Hey dummy climate fanatics, it ain't co melting antarctica

[Tom D]

MSN

Idiot climate savants got it wrong again.

Under Antarctica's miles-thick ice sheet, scientists have identified 207 possible volcanoes that may be speeding up ice melt and raising global sea levels, according to a recent study published in Earth-Science Reviews.

The report notes that extreme events like these have released gases that caused acid haze, which perturbed the weather in Western Eurasia, the North Atlantic, and the Arctic. Some of the impacts of this haze included "crop failures, livestock and fish deaths, and various illnesses, including fluorine poisoning." As Antarctica's ice melts, global sea levels rise. When volcanoes heat the ice from below, meltwater forms and acts as a lubricant, which allows glaciers to slide faster toward the ocean.

Previous eruptions have changed the topography and posed a risk to communities. A 1996 eruption in Iceland triggered a sudden glacial flood, which, per a Smithsonian report, was preceded by "an unusual sequence" of earthquakes.

 

[J Grant]

Never heard of that "publication." Anyone can make up a non peer reviewed important name sounding X and put it on the internet.

The article is short on proof, written by Aisan. What are their credentials? Even if there are volcanoes under the ice, there is ALSO decades of scientific proven documented and recorded evidence that the effects of human activity is heating up ocean temperatures and air temperatures and melting polar ice caps ( even if it still snows and gets cold as climate change is not just about weather - though hott4er temps and severe weather events are part of it)

 

[TerryRohrer]

Nothing like a bigoted mouthpiece with a dedicated aversion to, and loathing for, data analysis to sing praises for one biased group of “scientists” who parrot their own opinions while denigrating the equally informed opinions of those whose opinions differ.

 

[Elliott]

Budget office projects Biden green energy plan will cost much more than initial estimate

"The costs of energy-related tax provisions are much higher than ... originally projected," said Congressional Budget Office director Philip Swagel.

www.cnbc.com

Budget office projects Biden green energy plan will cost much more than initial estimate​

WASHINGTON — The U.S. budget deficit will grow by an estimated $1 trillion over the next 10 years, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office projected in a new report Wednesday.

Part of that growth will be driven by unexpectedly high costs related to President Joe Biden’s signature policy goal: Reorienting the U.S. economy towards greener energy, the CBO found."

" The Congressional Budget Office estimates the federal deficit will grow by $1 trillion over the next 10 years.
Part of that growth will be driven by unexpectedly high costs related to President Joe Biden’s signature policy goal: Reorienting the U.S. economy to greener energy.
EV tax credit costs and falling gas tax revenues will add $224 billion to the deficit over 10 years, CBO projects."

.....................
Besides the 'cost' there is the reality that China was and probably still building coal electric plants that aren't 'clean' plants, and 'our' world wide air isn't getting better.




"

 

[J Grant]

Nothing like a bigoted mouthpiece with a dedicated aversion to, and loathing for, data analysis to sing praises for one biased group of “scientists” who parrot their own opinions while denigrating the equally informed opinions of those whose opinions differ.

The vast majority of peer-reviewed, fact-based, and documented data worldwide and domestically support the effects of man-made climate change. From top scientists, climatologists, and oceanographers affiliated with NASA, universities, and climate stations, who have been collecting samples daily for decades. As opposed to some low-rent internet article. Even the big energy companies admit man made climate change is an issue and they are developing alt energy along with traditional sources.

That "publication" he cited is a nothing burger - only exists on the net - can't even find its existence outside of that.

 

[J Grant]

Projections created internally by ExxonMobil starting in the late 1970s on the impact of fossil fuels on climate change were very accurate, even surpassing those of some academic and governmental scientists, according to an analysis published Thursday in Science by a team of Harvard-led researchers. Despite those forecasts, team leaders say, the multinational energy giant continued to sow doubt about the gathering crisis.

In “Assessing ExxonMobil’s Global Warming Projections,” researchers from Harvard and the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research show for the first time the accuracy of previously unreported forecasts created by company scientists from 1977 through 2003. The Harvard team discovered that Exxon researchers created a series of remarkably reliable models and analyses projecting global warming from carbon dioxide emissions over the coming decades. Specifically, Exxon projected that fossil fuel emissions would lead to 0.20 degrees Celsius of global warming per decade, with a margin of error of 0.04 degrees — a trend that has been proven largely accurate.

“This paper is the first ever systematic assessment of a fossil fuel company’s climate projections, the first time we’ve been able to put a number on what they knew,” said Geoffrey Supran, lead author and former research fellow in the History of Science at Harvard. “What we found is that between 1977 and 2003, excellent scientists within Exxon modeled and predicted global warming with, frankly, shocking skill and accuracy only for the company to then spend the next couple of decades denying that very climate science.”

 

[TerryRohrer]

The vast majority of peer-reviewed, fact-based, and documented data worldwide and domestically support the effects of man-made climate change. From top scientists, climatologists, and oceanographers affiliated with NASA, universities, and climate stations, who have been collecting samples daily for decades. As opposed to some low-rent internet article. Even the big energy companies admit man made climate change is an issue and they are developing alt energy along with traditional sources.

That "publication" he cited is a nothing burger - only exists on the net - can't even find its existence outside of that.

What is the split in the money spent on climate change analysis over the past 30 years between those who document, support, and champion the "effects of man-made climate change" vs. those who dispute its veracity? And your "fact-based" in a climate change debate is exactly like the GSE claim that appraisals are inaccurate because they do not match the sale prices in contracts. You, and they, are completely dishonest and misleading and obtuse when branding opinions as facts. If those "facts" were not in dispute, we would have access to them. Instead, like the GSE charges of bias, the facts are hidden in deep vaults and only the contrived conclusions that advance the narrative are exposed to the audience. Identified as "facts," of course.

 

[J Grant]

ExxonMobil has committed up to $30 billion in lower-emission investments between 2025 and 2030, focusing on carbon capture, hydrogen, and biofuels to achieve net-zero Scope 1 and 2 emissions in their operated Permian Basin assets by 2030. They aim to reduce emissions intensity, eliminate routine flaring, and, as discussed on their sustainability report, are developing large-scale, low-carbon solutions.
Exxon Mobil Corporation +2
Key Climate Commitments & Strategies

• Investment:Spending up to
  billion on emission-reduction initiatives (2025–2030).
• Emissions Goals: Achieve net-zero Scope 1 and 2 greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 for all operated assets, with a focus on 2030 targets.
• Key Projects: Developing the world's largest low-carbon hydrogen production facility in Baytown, Texas.
• Methane/Flaring:Targeting a
  reduction in methane emissions intensity and eliminating routine flaring by 2030.
• Carbon Capture (CCS): Expanding CCS infrastructure to reduce emissions from industrial operations.

 

[TerryRohrer]

Projections created internally by ExxonMobil starting in the late 1970s on the impact of fossil fuels on climate change were very accurate, even surpassing those of some academic and governmental scientists, according to an analysis published Thursday in Science by a team of Harvard-led researchers. Despite those forecasts, team leaders say, the multinational energy giant continued to sow doubt about the gathering crisis.

In “Assessing ExxonMobil’s Global Warming Projections,” researchers from Harvard and the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research show for the first time the accuracy of previously unreported forecasts created by company scientists from 1977 through 2003. The Harvard team discovered that Exxon researchers created a series of remarkably reliable models and analyses projecting global warming from carbon dioxide emissions over the coming decades. Specifically, Exxon projected that fossil fuel emissions would lead to 0.20 degrees Celsius of global warming per decade, with a margin of error of 0.04 degrees — a trend that has been proven largely accurate.

“This paper is the first ever systematic assessment of a fossil fuel company’s climate projections, the first time we’ve been able to put a number on what they knew,” said Geoffrey Supran, lead author and former research fellow in the History of Science at Harvard. “What we found is that between 1977 and 2003, excellent scientists within Exxon modeled and predicted global warming with, frankly, shocking skill and accuracy only for the company to then spend the next couple of decades denying that very climate science.”

Well, you are a master of regurgitating the talking points. Here you are citing 25 year old climate bible verses when the global temperature last year was actually lower than previous, and the ices sheets of Antarctica have grown during the past 5 years. Nothing honest about cherry picking your opinions from others' work and claiming they are "facts."

fact
/fak(t)/

noun

1. a thing that is known or proved to be true.

 

[J Grant]

The vast majority of domestic and worldwide verified data from accredited scientists and climatologists, and onsite data gatherers, such as oceanographers, supports the effects of man-made climate change vs the National Enquirer conspiracy theory mindset, which believes that somehow biased scientists invented climate change to get grants. The silliness of that is incredible, since big energy and big oil far outspend in their own bias to suppress even their own studies showing the effects of man-made climate change. Nations around the world are racing for clean energy and to reduce reliance on fossil fuels, even as they partially rely on it until better systems, such as fusion, can power on a larger scale.

The big energy companies invest in it too. The fact that these folks elected a climate change denier will be the shame of America for centuries and make us a world laughing stock. (but its not funny when the storm damage and rising tides cause trillions of $ in destruction, and we fall behind other nations in alt energy investment )