Spacex $1.7T

Try the climate denial page.

He's right expertise does not get you anywhere in itself. Of course if you are an expert you probably have some obscure references to back your statements up.

If you look at the climate change denial page you can see the hive mind in action.

Not for electricity generation in general in the USA over the long term. There was a small bump last year. https://ourworldindata.org/ele...

There may be some new plant proposed, there are 3 that might be built according to https://globalenergymonitor.or...

Of course unreliable energy enthusiasts can cherry pick when they crow about these stats, quietly forgetting the cold dark calm days in winter.

Splitting short term noisy records up into arbitrary linear segments is, statistically, a rather dodgy thing to do. The most reliable is linear fit the first half, and the second half. This of course gives nothing like a factor of 2.

Straight line fit calendar years 1993-2014 2.6 mm/y 2015-2023 3.6 mm/y

https://skepticalscience.com/V... says up to 2010 was 2.83 mm/year, man it must have dropped a lot to get to 2 up to 2015.

So they used a fake baseline to make the current number sound scarier. If you look at the actual data it is bleeding obvious that the gradient is not twice as big after 2015. I'll leave to run the numbers, I know you won't. https://www.star.nesdis.noaa.g...

your problem 3 seems to be a sufficiently solved issue when you buy sea salt.

Previous critical analyses facing the IPCC's favored interpretation of the carbon cycle and residence time have been published, e.g., by Jaworowski et al. (1992), Segalstad (1998), Dietze (2001), Rörsch et al. (2005) or Essenhigh (2009), and more recently by Humlum et al. (2013), or Salby, 2013, Salby, 2016. Although most of these analyses are based on different observations and methods, they all derive residence times (in some cases also differentiated between turnover and adjustment times) in part several orders of magnitude shorter than specified in AR5. As a consequence of these analyses also a much smaller anthropogenic influence on the climate than propagated by the IPCC can be expected.

Trees fall down on the road. People in high vis chop it up with chainsaws. Then they pile it up and burn it, or we take it home and let it season and then burn it. Either way whatever was in the tree ends up as smoke. I estimate about half the wood we burn is from trees that have to be removed from our driveway or the local roads.

Yet as of now people migrate to warmer climes, given the choice. Boo hoo.

Are underfed people primarily short of calories, trace elements, vitamins, protein, fiber or what? Whatever the answer is, concentrate on that. This study ignores the actual issue and waah waahs on about dilution.

Headline: pay
Article: reimburse (the lease fee).

AFAIK the article has it right.

current environment - Zoom for the non hypocrites.