Greta Thunberg speech: French MPs boycott teen �apocalypse guru�

10%. That is how much we are responsible for the total increase in global temps over the last 100 years.
Hardly the primary driver the leftists claim we are.

The reality is, unless we figure out something way better than wind and solar, fossil fuels ain't going anywhere fast. We sure won't be in a de-carbonized economy by 2050 that's for sure.
So what are the carbon zeroists talking about? Aside from massive amounts of government intervention � almost a total takeover of the economy � the practicality of it all looks a bit impossible, to put it mildly.

In Canada, for example, Vancouver energy consultant Aldyen Donnelly calculated that to achieve the �deep decarbonization� Canada is aiming for will require massive expansions of non-fossil fuel sources of energy.

To produce the electric power needed to offset the lost fossil fuel energy, Canada would have to build 2.5 hydro power dams the size of British Columbia�s $13-billion Site C project somewhere in the country �every year for the foreseeable future� leading up to the proposed 2050 carbon reduction targets. The geographic and cost obstacles send that prospect into the realm of the impossible.

On a global basis, the magnitude of the implied decarbonization effort takes us beyond the possible and into the world of junk science fiction. In 2018, world consumption of fossil fuels rose to 11,865 million tonnes of oil equivalent (mtoe). To get that down to near zero by 2050 as proposed by the zeroists would require a lot of alternative energy sources.

University of Colorado scientist Roger Pielke Jr. did some of the rough numbers. �There are 11,161 days until 2050. Getting to net zero by 2050 requires replacing one mtoe of fossil fuel consumption every day starting now.� On a global basis, such a transition would require building the equivalent of one new 1.5-gigawatt nuclear plant every day for the next 30 years.

If not nuclear, then maybe solar? According to a U.S. government site, it takes about three million solar panels to produce one gigawatt of energy, which means that by 2050 the world will need 3,000,000 X 11,865 solar panels to offset fossil fuels. The wind alternative would require about 430 new wind turbines each of the 11,865 days leading to 2050.

https://nationalpost.com/opinion/terenc ... cToFv_QG4I


Sorry Greta, but reality trumps your ideology.

Source?

Fuck don't rag him, we've got him up to admitting 10%. Better than most of the deniers on this forum!

Got to love how the chattering primitives like to believe "denier" has has meaning anymore.

Got to love how the chattering primitives like to believe "denier" has has meaning anymore.

It's the only explanation for people who praise the science all around them that has built our modern world, except when it comes to one subject.

I'm always suspicious of nice round numbers with when people quote so called statistics.

83.721% of people agree with you.

93.8% of quoted statistics are wrong.

Actuaries are only in it for the money and girls.

See, I've never heard anybody of consequence say there is no human influence to climate - only that we don't know how much and it's most likely a lot less than what we're being scared with.

What I have heard is a ton of far left, chicken little, alarmists preach doom while insisting only they know how much warming man is bringing, it's a lot, the end is coming sometimes in months, sometimes in years, sometimes in centuries, and they know this because of something they call " science," which is apparently something nobody else has. So tell us, is it this " science" that's telling you nobody else but you believes there is such a thing as things like the UHI effect or 1% heat increase to doubling of CO2. Because I was always pretty sure the rest of us did know and believe in such things.

What's denied is some sort of special "THE Science" and that only you know about it because the sky is falling and a piece of it hit you on the head.

I'm just going to tell you as I see things, I don't think were as fucked as they claim we are. But that doesn't mean I don't think we should be so active in our efforts to fuck the planet.

The science is basic chemistry, our atmosphere is a Gaseous Solution, The current composition of which is 78% Nitrogen, 21% Oxygen, 0.93% Argon, 0.04 Carbon Dioxide, and trace amounts of neon, helium, methane, krypton and hydrogen, and water vapor.

So, Humans, are producing an estimated 35,000,000,000 tonnes of carbon per year. The Earth's atmosphere weighs 5 Quadrillion tonnes (That's fucking insane). So we're changing the composition by currently an inperceivable amount (7/1000000 of a percent, I think) however the amount of CO2 will continue to grow and grow until it does become perceivable.

I digress, This change (the 35,000,000,000 tonnes of CO2) will eventually begin to change the properties of the Solution we all take for granted, couple that with the deforestation in both the Amazon and here, and we may begin to see the changes quicker than if we left the majority of forests alone.

Anyways, I have zero idea how long it would take before we all bake, but I guess it wouldn't kill us to not be dicks to the planet.

Also, viewed from orbit, the atmosphere is just a very thin ribbon.



And to further blow your mind, the oceans cover 71% of the surface of the Earth, but account for 0.02% of Earths mass. They look big, but really aren't.

That's the thing isn't it? All of fossil fuels come from plants and animals that existed millions of years ago so that carbon had to have been in the planet's atmosphere in its eons-long history. What really gets me is that the climate alarmists what everyone else to believe that we are on the cusp of an extinction event to rival the Permian-Triassic event. That the Earth will become a Venusian hellscape if we do not give more money and political power to the government right now. Never mind the fact that we have had doomsday predictions since the seventies and not of them came true. I recall that the UN was telling us that entire nations would disappear under the waves by 2000 in the late-eighties/early-nineties. Guess what? 2000 came and no climate apocalypse. What is it now, 2030? Pardon me if I roll my eyes and go on my merry way.

"Denier" is ultimately a term used by superstitious fools against those who do not follow their orthodoxy. They would be the same people who bought indulgences from the Roman Catholic church in the 16th century, and I have neither the time nor inclination to take their prophecies seriously.

So you have the operators manual for the Earths' Climate? Can you post it here? There are a lot of people who would like to get a look at that.

And I have been documenting the IPCC 1990 report's predictions that have been coming true.