It's Fake News. All scientists were not asked a testable question that would support AGW with 97% of all scientists affirming. It's a fake news talking point that means nothing.Consensus isn't science, moron. It's politics.The actual science is the more energy dense fuel you use, the less carbon emissions there actually is. The order of energy density goes from (least-greatest) wood, coal, oil, gas, then nuclear (which doesn’t have carbon as a byproduct of the process). Wood is at 16 MJ/kg vs coal (depending on the type) is in the range of 20-30MJ/kg. Due to the laws of physics, it takes around twice the amount of carbon expenditure for wood to boil water (boiling water is the method for basically every large scale power generation) compared to coal. Natural gas is at 40 MJ/m3. So, thanks to Isaac Newton natural gas uses at least 33% less carbon byproduct to boil water. On top of that, with the nature of it being gas, and technology allowing precision amounts of gas to obtain the desired temp, there’s far less wasteful burning of it vs a solid fuel. In other words, a 1/m3 of gas goes a lot further than 1/KG of any solid fuel. Maybe you could achieve the same results with a powdered fuel as you would gas, but to powder it would be a process that requires more energy expenditure than gas in its natural form. Obviously because there is no carbon involved in the nuclear process, it’s superior by far. If you “care” about the climate, and you’re not pushing for nuclear, exit the conversation immediately. We haven’t even scratched the surface of what we can do with nuclear. We’re using 80 year old technology, and even then it’s still the far superior option. All because Jane Fonda, Gov Brown, the Sierra Club, and scores of other elites decided to demonize nuclear. Many of them to profit off of the oil business dealings they had (cough* cough* gov Brown), others because they nonsensically conflated nuclear energy with nuclear bombs during the Cold War (cough* cough* Jane Fonda types). And others (cough* cough* the Sierra club) wanted to continue their exploitation of 3rd world countries, because it’s easier to exploit poor people who remain poor by spending vast amounts of energy and money (and vast amount of environmental damage as well as carbon emissions) to cook their food and heat their homes using wood (set up for my next paragraph). It also helps when the philosophy of your little elite Sierra club is a Malthusian one, so fuck those poor people, amaright?Fake news. There was no "scheduled date" for the next glacial advance.That's pure bunk. We have no idea what temperature fluctuations were like 6000 years ago. The granularity of our records is measured in hundreds of years. You can't legitimately claim our temperatures have departed from anything. There is nothing unusual about our current warming.We have been in a long term cooling trend for 6,000 years, True or False?You believe in global warming, so you don't believe in the scientific method.Facts? The only thing you threw out was Vox bullshit.Nobody cares about your healthcare system....especially the spin from America hating Vox idiots.BECUASE YOU SEND YOUR WORST CANCER PATIENTS TO US TO FIX. Ipso facto, y’all fucks don’t take the hit in death rates. We take on the worst cases, and still have a better death rate than all of y’all. Turns out, it’s pretty easy to take care of healthy people. In Europe they go to Switzerland. What’s the last medical innovation that came out of Australia? At least the French have Sanofi. Stop fucking swimming in our wake. We’re basically subsidizing the entire globes R+D. We’ve been subsidizing NATOs defense spending for decades. We just invented a goddamn missile that goes Mach 45. Why? Because y’all made incredibly stupid deals with China and now you’re having buyers remorse. And now we’re gonna have to arm you once again. What have you done recently for me Australia? The fucking gall of you foreigners who come here and lecture us about our politics while we’re the ones putting in the elbow grease to make YOUR lives better, healthier, and safer.You mean our health care system that bodies the DHSC for legit life threatening diseases like cancer. Our health care system where you can actually get the surgery you need within a week. Our healthcare system that the rest of the world, except Switzerland, has been leaching off of our innovation and the tens of billions we drop into R+D every year. That healthcare system? Y’all treat the healthy for dumb shit like broken arms and infections, while taxing the fuck out of your citizens and pretend like you’re hero’s for doing so. Meanwhile Canada sends all their cancer patients TO ME, to get the very best treatment that WE develop, and then pay for it. Your nurses and doctors are garbage. When y’all can start actually saving your cancer patients and stop sending them to me, and actually preform surgeries on things like joint replacements that aren’t outdated 30 years, when your hospitals have as many top of the line critical care beds as ours do, when you actually do your part in the world and start developing drugs, procedures, and technologies...then you can lecture us on our healthcare.Also, we pay our hospitals more for treating COVID, so anyone who dies, that has COVID is listed as a "COVID" death, whereas in most countries unless COVID is actually what caused your death, your cause of death is not listed as COVID. It's not an apples to apples comparison.America is far from the worst record when it comes to covid deaths and far from the best.NO. That is NOT the case throughout the world unless the CDC is now managing the health of the entire planet.And that of course would be the case through out the world, so we can still rationally compare outcomes and Germany's outcome is much better than America's.
The subject is how the CDC inflated deaths in the US by attributing all deaths to the Chinese originated
covid virus if the virus was present at all. So much so that the CDC was pressured into changing that policy.
Nevertheless that policy was in place for months and the US death toll remains inflated and uncorrected
and you remain disingenuous.
All countries are using that methodology, they have an "excess death mythology" as defined as " A range of estimates for the number of excess deaths was calculated as the difference between the observed count and one of two thresholds (either the average expected count or the upper bound threshold), by week and jurisdiction. Negative values, where the observed count fell below the threshold, were set to zero."
And the method of if one did not have a prognosis of death within the year and contracted COVID it is counted across the globe as a Covid related death.
There is no world health body, or American for that matter, which believes the USA is doing well in this pandemic.
Just wishing Americans were not dropping like flies by playing semantics with the numbers is not going to save any American lives.
I know it serves your agenda to state otherwise, however. Saying we are "dropping like flies" is disingenuous and misleading and it won't win Joe the election you so desperately want.
Nothing will including all the post election chaos and disorder the left has planned.
As things stand right now we will have a covid vaccine soon and society will begin to come out of
politicized lockdown box leftist swine has tried to keep us in.
Joe Biden and all the Karens can wear their little masks all day long, if it thrills them to do so.
Only Spain in Europe has a worse death per 100K rate right now.
As in the chart I have provided in this thread many times.
Just to be clear....
There are other countries...just not in Europe....that have worse rates.
Medical stats from country to country are NEVER an apples-to-apples comparison, because they don't compile ANY medical stats the same way we do. How many times have we heard the canard that infant mortality in the US is so much worse than the rest of the world, only to find out that it's largely because other countries simply don't count children who die in the first week of life as ever having existed at all?
On COVID the death rates per 100k most developed nations are using the same method, indeed it is the USA that most world health bodies are concerned are vastly under reporting due to your fragment health care system run by 50 different states. Some estimates are that the USA is under reporting by 33%.
Me and my wife both work in one of the largest hospitals right next to the covid epicenter. We’re over reporting. 100%. Notice how the flu has effectively disappeared? In this current “spike”, we have 6 covid patients who are actually suffering from covid, among other things.
Australia has similar wait times as the USA, in fact shorter wait times for GP visits, yet gets far better results in every macro category except breast cancer treatment, and even there we are just behind the USA.
All at much cheaper cost.
No we do not actually.
Australia has the best cancer treatment survival rates in the world.
Australia leads global cancer survival rates – but more can be done
An international study shows Australians have the best chance of survival for seven types of cancers.www1.racgp.org.au
Here is a good article about Australian heath care and why over all it gets better outcomes than the USA at much lower cost.
What Australia can teach America about health care
Why the Australian system might represent a realistic path forward for the US.www.vox.com
You don't have to care.
You can continue to naval gaze as many Americans love to do.
I am just throwing the facts out there for the intelligent minority of Americans to consider.
Intelligent people learn from the rest of the world, both good and bad.
I understand, the cult of Trump only believes anything Trump says, nothing else.
All cults work this way.
You sound as if you are involved in the cult of the bubble.
A real true believer.
Though only thing I believe in is scientific method, blue skies and cold Australian beer, the rest is just an opinion.
Yes I do and so does NASA.
Climate Change Evidence: How Do We Know?
The rate of change since the mid-20th century is unprecedented over millennia.climate.nasa.gov
The Holocene climate was warming and actually proves our current warming in large part iscaused by humans. The warming 6,000 years ago was caused by Earth orbital changes which are currently not occurring or causing such rapid warming.
This is actually more evidence of human caused global warming in our time.
Mid-Holocene Warm Period – About 6,000 Years Ago | National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI) formerly known as National Climatic Data Center (NCDC)
Paleoclimatologists have long suspected that the "middle Holocene," roughly from 7,000 to 5,000 years ago, was warmer than the present day.www.ncdc.noaa.gov
" Moreover, we clearly know the cause of this natural warming, and we know without doubt that this proven "astronomical" climate forcing mechanism cannot be responsible for the warming over the last 100 years."
Here is a basic primer on why previous climate changes are not proof this climate change is not man made, rather proof it is.
"The Earth was indeed cooling over the last 6,000 years due to Earth's orbit, heading into the next glacial phase scheduled for about the year 3500 AD. But all that changed when we got to the industrial era. Global temperatures departed from that cooling trend, and instead rose parallel with our greenhouse gas emissions."
What does past climate change tell us about global warming?
Natural climate change in the past proves that climate is sensitive to an energy imbalance. If the planet accumulates heat, global temperatures will go up. Currently, CO2 is imposing an energy imbalance due to the enhanced greenhouse effect. Past climate change actually provides evidence for our...skepticalscience.com
I quote the link below again.
"The Earth was indeed cooling over the last 6,000 years due to Earth's orbit, heading into the next glacial phase scheduled for about the year 3500 AD....
Fake News, temperatures began recovering at the end of the little ice age, and with warming temperatures, we get rising CO^2 levels, and earth's processes convert some of the excess CO^2 into living cells.... But all that changed when we got to the industrial era. Global temperatures departed from that cooling trend, and instead rose parallel with our greenhouse gas emissions. "...
We are cooler than we were 5,000 years ago.... We should be in a cooling period...
No. The last interglacial lasted about 15,000 years, and we are pacing fairly consistently with that. Everything is as expected.... denilist cheery....You are the one promoting a Doomsday Cult, I'm just pointing out that the evidence doesn't support your claims, which is the way with doomsday cults. They point to a date when the world is supposed to end, and then they are disappointed when the date passes uneventfully.... Climate change denial has all the hallmarks of faith or religion, it only sees what it wants to see....
Your fake news is faker than the fake news you think is fake news.
The science is clear if you could understand it, the oribital causes of climate change was seeing us going into a cooling period well into the next thousand years but the carbon released from the industrial revolution changed all that.
I think I will trust the majority of climate scientists and NASA before I will trust a cult member always chanting "fake news" when confronted with scientific information they simply do not want to believe.
As I set up in the last paragraph......I mentioned wood even though it’s hardly used in 1st world countries. Not true for 3rd world countries. There’s this crazy idea out there that we can “leap frog” the 3rd world with renewable energies, and bypass coal and gas completely (set up for my 3rd paragraph). Absolutely absurd idea. The 1st world is struggling “renewable energy”. It is not reliable. So what winds up happening in these countries is that people just go back to using wood. Cutting down vast swaths of carbon scrubbing trees, destroying natural habitats, and oh yeah, dumping a hell of a lot more carbon into the atmosphere than they would if we accelerated their development with coal, then to gas, then to nuclear. Obviously I have no problem in helping them develop clean burning coal, clean burning gas, etc. It’s just a simple fact. The more developed your country is, the less emissions there are per person. It also follows that the less resources (physical, time, money, etc) people have to spend producing energy (I.e. cutting down trees, splitting wood, starting and keeping fires) the more time and energy they will have to be productive in other areas and become more prosperous. Having a reliable source of electricity is basically the #1 key on the road to prosperity, and consequently a reduction in carbon emissions.
What people are also not telling you is that not only is solar and wind severely unreliable, the battery/fuel cell tech is not there (never will be until the invention of super conductors), but also the production of fuel cells and panels (which eventually go bad 10 years at best) creates more emissions, and there is NO safe way to dispose of the extremely environmentally hazardous materials used to make them. There simply is no way to get around Isaac Newton’s laws. People think solar panels just sit there and the sun hits them and bam, energy. The sun itself does not boil water on its own (in most areas). Therefore you need to go through an energy costing process in order to get the photons from the sun to be transformed into usable energy. Not only do you need energy to do this, you also need extremely environmentally toxic chemicals to help boost this process. Both fuel cells and the solar panels themselves are made out of extremely toxic materials. Currently the strategy of nations “leading the way with renewable energy” is to pay 3rd world countries to have them take the fuel cell/panel waste to throw in a dump somewhere. And you can bet your bottom dollar they aren’t dumping it in a safe way. Basically, the net energy solar is producing is 2 steps backward to get 3 steps forward, AT BEST, as long as the panels last 10 years WITHOUT the use of fuel cell storage (which also goes bad). You simply cannot get around the laws of physics. Solar/wind is actually way more expensive for citizens. It is so unreliable, no sun, not enough wind, power plants have to stay fully staffed even when shut down, because they will have to continually power up and power back down. Mind you these are plants designed to run continuously, and the constant power-up power-down process is extremely energy inefficient. So, if you live in an area receiving energy from solar panels or wind, you’re paying for the same power plant you’ve been using before plus the solar/wind generators, plus the infrastructure between the renewable generators, plus the costly process (both in carbon emissions and dollars) of powering up and down continuously. As it turns out, our most “renewable” energy is water. Yes it requires energy to boil, but it goes up, comes back down, and we have plenty of it. This is why nuclear is by far the best option. Zero emissions to hear water, a fraction of a percentile of the current waste produced by solar, as well as a very easy and safe way to store it, and oh yeah did mention far less energy and land investment made into building a Nuclear plant. I almost forgot to mention the vast amounts of land needed for solar/wind just produce a fraction of what a standard power plant can produce. You know, land that would otherwise be used by those big green leafy things (the name escapes me) that actually absorb carbon and exhale oxygen. Land that’s also home to the little critters we value so much.
That is a lot of deluded gibberish.
I think I will go with the actual scientists on this one and the consensus is clear, we are warming the planet with carbon emissions.
You do not have to believe it, you do not have to believe in gravity either, but you still have to live with it.
We don't have to live with nutbag proposals to solve a problem that doesn't exist.