Comments by "Dorian Shades of gray" (@dorianshadesofgray2981) on "Laughter erupts after Trump official's climate proposal" video.

  1. David Ellis i can’t believe how many times Climate cultist can cry wolf about catastrophic events and still have idiots believe them.
    6
  2. Tim As and yet the US has had the greatest percentage drop in CO2 of all countries since leaving the Paris Climate Accord. All these other virtue signalling other countries including Canada , The EU as well as China and India have had increases in CO2.
    5
  3. gurujpf66 study your history..they’ve been saying that for generations..
    4
  4. ron hillbilly well, I am a physicist dickhead.. what do you base your climate change knowledge on?
    4
  5. Gpolice You do realise that the government is voted in by the people to represent them.
    4
  6. I assume you are talking about the forced and planned laughter of idiot protesters being embarrassing
    3
  7. DVAFP Actually USA has had the largest percentage drop in CO2 emission of any nation last year after trump left the Paris Climate Accord. It’s not on the graph but Australia had an increase in CO2 emmissions. https://www.google.com/search?q=c02+emissions+by+country&rlz=1C9BKJA_enAU726AU726&hl=en-GB&prmd=nisv&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjYls3e3pzfAhWFWX0KHeDgC0QQ_AUoAnoECBAQAg&biw=1024&bih=659#imgrc=hb6m0pEEUC7jRM
    3
  8. Armonía/Teoría Flamenca the electoral college is the voting system that both parties are well aware off . Trump understood how to campaign better on this system then that idiot Hillary, if you want to blame anyone blame Hillary for not campaigning well enough in the important swing electorates
    3
  9. HemiHead664 the US is reducing CO2 emissions by converting to natural gas fired power stations.. it produces 60 % less CO2 emissions than coal, is reliable all year round and doesn’t destroy the economy by switching over to it. On top of this with Trump bringing back 400000 manufacturing jobs to the US means that these usually heavily power hungry manufacturing plants are now being powered by more co2 efficient power stations than from third world countries they relocated from thus reducing their carbon footprint. Thank you president Trump
    3
  10. Doug Mcdonell there are different grades of coal from brown coal to black coal . Brown coal has more moisture and less carbon in it and produces 30% more green house gases than black coal
    2
  11. TrickWithAKnife I think there is a misconception that thousands of scientists globally come up with the same result thus proving man made climate is an existential concern. If you look at the numerous models that predict global temperature vs CO2 you will find the sensitivity of doubling CO2 will produce extremely variable results from No change all the way up to 12 degrees. Instrumental or measured sensitivity varies from 1.2 to 3.8 degrees with the mean being 2 degrees . The latest modelled results have a sensitivity range of 1.5 to 4.5 degrees with a mean of 3 degrees. The supposed” climate change deniers” believe in the science but just believe that the impact of CO2 on temperature is on the lower end of the range and therefor kick up a fuss when alarmist predict catastrophe if drastic action is not taken now.
    2
  12. Stephen Hicks a pretty silly statement given that data is readily available that shows the US has had the greatest reduction in CO2 levels of any nation in 2017 since Trump left the worthless Paris Climate Accord.. https://www.google.com/search?q=c02+emissions+by+country&rlz=1C9BKJA_enAU726AU726&hl=en-GB&prmd=nisv&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjYls3e3pzfAhWFWX0KHeDgC0QQ_AUoAnoECBAQAg&biw=1024&bih=659#imgrc=hb6m0pEEUC7jRM Also just like you are educating yourself on US politics and current social and world events so is the rest of the supposedly uneducated masses in the US.. This is all thanks to Trump who has made politics and world affairs interesting. Finally CO2 emission per capita mean nothing. Australia is extremely high on that measure but the actual volume of CO2 emitted by Australia is minuscule compared to China , India and the US.
    2
  13. Ben Dover here you go idiot boy. The initial letter https://realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/2017-11-01064204_shadow.png
    2
  14. Has that carbon tax kicked in yet? I wonder how many Canadians are laughing about that
    2
  15. Doug Mcdonell bullshit! The tax hurts all Canadians as the companies hit by it will pass the extra business costs onto consumers through increased energy bills, fuel costs, heating costs and general cost of goods. For those companies who can, they will off shore their businesses to more business friendly countries. The end result is that Canada will suffer from higher costs, lose manufacturing jobs because of off shoring of their energy intensive businesses. It will also probably mean that the carbon footprint of these businesses that offshore will increase as their energy supplied will probably come from dirty coal fired power stations instead of the clean energy sources in Canada .
    2
  16. IHCTerra firstly I don’t believe CO2 has a significant impact on global temperatures.. I’m a strong believer that the the sun and oceanic oscillations impact on global temperature.. in fact we are coming off peaks from both these cycles so I’m expecting temperature to drop in the next few decades.... time will tell.
    2
  17. Jeff Novack I actually believe data as opposed to a newspaper article. https://www.google.com/search?q=co2+emission+by+country+2018&rlz=1C9BKJA_enAU726AU726&hl=en-GB&prmd=insv&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjvnojH0ZvfAhWHgUsFHduwAU4Q_AUoAXoECA0QAQ&biw=1024&bih=659&dpr=2#imgrc=hb6m0pEEUC7jRM
    2
  18. J Groovy since when has science been about consensus? Most scientist on either side believe that man has some influence on global temperature , however the difference is that many do not believe the impact is very significant. There are far more powerful natural sources than the 0.04% of CO2 in the atmosphere that influence climate change.
    1
  19. soth1 sol well the two most powerful forces with respect to global temperature are the solar and oceanic cycles.. the de Vries cycle and the Atlantic decadal oscillation respectively. We are currently coming off a peak of both these cycles and it is expected that over the next few decades there will be a reduction in global temperatures as opposed to predicted catastrophic temperature increases
    1
  20. soth1 sol expected by Fast Fourier transform analysis of temperature versus the approximate 230 year de Vries cycle and 65 year Atlantic decadal oscillation over the past 2000 or so years. Temperatures were taken from ice core analysis and tree rings analysis as well as historical recorded temperatures. Here’s a paper worth reading if interested. http://notrickszone.com/2013/12/03/german-scientists-show-climate-driven-by-natural-cycles-global-temperature-to-drop-to-1870-levels-by-2100/
    1
  21. Natural gas generate 60% less co2 then coal.... if co2 was really a problem for climate then the most economical and reliable option is to switch to natural gas fired power stations. Alternatively nuclear power is also reliable
    1
  22. aaron Medina Texas can move away from fossil fuels if it wants but it won’t make one iota of difference to global temperatures.
    1
  23. Dientera - The Raging Gentleman so you represent the” Rest of the world “ I bet you don’t even represent what your family think, let alone your community , or town or city or state, or country and you presume to appoint yourself the representative of the rest of the world.. Talk about delusions of grandeur
    1
  24. Sorbet Elf wow! You really have been severely brainwashed.
    1
  25. Sorbet Elf You only need to look at very recent history to see how the same scare tactics have been employed to control the masses.. Post 1940 when Co2 emissions were outputted at accelerated levels the globe was defying current modelling and was actually cooling between 1940 and 1970.. so much so that scientist at the time were fearful of a catastrophic ice age that would increase severe weather events, cause droughts and famine pretty much the Same as todays scare tactics except the problem was the onset of a catastrophic ice age instead global warming. In fact scientist wrote to President Nixon saying severe action needed to take place and scientist even put forward the idea of spreading soot on the polar ice caps to melt them to try and hold back the ice age. It seems quite ridiculous now but I think in 50 years sane people will look back at us and laugh whereas those who are easily brainwashed will probably be calling for drastic actions to prevent another ice age.
    1
  26. Rocky Rockwell what information are you talking about? If it is the CO2 reduction in 2017 data, I have already shared it earlier in the thread
    1
  27. Rocky Rockwell well actually the earth has been significantly greening due to CO2 fertilisation and 400 ppm levels even though higher than normal are actually very good for vegetation.... now there are those who say that plants can be saturated with CO2 however that doesn’t happen for level well above current levels. I am in agreement with you though that CO2 levels are above natural levels and that is a result of man’ actions.. where we differ is the extent these levels have on climate change and more importantly what actions need to take place and how urgently to reduce these CO2 levels. However I’m all for looking after our environment and and removing actual pollutants from the environment I just just think there are a lot worse pollutants then that we should be focusing on
    1
  28. Rocky Rockwell back in the 1970 when the earth was actually cooling between 1940 and 1970 . Scientist then were concerned with the onset of an ice age and there was even a letter sent to President Nixon of this concern signed by 2 scientist representing a conference of 42 scientist who said urgent action was needed.. Now when you talk about knee jerk reactions.. scientist at that time were suggesting pouring soot on the polar ice caps to melt them to help prevent an ice age from happening.... On top of all this , this period was when CO2 levels were accelerating and global temperatures were cooling ... something that is not mentioned much by the global warming set.
    1
  29. Shark Cat you obviously haven’t read my posts.
    1
  30. Daniela Martins here’s a copy of the letter sent to President Nixon regarding catastrophic ice age scare. https://realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/2017-11-01064204_shadow.png Man made Climate change is like a religion, there is a lot of money , fear and indoctrination in religion and people all across the globe believe in it purely based on faith. Man made climate change Agnostics like myself need more proof and unfortunately with all the failed predictions of doom , evidence of data fabricating and ignoring of natural forces that drive climate change it is hard to blindly believe in man made climate change just based on faith. Many scientist scientist also have invested a lot of their reputations into man made climate change and every failed prediction chips away at theirs reputations and so they will do anything to protect their standing in the community. There are a lot of parallels between the man made climate change argument and the fat vs sugar heart disease argument that started back in the 1950s . Fats won that argument and all the money government support , education systems etc supported that fats was the major cause of heart disease , however now the belief is that sugar is actually the major problem , however it is very difficult to completely change a global belief system even with overwhelming evidence.
    1
  31. Daniela Martins the trouble with this whole debate is that the predictions of catastrophic events is not really coming from mainstream scientists who believe that man made climate change is the major driving force behind climate change. The reason being is that these scientist deal with the real data and models and they can’t even narrow down the sensitivity of doubling CO2 on global temperature from 1 degree to 4 degrees. 4 degrees being catastrophic and 1 degree being no problem. There is no doubt that oil money is trying to protect its investment but there also no doubt those supporting nuclear energy and renewables have also got a vested interest in this. I think the best approach is to not have a knee jerk reaction to catastrophic predictions coming from non experts or from a fringe group of alarmist scientists. Instead continue the studies. Continue developing and implementing renewable energy sources , when new base load power stations are required look at nuclear power or natural gas. As much as the US is criticised it has had the largest reduction in CO2 emissions of any nation in 2017 and this is purely because of the gradual replacement of coal fired power stations to natural gas fired which is 60% more efficient in terms of CO2 emissions.
    1
  32. Daniela Martins OK let’s assume the IPCC is right and that every country has to do its bit to keep CO2 levels down.. Well, I think that every nation should do their bit based on their circumstances. For instance, fossil fuel rich nations should be given credit for switching from coal to natural gas as this reduces co2 emission by 60% .similarly coal rich nations should be able to pursue “clean coal “ technologies and carbon capture systems to remove Co2 from emissions. Also countries like Brazil who have large carbon sink Forests should be given given credit for the amount of CO2 these carbon sinks take out of the atmosphere. Unfortunately the underlying agenda is to completely rid the world of fossil fuels and while this agenda exists , countries that are rich in fossil fuels will never come to the party.
    1
  33. TheMrSirCharles firstly the IPCC has put a reduction target on CO2 and the US has achieved the highest reduction in CO2 emissions of any nation by switching to natural gas fired power stations. So I totally give no credibility to the first article which is obviously agenda driven to stop fracking . In terms of solar being cheaper than coal to produce. If that was the case then simple economics would drive all nations to go solar..But they aren’t which should tell you something. Also solar is unreliable as sun is not always available and so it cannot be used to support base load energy requirements. Finally changing the goal posts from 2 degrees increase in temperature from pre industrial global temperatures to 1.5 degrees is not science... it is purely an alarmist tactic to further scare the public.
    1
  34. I See Australia introduced a carbon tax and then repealed it very quickly because it was so bad .. Canada should learn from Australia’s experience.
    1
  35. TheMrSirCharles Business will not reduce their power needs , they will just either pass on the cost to consumers or will off shore their business or to a business friendly state in the US or Mexico. The people that will be hurt the most are the poor , especially in Canada as heating costs will sky rocket resulting in many poor families suffering the cold because heating costs will be too high The bottom line is that it will not make a difference to CO2 outputs and will hurt businesses, jobs and consumers in Canada .
    1
  36. TheMrSirCharles what sort of dick calls someone a troll in the middle of a debate? You’re obviously an idiot as it is to think the poor and the elderly have the resources or spare money lying around to switch to a renewable energy source.. they struggle to make ends meet as it is now and extra costs in heating,fuel, groceries and other consumables will take many of these people over the top.. Anyway, I mistakenly thought you may be worth talking to , but I was wrong. Have a good day.
    1
  37. And I bet you are one of these “sane” people who believe in 72 genders
    1
  38. The US was never revered and respected. Most of the world hated Americans.. only now with Donald Trump in charge is the world starting to respect the US again
    1
  39. Ethan Roberts Fake News. If you actually watch it he made a joke and then the laughter happened accompanied by applause.
    1
  40. claude ghendrih you do realise it was a bunch of idiot protesters that were laughing and disrupting the meeting in Poland. Did you expect them to applaud the presentation?
    1
  41. claude ghendrih well in another thread I did mention I was a physicist and I have worked in the oil industry and even though it is not the coal industry I feel I can add some value to the debate. You on the other hand sound like a real twit.
    1
  42. claude ghendrih my God you’re a fucking idiot. Who the fuck cares about photon accelerators or what I did in the oil industry. The topic at hand is man made climate change you bloody moron..Anyway I’ve wasted more time on you than you are worth.
    1
  43. claude ghendrih I’m only replying because I’m just amazed as to how the mind of a complete moron works...please enlighten me more on your vast knowledge of physics. How about talk about quantum physics in detail . This wasn’t an area I was too fussed on at Uni maybe because my lecturer was a useless teacher who just scrawled equations all over the white board and there was no copies of his lecture notes in the library, but maybe a genius like you can enlighten me.
    1
  44. Eric there are a lot of very eminent climate scientist and related science professors that agree with me . People like Professor Judith Curry or noble laureate in physics professor Ivar Giaever.. The bottom line is that most scientist acknowledge that man has some impact on global temperatures, the difference in opinion is as to how much impact. I’m in the camp that doesn’t believe that mans impact is as significant as it is made out to be . Whereas the other camp is that unless we act now the world as we know it will end.. So I’m happy to switch over to in a very controlled manner to fuel sources that generate less CO2 emissions such as natural gas and nuclear power as well as continue developing renewable energy options. However not a pace that destroys the economy in order to achieve these ends.
    1
  45. Sam Van Haaff America has always been despised especially when they travel. The book “The Ugly American “ written in 1958 highlighted how Americans were pretentious loud and ostentatious and that view of Americans has been sustained up until Trump was elected Trump is anti establishment, anti political correctness, non interventionalist foreign policy, anti MSM and I believe much of the world is starting to respect America again because it’s people had the guts to vote him in
    1
  46. Jeff Smith so is he Hitler or a clown? You people can’t have it both ways?
    1
  47. Jeff Smith not you specifically but you can’t deny plenty of you idiots call him Hitler and believe he is going to destroy the earth through not supporting climate change or that he will somehow start world war 3... hardly a laughing matter I would think.. so you mob need to get your story straight. Is he an existential threat to the earth or a clown?
    1
  48. Loan TRAN-THANH are you that naive to think that just because all you see from an extremely left leaning MSM is anti Trump rubbish that the rest of the world believe all that? All you have to do is review the 2016 election. If you followed the narrative of the MSM at the time you would have thought Trump was a clown that had no support and would be laughed out of the election..... well , we all know how that ended. So just remember we mightn’t be as loud as you lot or have MSM backing but Trump has a huge support world wide.
    1
  49. Stephen Hicks actually the reduction in the US emissions is mainly due to converting over to natural gas fired power plants which produce about 60% less CO2 emission then equivalent coal fired plants. Nothing to do with Obama, California or trump for that matter. Just natural market forces. I differ from you in that I believe leadership is being strong enough to not get caught up in the man made climate change hysteria and demonising of fossil fuels. I believe man does have some impact on global temperatures but believe that impact is minimal compared to natural forces that really drive climate Change. I am more than happy to apply sensible economically sound actions to reduce CO2 emissions such as converting to reliable natural gas fired power plants, nuclear power to cover base load power requirements . I am also happy to develop and implement renewable energy sources but not at the expense of destroying the economy of a country to achieve this. The bottom line is whether we believe man has catastrophic impacts on climate change or has minimal impacts on climate change.... we are in different camps on this matter.
    1
  50. Loan TRAN-THANH are you kidding me? Formal education is the way people are controlled or indoctrinated now.over 80% of university lecturers are left leaning so all we get now is a bunch on indoctrinated leftist university students. Even in primary school where most of the teachers are women and also went through the university indoctrination system are are now trying to indoctrinate our children into leftist thinking.. I’m betting you’re an social science major . How close am I?
    1
  51. Daniel Essex the facts are that the vast majority of university educators are left leaning and if you seriously think this does not come out in their teachings then you are burying your head in the sand. https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/red-alert-politics/liberalism-is-rampant-on-campus-and-ruining-academia There is no doubt that in the sciences that the balance of political leaning is more even for which we should all be grateful. I’m also happy that generation Z ie born in 1995 and later years are recognised to have an extremely conservative mindset , so maybe you have been exposed to these younger students.
    1
  52. Pink Crayon when Im talk history I’m talking since man first set foot on this earth.but like man made climate change the climate cultist like you only look at very very recent history and ignore all the evidence that climate has been changing for better or worse without any influence from man for 1000s of years
    1
  53. Xz0779 well, 10 years ago we were supposed to be under 20 feet of water by 2016 because the polar ice caps were supposed to have melted.
    1
  54. Xz0779 come on . Every 10 years there’s a new “ If we don’t act now this catastrophic event will occur” when are you going to stop falling for these scare tactics?
    1
  55. Xz0779 well actually back in 1972 the scientific community thought the world was going into a catastrophic ice age and a couple of scientists wrote a letter to then President Nixon suggesting the solution was to melt the polar ice caps to stop this catastrophic ice age from happening.
    1
  56. Ben Dover here’s a link to an article where scientist proposed pouring soot on the polar ice caps to melt them to Combat the catastrophic ice age scare back in 1974 https://www.zerohedge.com/article/scientists-considered-pouring-soot-over-arctic-1970s-help-melt-ice-order-prevent-another-ice
    1
  57. Roger Verdon I actually agree with all that. I was using the ice age scare in the early 1970s to highlight how scientists don’t alway get it right ...I think the prediction at the time was that the ice age would be upon us by 2021. What gets me is that between 1940 and 1970 when this ice age scare came about, the world was experiencing accelerated CO2 emissions and yet the earth was cooling and not warming.. it funny to hear the spin when man made climate change cultist try to explain that.
    1
  58. Doug Mcdonell that’s all good for those who can afford the price rises but it will be the elderly and poor who will suffer the most. Also those manufacturing jobs that go offshore to more business friendly countries like next door in the US will hurt the working class.. thank you Trudeau
    1
  59. The main drivers of Climate change are solar and oceanic cycles and we are just coming off peaks in both those cycles , so expect global temperatures to start dropping. I’m really looking to seeing how the climate cultist explain this when it happens
    1
  60. Menno Postma I’m a physicist... not a climate scientist but I do understand data and it is ridiculous how many flaws there is in the data
    1
  61. WILLIAM EDWARDS if you believe an under one degree change in global temperature over the last 80 years no matter whether it is induced by man or natural causes is going to increase flooding and hurricanes in your area then I’m afraid there’s nothing I can say that will help you.
    1
  62. WILLIAM EDWARDS it’s amazing how you idiots can’t comprehend that there are people with science backgrounds that don’t believe the world is going to end if we don’t stop using fossil fuels. There are many people like me who have a science background that accept climate change and also we even accept that man does have some impact on global temperatures..however we believe the impact man has is minimal and that there are a number of natural forces that have a significantly greater impact on climate change.
    1
  63. WILLIAM EDWARDS you need to get your facts straight. The Ozone layer is actually healing. In terms of man not being good for the environment you have no argument from me. The question is is CO2 emitted by man causing global temperatures to rise, and even now the climatologist can only put a sensitivity of doubling CO2 causing a 1 to 4 degree increase in global temperature . Where 4 degrees is catastrophic and 1 degree is not a problem at all. In fact the higher levels of CO2 has lead to verifiable greening of the planet due to CO2 fertilisation which is a positive no one really talks about. I’ll leave you with this piece of recent history.... Back in the mid 1970s alarmist scientists at the time were very concerned with the extended cooling of the earth between 1940 and 1970 and a group of world renowned scientist wrote a letter to the president expressing their concerns of catastrophic consequences or famine and severe weather patterns if something wasn’t done to stop the onset of a predicted ice age..One of their solutions was to pour soot on the polar ice caps to melt the ice to try and prevent the onset of an ice age.. The moral of this story is to not have knee jerk reaction to alarmist calls of doom and gloom as it could cause more harm than help. A lot of people are putting blame on the US for pulling out of the Paris Climate Accord however since leaving the US has had the greatest reduction in CO2 emissions by any nation.. the nations that increased their CO2 emissions and are members of the Paris climate Accord are China, India, Canada and the EU. I’m all for reducing CO2 emissions to more normal levels but in a controlled manner that won’t hurt countries economies or the health of their citizens..For instance the US has greatly reduced it CO2 emissions by slowly converting to natural gas fired power stations which produce 60% less CO2 than coal and this hasn’t hurt the US economy.
    1
  64. WILLIAM EDWARDS our communications are our of sequence however, linking global CO2 emissions to Sandy is just a ludicrous proposition. In terms of Manhattan being flooded according to predictions we were supposed to be under 20 feet of water back in 2016 so I don’t put much faith in these alarmist predictions.. Note it is not the scientist at the cold front of research who are making these alarmist predictions accept for a few fringe elements.. the reason is they have analysed the data and know that the science isn’t settled enough yet to get the CO2 forcing of temperature sensitivity anywhere near good enough to make serious predictions.
    1
  65. Yes the poorest and most vulnerable will suffer from an introduction of a carbon tax. Especially in cold climates like Canada where heating cost increases will force many poor people to stay cold rather than go under because they can’t afford the energy bills.
    1
  66. I thought we were going to be screwed under 20 feet of water when the polar ice caps were supposed to have melted back in 2016..
    1
  67. PINKY PONY You are making the assumption that I believe CO2 is a significant driver of global temperature.. well I don’t , I believe in solar and oceanic cycles having the majority of the impact and I believe in the coming decades we will be experiencing natural global cooling. So I’m not concerned with the tundra melting , just like I wasn’t concerned with the polar ices caps melting by 2016.
    1
  68. PINKY PONY I have presented the basis of an argument as to why the globe is entering a cooling cycle and that your fears of the melting permafrost are not warranted and all you have in return is some bullshit disparaging remarks. Climate scientist said we would be under 20 feet of water by 2016.. given that this ridiculous prediction did not occur what makes you think this next prediction of the permafrost melting will be any more likely to come true?
    1
  69. Anthony W like many people we believe climate change is a natural process and man has very little impact..however there is no doubt man is putting more CO2 into the atmosphere and even though it makes up 0.04% of the atmosphere , I’m happy to reduce those levels to more natural levels and switching to natural gas fired power stations is an economically sound decision to enable this to happen
    1
  70. Dr. TJ the US left the Accord because it was putting billions of dollars into a non binding agreement that China doesn’t even have to adhere to until 2035 or some far off date
    1
  71. Doctor Drywell The Climate doesn’t care about per capita. If CO2 was really a problem then the only thing that matters is volume
    1
  72. LadyArmand2000 CO2 makes up only 0.04% of the atmosphere and as far as its impact as a green house gas it is also very insignificant , water vapour has much more impact. As far as correlation between CO2 and temperature goes historical data shows that even in recent times when CO2 levels were significantly rising the temperature trend between 1940 ad 1970 was decreasing. Climate scientist seem to brush over this anomaly in their modelling. If you really are interested in the truth I suggest you research temperature homogenisation. It is an accepted process which basically allows periodic fudging of historical temperature data that always leans towards supporting the climate change narrative.. I really think there will be a drop in global temperature in the coming decades and am looking forward to the spin climate cultist will use to explain the drop..
    1
  73. George H 400000 manufacturing jobs relocating from third world countries to the US has a huge impact on the carbon footprint of these manufacturing plants.. so yes Donald Trump has played apart in reducing CO2 emissions , although , like him I don’t believe the 0.04% CO2 in the atmosphere has any significant impact on global temperatures.
    1
  74. LadyArmand2000 instead of calling everyone idiots and crazy present the data and then we’ll talk
    1
  75. LadyArmand2000 yep , just a thought , you are all emotions and no facts. I’m happy to debate anyone on facts however emotional people like you add no value to the debate. Have a a good night.
    1
  76. HemiHead664 there is always something with you people . Coal emits too much CO2, natural gas fracking causes other problems , nuclear energy is too risky, windmills kill too many birds. You won’t be happy until we are all living in caves again
    1
  77. HemiHead664 unfortunately the current global catastrophic phenomenon at the moment is man made climate change so the sins and dangers of fracking are lost and no longer talked about. I will agree with you that fracking is far more of an environmental problem than CO2 emissions , however that conversation will never take place whilst we have this man made climate change hysteria going on.
    1
  78. HemiHead664 I think you give the people too much credit in thinking they know what is going on. They know more about Stormy Danials and Michael Avenatti, than the fracking process thanks to the MSM .. I don’t see too much news coverage on the dangers of fracking. Natural gas produces 60% less CO2 than coal and in an environment where CO2 is demonised I think the general public are happy to accept the converting to natural gas fired power stations. I do appreciate your concerns. However if the world is to have a real conversation on alternate fuel sources, the heat has to be taken out of the catastrophic consequence to climate change narrative
    1
  79. HemiHead664 further to my last comment I’d be interested if there were only 2 choices would you stick with Coal fired power stations that produce 60% more CO2 or have all power stations fired by natural gas from fracking sources?
    1
  80. HemiHead664 I’ve been a proponent for natural gas but only to appease the CO2 demonisers. However to be quite honest I’d forgotten just what an issue fracking was to the environment and also how much natural gas is produced from fracking. I agree that there are a lot of alternative energy sources and processes that make existing energy sources much more environmentally friendly, however there is still a need for reliable base energy supply, and it’s hard to beat coal especially if it’s Clean Coal that is preprocessed to remove or reduce dangerous emissions. Anyway I’ve got to go but I’ve enjoyed the chat as it has made me reassess my leaning towards natural gas produced from fracking as a source for base power load. I guess I’ll be doing some more research.
    1
  81. Laura Evenhouse that 97% number is such a load of crap that people keep bringing up.. nearly all scientist on either side of the debate believe that man has an impact in global temperatures ... the issue is how much of an impact.. the so called “ deniers” believe in climate change but don’t believe mans impact is as significant as made out to be . Man made climate change is like a religion and I’d hazard a guess and say 97% percent of the globe believe in a God based purely on faith just like man made climate change
    1
  82. Laura Evenhouse I also believe an ant pushing against a car has some impact in generating a force to move that car forward but I don’t believe it is ever going to move that car. In terms of cooling , I believe in natural cycles and scientist have studied natural cycles and can make predictions based on analysis of these cycles. With global temperatures changes the largest natural factors that impact on global temperatures are the sun and oceanic forces. These well known solar cycles and ocean oscillations when analysed have shown a very strong correlation to global temperature . At the moment we are coming off a peak in the de Vries solar cycle ( approx every 220 years) and the Atlantic and Pacific decadal oscillation (every 65 years) Fourier transform analysis of these two cycles suggest over the next few decade global temperatures will be cooling again. Now I’m not sure if this will happen , but I’m more willing to put my faith in historical data analysis than in hysterical predictions of doom based on CO2 emissions where scientist still cannot pin down the sensitivity of the CO2 vs global temperature relationship.
    1
  83. Laura Evenhouse scientist at the forefront of man made climate change cannot even pin down the sensitivity of CO2 to global temperatures. That is if CO2 was to double what impact would that have on global temperatures ... well the range they have modelled varies 1 to 4 degrees.. 4 degrees being catastrophic and 1 degree being no problem at all. It doesn’t help that politicians and people with vested interests always push the absolute worst case scenario even though its likelihood is very small as it generates knee jerk reactions that end up hurting people like carbon taxes end up hurting poor people especially in cold climates where heating energy costs sky rocket. I think we should just continue on the gradual move away from high CO2 emitting processes by updating ageing coal fired power stations with nuclear or natural gas and also continue to develop and implement renewable energy sources. I’m actually more worried that scientists will come up with a global geo engineering solution to “solve “ global warming and end up really threatening the planets existence.
    1
  84. Laura Evenhouse well I’m glad we had the opportunity to swap ideas , we mightn’t agree on the best plan of action but I think we both want what’s best for the planet but just have different ideas on how to get there.
    1