Why, yes, it’s Earth Day
Earth Day is coming up, so it’s time for your yearly reminder ???????????https://t.co/x8MlunepGW
— Laura W. (@BumpstockBarbie) April 18, 2022
Was it now or never in killing and composting her?
This Earth Day ‘it’s now or never’ for action on climate change
This Earth Day, like many recent ones, can be seen as a time for despair: the Earth is warming at an unprecedented rate and its inhabitants — us — aren’t doing enough to stop it. That’s one conclusion from the latest report by the world’s climate scientists. Despite this gloomy outlook, there are some reasons for optimism. For example, the costs of renewable energy are declining and the generation and use of this cleaner energy is increasing.
1.5 in 170 years is not unprecedented, nor much of a big deal.
“We are at a crossroads. The decisions we make now can secure a liveable future. We have the tools and know-how required to limit warming,” IPCC Chair Hoesung Lee said in a statement earlier this month. “I am encouraged by climate action being taken in many countries. There are policies, regulations and market instruments that are proving effective. If these are scaled up and applied more widely and equitably, they can support deep emissions reductions and stimulate innovation.”
But, the scientists stressed, action to further reduce the emissions of greenhouse gasses, which trap the earth’s heat, are needed now. Without emissions reductions, temperatures would continue to rise, they warn.
Just, wondering, what if we do all this stuff they want and nothing changes? Why does the Bangor Daily News not practice what they preach? Have you ever noticed that those pushing this cult almost never mention the changes in their own lives and businesses?
That means actions on a large scale: Incentivizing the production and use of renewable energy, adhering to national and statewide emissions reductions targets, for example, while also taking action as individuals — like considering fuel-efficient vehicles, using public transportation, recycling.
In other words, forcing citizens to do this.
(Vox) The IPCC isn’t arguing that global governments should reengineer the dramatic shutdowns of the early pandemic that brought travel to a standstill. But the science body noted that the pandemic is proof that broad, structural behavioral change can and does happen.
Policy plays a big role in nudging people into making more climate-friendly decisions, basically making it as easy as possible to lessen one’s footprint. The IPCC authors write that “judicious labelling, framing, and communication of social norms can also increase the effect of mandates, subsidies, or taxes.” Interventions that change the “choice architecture” so people have an easier time taking the cleaner option include: default enrollment in green programs, increasing taxes on carbon-intensive products, and substantially tightening regulations and standards.
The IPCC may not be arguing it, but, climate cultists sure are, hence, the “nudging”, which means legislation, rules, and regulations, coming from people who, again, won’t practice what they preach.
Your terms are accepted.
Teach is always using 1850 as a starting point pretending that there has been no increase in the rate of temp change.
His former go to guy on global temp rise Roy Spenser of UALH now days that almost all of the global temp increase in the last 35 years was caused by man
Was Teach betrayed? Should Spenser be considered to be a Judas ?
Pro tip for Johnnie, the Buddhist stoner:
If you’re going to misrepresent Dr. Roy Spencer at least you could spell his name correctly.
OK, back to your bong.
That is all.
#LGBFJB
#AssRapingGrandpa
Bwaha! Lolgf
Johnny-then why don’t you show evidence on how the rate has increased? I’ve show you how the rate was much higher earlier in the Holocene. “Spencer says almost all global temp increase is caused by man”. Like most alarmists, you’re skipping the second part of the equation. It’s not the warming that would be a problem, but the alleged effects of the warming that would be a problem. Those alleged “effects” haven’t been separated from natural variability or are simply computer projections.
“It’s now or never…”. Your cult can’t have plural doomsdays-you only get one.
Hairy: “Was Teach betrayed? Should Spenser be considered to be a Judas ?”
No, not at all, Dr. Spencer is just wrong. It happens. We admit when our guys are on occasion incorrect unlike you leftists who have no clue what mea culpa means. We’re still waiting for the apology from the Steele dossier and all that bull shit Russia, Russia, Russia shit not to mention the vaccine that isn’t a vaccine.
BTW, we also don’t believe just because some clown has “Dr.” in front of their name they are any more correct than the next guy. Hell, all the false predictions from climate “experts” alone should prove that to you not to mention all the Covid nonsense.
Any science in bed with the government becomes a matter of money, not true science.
\
FJB and Fauci too.
What Spenser said:
“The most important thing to remember about climate models which are used to project future global warming is that they were “tuned” with the assumption I started this article with: that the climate system is in a natural state of energy balance, and that there is no long-term climate change unless humans cause it.
This is an arbitrary and illogical assumption. The climate system is an example of a “nonlinear dynamical system”, which means it can change all by itself. For example, slow changes in the rate of vertical overturning of the world’s oceans can cause global warming (or global cooling) with no “external forcing” of the climate system whatsoever.
Instead, the climate models are “tuned” to not produce natural climate change. If a 100-year run of the model produces change, the model is adjusted to removed the “drift”. The models do not produce global energy balance from “first physical principles”, because none of the processes controlling that balance are known to sufficient accuracy. Instead, the models are “fudged” to produce energy balance, based upon the modelers’ assumption of no natural climate change. Then, the models are used as “proof” that only increasing CO2 has caused recent warming.
This is circular reasoning.”
https://www.drroyspencer.com/global-warming-101/