I guess once it's in your lungs you can claim it, at least for the duration of time that it's in there.

I have the same rule for the water in your bladder.

Yeah they did.

If you have a dog in the race in the USA, how do you feel about the measles outbreaks and the executive branch trying to close wind farms that have been mostly paid for and would produce cheaper energy that the average being produced now?

In the general case they won't need persuading. But they'll be comforted to see reality represented. Which may stop them diving down the rabbit hole of the denialosphere, at least without awareness of how poorly the analysis there is regarded.

Are you? It's very falsifiable that not getting a measles vaccine is dangerous for you and your friends and countrypeople. And yet the problem appears to be misinformation.
Its was very falsifiable that smoking didn't come with any health risks, and yet the problem was misinformation.

CO2 is a greenhouse gas. You can falsify that by looking at its absorption spectrum and comparing to the sun's emission spectrum and the earth's emission spectrum.
CO2 concentration has increased due to the combustion of fossil fuels. You can falsify that by tracking where the CO2 is coming from and going to in the atmosphere.

The climate science deniers have fucked Africa and the poor parts of South East Asia. Climate change was killing them at about 160,000 people per year as at 25 years ago.

There's no way to improve living conditions once you're dead. But at least cheap energy is clean energy. We've made those advances.

That or death will have to be part of it, whichever you can afford, or otherwise organize. But reducing the combustion of fossil fuels is still cheaper than not reducing the combustion of fossil fuels.

Logic is a way of getting to a conclusion based on premises and sound reasoning.

But given that renewable energy is cheaper than fossil fuel energy, the claim that "Africa will forgo cheap energy and stay poor because of the environment", doesn't follow from any logic that doesn't have a false premise.

Around 90% of renewables cheaper than fossil fuels worldwide, IRENA says

Moreover there's a lot of conflict and famine in Africa that climate change contributes to. And that does damage development.

So ... What logic, and specifically what premises, and what evidence for these are you pointing at?

Thanks, mate.

I believe that misinformation and disinformation should be corrected, so that people aren't mislead into making decisions against their own best interests.

What are your motivations in spreading them?

The current media situation lends itself to the increase in flat earthers, anti-vaxers, alt-medders and religious fundamentalists, that I don't take it personally. But I do correct misinformation when I see it. But it's not most people, and the economics favours transition to renewables even with governments putting roadblocks in the way to woo large political donations.

And I've made no sacrifices. My car is cheaper to run than a ICE, and I don't have to drive it anywhere to fill it up. My panels are reducing my power bills. I'm better off on renewables, same as if I was a country.

I love my wife and I love my cat, and I appreciate that I get to see ecosystems that will disappear in the coming decades.

I'll be fine. I looked at the flood maps before buying my house. I'm far enough away from forests not to be caught in a wildfire, and my household income is such that the increasing food prices affects my overseas travel, not my nutrition.

And I'm not trying to persuade. Climate change deniers are bots, are paid not to understand the science, or have tied their identity to not understanding the science. They can't be moved. I'm putting the facts under their posts for the record for other people who read these threads. How do you feel about the increase in misinformation? If you have a dog in the race in the USA, how do you feel about the measles outbreaks and the executive branch trying to close wind farms that have been mostly paid for and would produce cheaper energy that the average being produced now?

It doesn't seem do a very good job. I believe one of the reasons that you get so much child sexual abuse in churches is because of the guarantee of forgiveness, and the externalization of blame. "The devil tempted me".

I'm not sure if scientists are moral or cultural superiors. Ethics is a science, but barely, and it's not related to this science, which is thermodynamics, planetary science and optics.

And culture is the provenance of the humanities. That's nothing to do with climate science.

It's not the lake of fire that's promised in the Revelation. Its a reduction in the productivity of arable land in a world were people are already starving, an ongoing and accelerating sea level rise, an increase in the incidence and intensity of wildfires and flooding, and a increase in extinction pressure on a very wide range of ecosystems. Rich people are seeing an increase in their food costs, and in many locations insurance cost ... including finding that they're uninsurable. And while it will be a couple or few decades before the warming response to the CO2 emitted this afternoon has more-than-half completed, so there's much worse in the post, the comparison with eternal conscious torture falls a bit flat. It's a economic disaster, and a devastating loss of the irreplaceable resource of biodiversity, but many people will find that they can afford a home and to eat, and will manage the loss of resources left to future generations as well as they manage the 318 million people facing crisis levels of hunger today.

I feel frustration at increasing levels of misinformation on the internet. But climate change denial is an old dog, with no new tricks.

My behaviours are well enough informed, and my financial situation is improved independently of that by my rooftop solar and battery electric vehicle.

I eat meat, because I like it, and the guilt doesn't wrack me. But I do feel good when I choose to eat vegetarian ... so there is a literal carrot, as well as a stick.

I didn't check my links. I meant this more modern temperature reconstruction, from this paper

That temperature reconstruction is pretty much in line with more recent global mean surface temperature reconstructions like this one, from https://www.nature.com/article... >this paper.

No. The timeline is the same scale throughout. That's the point of the cartoon.

That's right. It's a global mean surface temperature that he's plotted.

the LIA doesn't show up much on global temperature reconstructions for that reason. The global mean surface temperature is still the better statistic to analyse global warming with. Because it's global warming.

At the RHS of the cartoon, at the top it cites the source data.

Oh, the irony.

Oh, you think temperatures are actually in decline, and that this has been hidden do you?

Counter to every analysis of surface temperature stations, every measurement of oceanic temperature, every satellite-based near-surface temperature, and the temperature record from the much denailst-spruked independent charity, Berkley Earth?

Do you have a data source that does show this "hidden decline"?

No?

Maybe it's not declining then. That would better explain the measured sea level rise, and the noted movement of species ranges towards the poles.

One of the early claims by the denialist industry was that the CO2 increasing in the atmosphere was driven by warming of the oceans, not the combustion of fossil fuels. So I feel that it should be affirmed that the oceans are absorbing CO2, even if this is less than what a colder ocean might have absorbed.

The ocean has absorbed 25±2% of the total anthropogenic CO2 emissions from the early 1960s to the late 2010s, with rates more than tripling over this period and with a mean uptake of –2.7±0.3PgCyear–1 for the period 1990 through 2019.

Yeah. My thought was that's interesting until I got down to that sentence.

Two humans fighting by proxy isn't new. Truman and Stalin were doing it in Korea 75 years ago.

You mean other than from the share of the annual 6.25 trillion dollars of revenue from the fossil fuel industry that's put towards climate crisis denial?

There's no other TON of cash. A median American contributes about $10 per year from their federal taxes towards climate science. Solar and wind are democratised: there's not big profits, just companies competing to be the most financially efficient way to harvest them.

Where do you claim this mythical TON of money is coming from?

Again, you claim, while presenting zero evidence that they were wrong about 1.5C.

That's simply not correct. You repeating it, like a zombie moaning repeatedly for brains, does not inspire confidence that you know what talking about.

Yes. They were. And they are. There are scientists who have built a lucrative career in misrepresenting science to the public for the benefit of a highly lucrative industry. S Fred Singer and Frederick Seitz both made bank for the tobacco industry muddying the clear evidence that smoking caused cancer long before they were picked up by the global warming denial industry. And they worked to spread confusion about the harmfulness of acid rain, pesticides, and CFCs in between. The George C Marshall Institute closed in 2015 to the better reflect the source of money for science denial now, under the name the "CO2 Coalition".

And you're repeating their lies.

I agree that you don't know. I don't think we've had enough of a deep-dive into any evidence to enable you to determine how much I know. But there are IPCC reports that we could read, and then we'd both know.

No. I am not willing to destroy lives. The fossil fuel industry is willing to destroy lives for profit, which involved telling the lie that the data is shitty.

There's no data on the denialist side. There a stack of research on the scientific side. I get "about 91,200 results for a google scholar search for "global climate change" or "global warming", for the last decade alone. I find it difficult to believe that you've read them all, and determined that the data is "sitty". I think you're repeating the denialist talking points without evidence.

You're like a cracked record. Do you get 5c every time you post that established climate science is "a lie" on a public forum?

More fossil fuel industry lies. We want of force poor people to spend Less money to got work and heat their homes. Renewables are cheaper:
The three cheapest electricity sources globally last year were onshore wind, solar panels and new hydropower, according to an energy cost report by the International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA), an intergovernmental organisation. Solar power now is 41 percent cheaper and wind power is 53 percent cheaper globally than the lowest-cost fossil fuel, the reports said.

Oh, the irony.

There's a lot of money going into the simple task of climate science denial on social media. Because there's a lot of people who are very rich because they have the rights to fossil fuels that are still in the ground.

But the science isn't as hard as they're pretending: If you increase the atmospheric concentration of greenhouse gasses, you increase the greenhouse effect.

But you can make a living from denying straightforward science, and so they keep coming up, even here at news for nerds.

I do wonder if you're a real human though. You don't provide links or sources, and you don't appear read them ones provided to you.

"Catastrophic" isn't a scientifically defined term. If it is used in a science-based prediction it will have the specific details of what that entails in that case.

Can you link me to the prediction or projection that you're talking about, so that we can understand what is meant by "catastrophic" in that case.

Because, tbh, it's mostly used by denialists who are trying to muddy the waters about what was predicted by scientists exactly. In any case, it's obvious that 3C is worse and so more "catastrophic" than 1.5C, because weather systems and ecosystems will be disrupted by a greater amount and sea level rise will be faster. And more high-cost, high-casualty tipping points will be passed.

Yep. But you solve that by producing power with less greenhouse emissions. You probably have to get to zero emissions, or as near as makes no technological difference. And China isn't lagging there. India is a bit, but Modi's a bit of a Trump: A dangerous racist valuing doing good as no goal, and maintaining power by appealing to extremists viewed as the way forward.

Nope. They're also destroying the productivity of Joshua's farm, and thereby increasing their food costs, and taking Joshua's capacity to make a living from the assets that he has invested in.

To control the increase in the cost of electricity, you need to roll out more renewables.