CC3 -- Why I believe that a third option is needed for climate change

Wanderer78

Oneiric 3 wrote: »

Because it keeps them under State control. If you are funded by the State, then you are nothing more than an agent of it.

...and if you re funded by none state bodies/institutions, you must be an agent of those also?

Oneiric 3

Wanderer78 wrote: »

...and if you re funded by none state bodies/institutions, you must be an agent of those also?

Of course. Vested interests and all of that.

Akrasia

Nabber wrote: »

In laymans terms. Scientists provide the data. IPPC administrators cherry pick the data they want.
IPPC is not looking for the truth, just to reinforce the belief.


It's not a stretch to assume a political body and the MSM have not done this before. Not so long ago we were treated to pictures of missile silos, launch pads and chemical labs. Things that never existed

Governments will lie when trying to push for their own agenda.
Which governments stand to gain from exaggerating climate change?

Why do you think the IPCC would want to hype up climate change? What do the governments have to gain? The majority of the wealthiest nations are already heavily invested in fossil fuels

Danno

Akrasia wrote: »

Governments will lie when trying to push for their own agenda.
Which governments stand to gain from exaggerating climate change?

Why do you think the IPCC would want to hype up climate change?... What do the governments have to gain? The majority of the wealthiest nations are already heavily invested in fossil fuels

Two words: Carbon Tax.

We've been collecting carbon taxes for well in excess of a decade now. The onus is now on the AGW side to show conclusive proof that these tax measures have lead to a demonstrable reduction in global warming. I won't hold my breath while those that advocate for such measures perform mental gymnastics in explaining how a €25 bag of coal is cleaner than a €20 bag of coal.

Wanderer78

Danno wrote:

We've been collecting carbon taxes for well in excess of a decade now. The onus is now on the AGW side to show conclusive proof that these tax measures have lead to a demonstrable reduction in global warming. I won't hold my breath while those that advocate for such measures perform mental gymnastics in explaining how a €25 bag of coal is cleaner than a €20 bag of coal.

Maybe because the main polluters pay little or no taxes, let alone carbon taxes

Akrasia

Danno wrote: »

Two words: Carbon Tax.

We've been collecting carbon taxes for well in excess of a decade now. The onus is now on the AGW side to show conclusive proof that these tax measures have lead to a demonstrable reduction in global warming. I won't hold my breath while those that advocate for such measures perform mental gymnastics in explaining how a €25 bag of coal is cleaner than a €20 bag of coal.

Governments who want to impose taxes can impose them without having to get involved in a grand global conspiracy to falsify climate change

And what about all the countries that do not have any national carbon taxes, are these places like America, Almost all of South America Russia, most of the Middle East and North Africa, India, Pakistan Etc all just being bullied into going along with the conspiracy?


By the way, a 25 euro bag of coal is cleaner if the 5 euros in carbon tax is used to modernise the Energy infrastructure, to facilitate renewable energy, and to fund initiatives like the warmer homes scheme that mean even if a household has to pay 25 euros for a bag of coal, they only need to burn that coal from October to February instead of from September to April, because their house is better insulated and doesn't leak heat the minute the sun goes down

While at the same time, paying more for coal, makes coal a less attractive fuel source, so if you're planning home improvements, you might consider removing the open fireplace and replacing it with a stove, or natural gas, or a heat pump/solar system which is now more competitive compared with the older more polluting fuel source

And after all this is done, you might even be able to go outside on a still November night without choking on the smog from 10,000 houses burning coal in their ridiculously inefficient open fireplaces

Akrasia

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

Funny you should mention that, as the graph I posted above (which you didn't comment on, I see) show a perfect natural correlation with the AMO for that period (quoted in bold). Here it is again for you in case you missed it.

It's a good fit alright but there is a lot of debate in the scientific community about the nature of the AMO. While ENSO is pretty firmly established as a proper driver of weather and it has a well understood cause related to tipping points that initiate a transfer of heat from the ocean to the atmoshphere and back again, no such mechanisms are discovered to explain what the AMO actually is, or if it really is a signal at all. Is it an artifact from scientists analysing temperatures and creating a model to fit the graph or a genuine internal oscillation that affects global and regional climate.

Is the AMO an internal oscillation driving changing weather, or is just a response to external drivers, things like volcanic eruptions that happen rarely but take years for the effects to disappear, particulate pollution from dust storms following periods of drought or smoke from wildfires, etc.

I am not dismissing the existence of the AMO, or the PDO, I just do not feel that there is enough evidence that it is an internal oscillation and not just the result of a curve fitting exercise

This study published in Nature from earlier this year looked at the multi and interdecadal oscillations, the AMO, and PDO to investigate if there is an internal or external forcing involved or if there is indeed a signal when the Noise is separated out.

Our premise, first of all, is that if a truly oscillatory AMO or PDO signal exists, there must be a coherent large-scale pattern of variability in the climate system that may or may not cancel in a hemispheric mean, and possesses a narrow-band signature in the frequency domain that is statistically significant against the null hypothesis of coloured noise (including as a special case, the typical null hypothesis of simple red noise). Moreover, given the level of sophistication of the current generation of climate models, as indicated, for example, by their ability to capture the coupled ocean–atmosphere dynamics underlying the interannual oscillatory ENSO phenomenon, we should expect evidence for the signal across a suite of state-of-the-art climate model simulations. We must, however, allow for the possibility that the precise spatial patterns and timescales of the signal might vary from model to model, while recognising the limitations that still exist in some models when it comes to the representation of ocean–atmosphere processes relevant to decadal internal variability55,56,57. An additional caveat is that oscillatory interdecadal signals could be intermittent, excited episodically by stochastic forcing27,58 but otherwise quiescent over time intervals lasting a century or more. Control simulations should ideally therefore span ~150 years or longer for more confident inferences regarding the nature of such variability.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-019-13823-w

They conclude:

The above results were compared (Fig. 3) to an AMO study by Mann et al.26 that examined the performance of competing methods of defining the AMO from observations. Mann et al.26 show that a commonly used approach for estimating the AMO—linear detrending followed by a low-pass filter—leaves behind residual low-frequency (anthropogenic and natural) forced variability that masquerades as an apparent internal AMO oscillation. The study showed that a more rigorous approach that uses the CMIP5 multimodel ensemble mean to estimate and then remove the forced signal yields an entirely different and lower-amplitude AMO series. They showed that the detrended AMO approach yields an inflated apparent AMO signal with precisely the features mentioned above: positive peaks near 1940 and 2000 and negative peak near 1980. Those features were shown to be largely an artifact of the substantial 1950s–1970s aerosol surface cooling trend masquerading as part of an AMO oscillation. Mann and Emanuel44 came to a similar conclusion.

It is worth noting that some individual models do indeed exhibit an AMO-like multidecadal signal in the control simulations. Consider for example GFDL ESM-2G, which exhibits a distinct spectral peak centred at ~40 year period that is significant at the p < 0.01 level, with a spatiotemporal pattern that is indicative of an AMO-like signal (Fig. 4). These models are nonetheless the exception to the rule, with, as noted earlier, fewer than 7 out of 43 models breaching the p = 0.1 significance level (we would expect at least 4 based on chance alone).
Based on the available observational and modelling evidence, the most plausible explanation for the multidecadal peak seen in modern climate observations is that it reflects the response to a combination of natural and anthropogenic forcing during the historical era. Moreover, there is no compelling evidence from control simulations for any robust interdecadal or multidecadal climate oscillations, with the only signals that are distinct from coloured noise found within the interannual ENSO frequency band. While this does not prove that physically-based interdecadal and multidecadal modes of variability do not exist, it does call into question whether they can be classified as an oscillation (i.e. a narrowband signal).

This finding has a number of important implications. The lack of evidence for bidecadal or multidecadal oscillations that are distinct from red noise calls into question prospects for skilful initial value decadal forecasts based on the assumption of predictable internal variability. Some recent work suggests that apparent predictability in these forecasts arises mostly or entirely from the specification of forcing (e.g. the predictable warming following large volcanic eruptions in 1982 and 1991)48. Our findings, moreover, call into question the past attribution to interdecadal and multidecadal climate cycles of a variety of climate trends including recent increases in North Atlantic sea surface temperatures and Atlantic hurricane activity44. Our findings also motivate a re-evaluation of evidence21,24 for low-frequency climate oscillations in paleoclimate proxy data. Such apparent oscillations could reflect either internal or externally forced low-frequency climate variability. Parallel analyses of CMIP Last Millennium simulations and long-term paleoclimate proxy data, which might shed further light on this matter, constitute the subject of potential future study.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-019-13823-w

Note, this is not to deny the existence of natural variability, Of course there is natural variability, but I am skeptical of 'natural variability' as an answer to why climate or weather fluctuates. Weather and climate are variable because its a complex and dynamic system with multiple inputs and variables, and changing any of these will have effects that can change how likely certain weather events are to occur
Changing land use, shrinking glaciers, shrinking ice caps, increasing global average temperature, particulate pollution from industry, fires (natural and deliberate) and natural causes like solar cycles, variability in the orbit of the earth around the sun can all create these tipping points that move climates from one state to another, triggering all kinds of cascading events both big and small

This is my position on global climate. I think changing the concentration of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere, raising global average surface temperature is enough to trigger all kinds of changes to global and regional climates. I prefer this hypothesis because:
A) Adding this energy is bound to have some effects
The alternative explanations lack coherent mechanistic explanations

Gaoth Laidir

Akrasia wrote: »

It's a good fit alright but there is a lot of debate in the scientific community about the nature of the AMO. Is it an artifact from scientists analysing temperatures and creating a model to fit the graph or a genuine internal oscillation that affects global and regional climate.

Is the AMO an internal oscillation driving changing weather, or is just a response to external drivers, things like volcanic eruptions that happen rarely but take years for the effects to disappear, particulate pollution from dust storms following periods of drought or smoke from wildfires

This study published in Nature from earlier this year looked at the multi and interdecadal oscillations, the AMO, and PDO to investigate if there is an internal or external forcing involved or if there is indeed a signal when the Noise is separated out.

They conclude:

That's a stretch to be questioning the AMO based purely on models, given that these models cannot truly capture the mechanism of how this and other long-term oscillations occur because we just don't fully know. But we do know that there is a natural Thermohaline Circulation interconnecting all the oceans of the world. This has been happening without any influence of anthropogenic activities. I'd actually love to know what possible anthro activities could have had such an effect as to cause those changes in AMO 140 years ago.

As I said, a stretch.

Oneiric 3

Scientists weighing in on politics and policy:

POLICY & ETHICS
Scientific American Endorses Joe Biden
We’ve never backed a presidential candidate in our 175-year history—until now

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/scientific-american-endorses-joe-biden/


Just a pity that they can't seem to comprehend anything passed their simplisitic, cartoonish, media approved view of the world:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jw4sOLfeHng

Nabber

Akrasia wrote: »

Governments will lie when trying to push for their own agenda.

Absolutely, be it good bad or indifferent.

Which governments stand to gain from exaggerating climate change?

It's a populist movement. So all of them.
For example, the fascinating thing about Trump is that he went against a populist movement. Which is usually political suicide.
Do you really think Biden cares about the environment? Even Al Gore, doesn't one of his homes consume 16 times the energy of a typical house hold? (I'm recalling from memory so please correct that if I'm wrong) He also bought a beach front home which he believes will be flooded in 5 years.
It's political hypocrisy.

In my opinion, I don't believe that all political supports of a green movement actually believe in it. They do it for political points.

Why do you think the IPCC would want to hype up climate change?

Keeps them in a job right? Surely some BIAS there.
The scientist behind the data the IPCC use might not be BIASed.

What do the governments have to gain? The majority of the wealthiest nations are already heavily invested in fossil fuels

But as Danno has already said, what have the taxes done?
Smarter homes, better insulation, people would want that with or with out AGW. Clean energy, again no body doesn't want it. We all agree we could and should be cleaner.
What tends to happy is the green tax is disproportionately affects the lower and working classes. On a global scale, those with the lowest carbon footprint are impacted the most.

Manufactures of green energy are not clean, they consume dirty raw materials. AGW fanatics turn a blind eye to the socio-economic damage and the collateral environmental impact as the lesser of two evils.
Remember this is based on a theory, where a trend in rising temperatures is associated with a rise in human emitted carbon. Where little to no predictions have been fulfilled, other than to say temps will keep raising.
Any hockey charts used to demonstrate the rate of change, zoom out to 100,000s of years and fail to state the varying methods used to estimate historic temperatures or that the temperatures measurements vary throughout the graph and only temps from 1800s offer any precise data.

Oneiric 3

Nabber wrote: »

In my opinion, I don't believe that all political supports of a green movement actually believe in it. They do it for political points.

.

It is increasingly obvious now that 'science', at least certain branches of it, has become extremely politicised, and this 'listen to the scientists' mantra that has emerged in the realm of politics lately is really nothing more than a fundamentalist call to prayer, and to disagree, even slightly, is akin to blasphemy. Sorry, but I'll listen to whomever I see fit and to my own instincts, thanks.

Akrasia

Oneiric 3 wrote: »

Scientists weighing in on politics and policy:

POLICY & ETHICS
Scientific American Endorses Joe Biden
We’ve never backed a presidential candidate in our 175-year history—until now

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/scientific-american-endorses-joe-biden/


Just a pity that they can't seem to comprehend anything passed their simplisitic, cartoonish, media approved view of the world:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jw4sOLfeHng

You interpret this as SA being suddenly political after 175 years. I interpret it as SA taking an editorial position for the first time in almost 200 years, that they need to speak out against a political establishment that are completely at odds with the established scientific consensus

Akrasia

Oneiric 3 wrote: »

It is increasingly obvious now that 'science', at least certain branches of it, has become extremely politicised, and this 'listen to the scientists' mantra that has emerged in the realm of politics lately is really nothing more than a fundamentalist call to prayer, and to disagree, even slightly, is akin to blasphemy. Sorry, but I'll listen to whomever I see fit and to my own instincts, thanks.

Depressingly I’m gonna ask you which powerful political lobby is pushing the AGW agenda so that it that is overwhelming the wealthiest industries in the world, and you’re gonna ignore that point and continue to claim that the oil industry is being victimized by underpants gnomes

M.T. Cranium

Here's one rather obvious example of politics intruding into the scientific debate ... after massive wildfires in recent years, not really that unprecedented, but grabbing a lot of attention as human populations spread out into the forest interface, the political left routinely takes the position that these fires are "proof of climate change," while the political right tends to go with the cause being "mismanagement of the forests."

Probably the truth is a blend of these two paradigms, with a component of increasing exposure to risk. But the politics become an extreme dividing point with two sides talking past (or yelling at) each other.

Since the three west coast states and British Columbia now all have very progressive governments, they tend to ignore the forest mismanagement charge and to some extent they suppress evidence of arson as a cause of some fires.

The people, especially those in fire-prone areas (which tend to be less politically leftist than the jurisdictions at large) are left to work out for themselves where the truth lies. A good example of the Orwellian nature of this is right out in the open on wikipedia, a source which tends to parrot globalist points of view whether deliberately or accidentally through the indoctrination of its active members. In the write-up of the 2020 Oregon fires, these two statements appear almost side by side: "The (Talent) fire was started as a result of arson, and a suspect is in custody." "Elements of the Trump voter base and Q Anon started rumours, entirely without factual basis, that fires were being started by Antifa activists."

How one could believe one but not the other of the statements rests on knowledge that nobody has, namely, who is the suspect in custody and what was his or her motivation to start the fires? The police and local justice officials have not commented so nobody actually knows who the arsonist is. It may well be a person not connected to Antifa, for example, a misguided individual seeking employment on a fire crew, an unaffiliated eco-terrorist, or a less politicized psychopath.

It seems that very few people in public life nowadays wish to take a measured or blended view of any questions, but instead go for some pre-packaged ideological position, and woe to anyone who takes any other point of view but theirs. These positions quickly take on the trappings of religious beliefs, disputed at the peril of excommunication.

One unrelated point ... on our travels in 2018, we were driving through a flat desert area in western Nevada about two hundred miles northwest of Las Vegas, and could see a very bright light in the distance. As we approached, we realized it was a massive solar array, with a central accumulator of sunlight, and many smaller devices spread out over a vast area that looked to be over 2 kms square. So later on we researched what the place was, since it was off the highway and there were no signs to explain it. Turned out to be a working solar energy provider for the Nevada power utility. However, we happened to see it in its last stages of operation. Later in 2018, the state electric commission stopped using the facility's power supply, as it had proven to be too erratic over a long period of time. The problem was not lack of sunshine, the climate there is almost always clear. The problem was that the technology had too many maintenance issues that forced the plant off-line or into partial production, so that the state utility could not reliably estimate how much power it would provide.

Now some might think, that can't be a problem, just take whatever you can get from the experimental facility and make up the rest from other sources. However, a large utility can't work that way. Most of Nevada's power demand is in Clark county (Las Vegas) or the Reno-Tahoe region. That means a solar facility, if not right outside one of those places, has to be equipped with long-distance transmission lines to service the grid. Or it has to feed into the grid at some other location. All of that requires predictability, or the system can easily experience damaging fluctuations leading to brownouts if not blackouts. Also these utilities tend to rely mostly on imported power from more reliable sources further north. To be adequately serviced, they need long-term contracts and good estimates of supply and demand.

So in some cases the green movement is not losing due to a lack of interest or political will, but for the same reason any other failing enterprise avoids success, inferior technology. This is nobody's fault, the design of the Nevada project seemed quite good on paper, it relied on superheating of underground salt solutions already in place (which is why this location was chosen). But the technology created to produce these results had too many high maintenance problems unforeseen in the design phase. The question now seems to be, can the facility be overhauled and rehabilitated, will the state of Nevada trust it to deliver, and can it re-enter service, or will it become permanently abandoned, a billion dollar mistake that will be very difficult to re-purpose.

Wanderer78

M.T. Cranium wrote:

Here's one rather obvious example of politics intruding into the scientific debate ... after massive wildfires in recent years, not really that unprecedented, but grabbing a lot of attention as human populations spread out into the forest interface, the political left routinely takes the position that these fires are "proof of climate change," while the political right tends to go with the cause being "mismanagement of the forests."

Sorry Mt, I just can't read it, it comes across almost as badly as my own rants, climate debates must be politicised, we created these institutions and systems in order to debate such issues, as flawed and dysfunctional as they are, it is what it is

Oneiric 3

Hurricanes on the gulf coast and wildfires in the west are proof that 'Mother earth is angry'.

https://twitter.com/MSNBC/status/1304215928285077504

If people can't see that deceptive sophistry like this is anything but political, then I really do worry about the human capacity to think straight. Science in politics is not about science at all, but how it can be manipulated in order to push a personal or ideological agenda, and then be repackaged and sold as actual science. And this is not me hatin' on Pelosi, I think she is basically a pretty decent human being, but she is being deliberately disingenuous here. Either that, or she just is talking about things that are way out of her depth to be talking about.

Oneiric 3

Akrasia wrote: »

You interpret this as SA being suddenly political after 175 years. I interpret it as SA taking an editorial position for the first time in almost 200 years, that they need to speak out against a political establishment that are completely at odds with the established scientific consensus

If you are comfortable with Climate Scientists openly endorsing a lying, right-wing Neocon in order to 'sock it to Trump', then that is really is on you:

https://theintercept.com/2020/01/07/joe-biden-iraq-war-history/

https://theintercept.com/2019/09/17/the-untold-story-joe-biden-pushed-ronald-reagan-to-ramp-up-incarceration-not-the-other-way-around/

But yeah...'the science'. **** everything else that actually matters.

Gaoth Laidir

Oneiric 3 wrote: »

Hurricanes on the gulf coast and wildfires in the west are proof that 'Mother earth is angry'.

https://twitter.com/MSNBC/status/1304215928285077504

If people can't see that deceptive sophistry like this is anything but political, then I really do worry about the human capacity to think straight. Science in politics is not about science at all, but how it can be manipulated in order to push a personal or ideological agenda, and then be repackaged and sold as actual science. And this is not me hatin' on Pelosi, I think she is basically a pretty decent human being, but she is being deliberately disingenuous here. Either that, or she just is talking about things that are way out of her depth to be talking about.

Because hurricanes along the Gulf coast were unheard of before the age of the IPCC. Absolute nonsense, but plenty of people, including several on this very thread, will accept what she and others are stating as truth.

Wanderer78

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

Because hurricanes along the Gulf coast were unheard of before the age of the IPCC. Absolute nonsense, but plenty of people, including several on this very thread, will accept what she and others are stating as truth.

the truth is, we cant be 100% certain of this information, but its certainly possible it is

Akrasia

Oneiric 3 wrote: »

If you are comfortable with Climate Scientists openly endorsing a lying, right-wing Neocon in order to 'sock it to Trump', then that is really is on you:

https://theintercept.com/2020/01/07/joe-biden-iraq-war-history/

https://theintercept.com/2019/09/17/the-untold-story-joe-biden-pushed-ronald-reagan-to-ramp-up-incarceration-not-the-other-way-around/

But yeah...'the science'. **** everything else that actually matters.

They’re endorsing the candidate who has committed to tackling climate change who is running against a climate change denier

They’re not talking a position on any of his other social or economic policies

Gaoth Laidir

Wanderer78 wrote: »

the truth is, we cant be 100% certain of this information, but its certainly possible it is

The truth is...I don't quite understand what you said there. 100% certain that hurricanes have always hit the Gulf coast or that people will believe the nonsense?

Wanderer78

Gaoth Laidir wrote:

The truth is...I don't quite understand what you said there. 100% certain that hurricanes have always hit the Gulf coast or that people will believe the nonsense?

The truth is, we don't know for certain that climate change is effecting such weather events, but it very likely is

Gaoth Laidir

Wanderer78 wrote: »

The truth is, we don't know for certain that climate change is effecting such weather events, but it very likely is

You're avoiding the actual point of the post, which was about Pelosi's comment. I would take that to mean that you accept it at face value.

Wanderer78

Gaoth Laidir wrote:

You're avoiding the actual point of the post, which was about Pelosi's comment. I would take that to mean that you accept it at face value.

Apologies, but I actually didn't watch it, but I assume that she said, these events are related to climate change?

Birdnuts

Oneiric 3 wrote: »

Hurricanes on the gulf coast and wildfires in the west are proof that 'Mother earth is angry'.

https://twitter.com/MSNBC/status/1304215928285077504

If people can't see that deceptive sophistry like this is anything but political, then I really do worry about the human capacity to think straight. Science in politics is not about science at all, but how it can be manipulated in order to push a personal or ideological agenda, and then be repackaged and sold as actual science. And this is not me hatin' on Pelosi, I think she is basically a pretty decent human being, but she is being deliberately disingenuous here. Either that, or she just is talking about things that are way out of her depth to be talking about.

We live in the age of "stupid" so climate hysteria finds a fertile seedbed in the media and elsewhere

Gaoth Laidir

Wanderer78 wrote: »

Apologies, but I actually didn't watch it, but I assume that she said, these events are related to climate change?

I don't get your logic. You are one of the most vehement proponents of the pro-AGW argument on here, yet you refuse to learn or accept any new information related to climate. Now you comment on something that you didn't bother even watching (though her comment was quoted in the Tweet text for you).

Her point was that mother nature's anger is being manifested through hurricanes in the Gulf, which allegedly is further evidence of the climate crisis. Absolute bollox, and you accepted it without even reading it. You are typical of most of the population in this day and age.

Danno

Oneiric 3 wrote: »

Hurricanes on the gulf coast and wildfires in the west are proof that 'Mother earth is angry'.
https://twitter.com/MSNBC/status/1304215928285077504

Yet Pelosi is strongly of the opinion that the US and other western/developed nations alike should open their borders to millions and millions of migrants, asylum seekers and refugees, etc...
It's never mentioned though, that expanding the population of western nations in this manner will ultimately lead to further and a more accelerated demand for carbon fuelled resources!
But hey - that's the logic of the political left for ya.

M.T. Cranium

Mother nature seemed pretty angry in the nineteenth century too. Maybe anger management would be a good approach.

Wanderer78

Gaoth Laidir wrote:

I don't get your logic. You are one of the most vehement proponents of the pro-AGW argument on here, yet you refuse to learn or accept any new information related to climate. Now you comment on something that you didn't bother even watching (though her comment was quoted in the Tweet text for you).

Hahaha, no bother, once again, I've moved on from the science, Ive accepted the science since childhood, I spent my time looking into why this is happening, particularly from a more political, social, psychological and economic point of view, as they say, there's only so many hours in the day....

Gaoth Laidir wrote:

Her point was that mother nature's anger is being manifested through hurricanes in the Gulf, which allegedly is further evidence of the climate crisis. Absolute bollox, and you accepted it without even reading it. You are typical of most of the population in this day and age.

Thank you for explaining this, I have to somewhat agree with what she's saying, I do believe the planet is trying to balance this increase in energy, or the increase in energy, is manifesting in more frequent and more intense storms. Please explain your final statement? Thank you

Wanderer78

Danno wrote:

Yet Pelosi is strongly of the opinion that the US and other western/developed nations alike should open their borders to millions and millions of migrants, asylum seekers and refugees, etc... It's never mentioned though, that expanding the population of western nations in this manner will ultimately lead to further and a more accelerated demand for carbon fuelled resources! But hey - that's the logic of the political left for ya.

...or accelerate the development and implementation of alternatives.....

....the scary foreigners, really aren't all that scary.....