of the uneducated mentally diseased left.

 

[Dittohead not!]

1 What makes it entirely a leftist Marxist scam is the fact that only leftists are pushing the nonsensical notion that humans cause climate and only by paying massive taxes can a solution (which is never presented) can be found. How exactly is massively taxing people going to alter the climate?

2 None of your bullshit is supported by anything resembling a fact. I post peer-reviewed papers on the topic that shows an actual consensus among scientists, and what do you post? Unsupportable leftist propaganda as usual.


3Now you are the science denier. I just posted peer-reviewed studies that demonstrate an 800 year lag between an increase in temperature and an increase in CO2. Unless you are trying to blame those humans who lived during the Renaissance during the 13th century for the increases in CO2 are seeing today. I certainly wouldn't put it past you considering your lack of education.


4 Advances in agriculture don't increase arable lands. Melting permafrost does that. In the last 30 years the number of farms in Alaska have doubled in number due to the melting permafrost. A warming planet with an increase in CO2 does in fact mean a greener planet, regardless of agriculture.


More completely unsupported leftist bullshit, as usual. When you get anywhere near an actual fact be sure to let someone know, because so far you aren't even close.

1 There is nothing "Marxist" about global warming, nor are excessive taxes the way to deal with it.

2 Bullshit. Every scientific organization on Earth is saying the same thing, and it doesn't resemble your silly denialist garbage. Did you think that NASA, NOAA, and CERN are Marxist organizations? How absurd

3 If there were really an 800 year lag, we wouldn't be seeing the effects of global warming for another 800 years. We're seeing them now.

4 Extremes of weather decrease arable lands. Who do you think is farming the former permafrost? Why would there be less permafrost if global warming is a hoax?

Again: You are not arguing with me. I'm just some guy posting on the internet, just like you are. You are arguing with NASA, NOAA, CERN.
Here is a more complete list of who your opponents are in this little debate.

 

[Glitch]

1 There is nothing "Marxist" about global warming, nor are excessive taxes the way to deal with it.

Tell that to the leftist filth in Congress who have been pushing for a massive carbon tax since the 1990s. We've already spent trillions on this Marxist scam to redistribute wealth, and the Paris Accords will ensure that we spend trillions more and accomplish what exactly? The planet isn't getting any cooler despite the trillions we've already spent. The sole purpose behind these massive taxes is the Marxist ideology of redistributing wealth, which is why only leftist filth are pushing AGW and nobody else.

2 Bullshit. Every scientific organization on Earth is saying the same thing, and it doesn't resemble your silly denialist garbage. Did you think that NASA, NOAA, and CERN are Marxist organizations? How absurd

More leftist bullshit. As far as NASA and NOAA is concerned, since they are government agencies it depends on the administration. When the Marxist Obama was President, you better believe that the EPA, NOAA, NASA, and every other federal agency was under complete Marxist control. Obama even had the EPA deliberately lie in 2009 to get around a Supreme Court decision. CERN also has absolutely nothing to do with the climate, it is a particle physics lab.

3 If there were really an 800 year lag, we wouldn't be seeing the effects of global warming for another 800 years. We're seeing them now.

You have it backwards. An increasing CO2 level today means temperatures had to have first increased 800 years earlier. As it happens, between 950 AD and 1250 AD was a period of time known as the Medieval Warming.

4 Extremes of weather decrease arable lands. Who do you think is farming the former permafrost? Why would there be less permafrost if global warming is a hoax?

Again: You are not arguing with me. I'm just some guy posting on the internet, just like you are. You are arguing with NASA, NOAA, CERN.
Here is a more complete list of who your opponents are in this little debate.

The planet is warming currently. I never said otherwise. It is your lack of education and inability to comprehend what you read that has led you to your erroneous conclusion.

I said that humans could not possibly have anything to do with climate, and because you lack the necessary education you erroneously conclude that only humans can create climate therefore if I'm denying humans could be responsible for the climate I must be denying the climate. It is the kind of twisted logic most normal people grow out of by the time they turn six.

 

[Luce]

We should also sue states that don't buy buggy whips.

 

[Dittohead not!]

1 Tell that to the leftist filth in Congress who have been pushing for a massive carbon tax since the 1990s. We've already spent trillions on this Marxist scam to redistribute wealth, and the Paris Accords will ensure that we spend trillions more and accomplish what exactly? The planet isn't getting any cooler despite the trillions we've already spent. The sole purpose behind these massive taxes is the Marxist ideology of redistributing wealth, which is why only leftist filth are pushing AGW and nobody else.


2 More leftist bullshit. As far as NASA and NOAA is concerned, since they are government agencies it depends on the administration. When the Marxist Obama was President, you better believe that the EPA, NOAA, NASA, and every other federal agency was under complete Marxist control. Obama even had the EPA deliberately lie in 2009 to get around a Supreme Court decision. CERN also has absolutely nothing to do with the climate, it is a particle physics lab.


3 You have it backwards. An increasing CO2 level today means temperatures had to have first increased 800 years earlier. As it happens, between 950 AD and 1250 AD was a period of time known as the Medieval Warming.


4 he planet is warming currently. I never said otherwise. It is your lack of education and inability to comprehend what you read that has led you to your erroneous conclusion.

5 I said that humans could not possibly have anything to do with climate, and because you lack the necessary education you erroneously conclude that only humans can create climate therefore if I'm denying humans could be responsible for the climate I must be denying the climate. It is the kind of twisted logic most normal people grow out of by the time they turn six.

1 That is your unsupported opinion. That of the Earth's scientific organizations is quite different, as you already know.

2 It's not just the US governmental organizations. It's every scientific organization world wide.

3 You're now going to try to argue that the CO2 concentrations in today's atmosphere aren't the cause of the effects of global warming we can all see every day, but that it's due to CO2 that was released 800 years ago? And, you're basing that on circular reasoning? There are no words to tell how absurd that position is.

4 The planet is, indeed, warming currently. On that, we agree. That it's due to something that happened 800 years ago is what's totally absurd.

5 That makes no sense, but then, neither does any of the climate change denialists' so called arguments.

 

[Dayton3]

No, we don't want coal. Its dirty, polluting, and it is centuries old tech.

Too bad Wyoming, we don't need ya.

So are windmills.

 

[Dayton3]

We should also sue states that don't buy buggy whips.

We can always use reins instead.

 

[VanceMack]

They are taking the wrong tack. Rather than attempting to force people to honor contracts regarding coal (and all fossil fuel energy production), they should be cutting the cable for all the states currently bitching about fossil fuels. Nighty night...lights out. Good luck.

 

[Glitch]

1 That is your unsupported opinion. That of the Earth's scientific organizations is quite different, as you already know.

It is not an unsupported opinion, but actual fact that is part of the congressional record. Obama in particular spent billions on Africa as part of his Marxist redistribution of wealth ideology.

Front Page Featured | MRCTV

www.cnsnews.com

Furthermore, Obama had the EPA deliberately lie and violate the law by creating an "Endangerment Finding" in 2009 to get around the Supreme Court decision in Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency, 549 U.S. 497 (2007) and illegally giving the EPA more authority that they were ever intended to have.

https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2016-08/documents/endangermentfinding_legalbasis.pdf

2 It's not just the US governmental organizations. It's every scientific organization world wide.

Yet another leftist lie, as usual. I just demonstrated you are wrong with peer-reviewed studies. What do you have that supports your ludicrous claim? A list of scientific organizations world wide won't cut it, you have to actually provide evidence to support your claim (like I have), or have it dismissed as just more leftist bullshit.

3 You're now going to try to argue that the CO2 concentrations in today's atmosphere aren't the cause of the effects of global warming we can all see every day, but that it's due to CO2 that was released 800 years ago? And, you're basing that on circular reasoning? There are no words to tell how absurd that position is.

4 The planet is, indeed, warming currently. On that, we agree. That it's due to something that happened 800 years ago is what's totally absurd.

5 That makes no sense, but then, neither does any of the climate change denialists' so called arguments.

I'm not surprised that you are incapable of comprehending my posts. It speaks volumes about your lack of education.

I never said that CO2 increases 800 years ago was causing temperatures to increase today. I said exactly the opposite. Do try to pay closer attention.

I said, repeatedly, that an INCREASE IN TEMPERATURE 800 YEARS AGO is resulting in an INCREASE IN CO2 TODAY. There is an 800 year lag between an increase in temperature and an increase in CO2, as every one of those peer-reviewed papers I posted said, and that is the scientific consensus. Not your fictional bullshit about humans being the cause, for which there is absolutely no evidence.

 

[ALiberalModerate]

It is not an unsupported opinion, but actual fact that is part of the congressional record. Obama in particular spent billions on Africa as part of his Marxist redistribution of wealth ideology.

Front Page Featured | MRCTV

www.cnsnews.com

Furthermore, Obama had the EPA deliberately lie and violate the law by creating an "Endangerment Finding" in 2009 to get around the Supreme Court decision in Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency, 549 U.S. 497 (2007) and illegally giving the EPA more authority that they were ever intended to have.

https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2016-08/documents/endangermentfinding_legalbasis.pdf

Yet another leftist lie, as usual. I just demonstrated you are wrong with peer-reviewed studies. What do you have that supports your ludicrous claim? A list of scientific organizations world wide won't cut it, you have to actually provide evidence to support your claim (like I have), or have it dismissed as just more leftist bullshit.


I'm not surprised that you are incapable of comprehending my posts. It speaks volumes about your lack of education.

I never said that CO2 increases 800 years ago was causing temperatures to increase today. I said exactly the opposite. Do try to pay closer attention.

I said, repeatedly, that an INCREASE IN TEMPERATURE 800 YEARS AGO is resulting in an INCREASE IN CO2 TODAY. There is an 800 year lag between an increase in temperature and an increase in CO2, as every one of those peer-reviewed papers I posted said, and that is the scientific consensus. Not your fictional bullshit about humans being the cause, for which there is absolutely no evidence.

I have found that science deniers, whether they are creationists, anti-vaxxers, or AGW deniers, always accuse those they are arguing with as leftists and ignorant, and they usually get angry. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0270467619886266?journalCode=bsta