Global warming err Climate change HOAX

[AlBUNDY4TDS]

On 2/11/2024 at 8:42 AM, Precision said:

In the link above, this guy.

 

“The world has to step up, and it has to step up now,” former President Barack Obama said. “When it comes to climate, time really is running out.”

 

Lives here on waterfront in Martha's Vinyard.

 

 

 

There's no hysteria among the wealthy or the political class.  None of them are moving or changing their habits.  Taylor Swift emitted more CO2 this weekend than a dozen typical households do in a year.

 

The hysteria is with the poor dopes who eat this up.  Their empty lives need something to think about and fill the void.  A few years ago, everyone talked about a "zombie apocalypse" or "5G frying your brain".  Over 20 years ago the panic was about Y2K and how all the computers around the world would crash.

 

Rules for thee, not for me.

17 hours ago, L Ron Burgundy said:

Your argument is absurd.  You let experts deal with things they are experts in.  Do you see a banker when you need surgery?  Think.  Use your brain.   

 

Consensus that man made pollution is impacting global climate.  From there opinions fluctuate regarding impact and timelines. You point to inaccuracies and throw the entire premise away.  It makes zero sense.  

Experts can be bought, should be the conclusion. See covid.

[Irv]

16 minutes ago, AlBUNDY4TDS said:

Rules for thee, not for me.

Experts can be bought, should be the conclusion. See covid.

Agree.  These climate change whimps are just looking for another government handout.  Nobody is dumb enough to believe the hoax.  What a mess.  

[L Ron Burgundy]

4 hours ago, ComradeKayAdams said:

 

THANK YOU. I’ve requested the same from them throughout the past few years: ONE SINGLE peer-reviewed scientific research paper, published since the late 1980’s, that does either of the following:

 

1. Contradicts the observed planetary warming phenomena.

2. Explains the observed planetary warming phenomena with any primary mechanism other than the increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide ppm.

 

Their collective response? Crickets. But the offer still stands! I will look up the paper, read it over a weekend, and then get back to PPP to carefully explain why their paper of persuasion is total garbage (if the paper’s focus is on climate system computational models, then I’ll likely need at least an additional weekend to get access to and delve into some of the weeds of the code).

 

Regarding allegedly poor timeline predictions: keep in mind that anthropogenic climate change denialists like to misattribute reckless claims to climate scientists, when those claims actually came from celebrities or politicians. When climate scientists speak in terms of predictive ranges with a possible minimum and a possible maximum, denialists will commonly grab the most sensationalistic limit and call it a firm prediction without any scientific context. When it comes to climate computational models that attempt to predict the future, this “scientific context” typically comes in the form of inherent uncertainty from factors like cloud cover or worldwide legislative measures that reduce various air pollutants. The climate models favored by NASA GISS, unfortunately, have been very accurate since the 1990’s.

 

Scanning the last few pages of this thread…ugh…it’s more of the usual right-wing lunacy that keeps popping up…not understanding the difference between weather and climate, not understanding why warmer climates equate to greater weather variation, equating an established science of well over half a century with the real-time scientific predictions of an emerging pandemic…even the anthropogenic nature of the Holocene epoch extinction is apparently a liberal conspiracy…WTF…our country’s middle school science program is failing us!!

 

Why have evidence when you can let fox news think for you?  

3 hours ago, AlBUNDY4TDS said:

Rules for thee, not for me.

Experts can be bought, should be the conclusion. See covid.

Oh that's the conclusion?  You have any proof or just the usual?   

 

Literally,  Kay and I ask for one piece of proof showing climate scientists are wrong.  The replies are vague accusations against the scientific community.   You are all past your used before date.  

[Orlando Tim]

4 hours ago, ComradeKayAdams said:

 

THANK YOU. I’ve requested the same from them throughout the past few years: ONE SINGLE peer-reviewed scientific research paper, published since the late 1980’s, that does either of the following:

 

1. Contradicts the observed planetary warming phenomena.

2. Explains the observed planetary warming phenomena with any primary mechanism other than the increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide ppm.

 

Their collective response? Crickets. But the offer still stands! I will look up the paper, read it over a weekend, and then get back to PPP to carefully explain why their paper of persuasion is total garbage (if the paper’s focus is on climate system computational models, then I’ll likely need at least an additional weekend to get access to and delve into some of the weeds of the code).

 

Regarding allegedly poor timeline predictions: keep in mind that anthropogenic climate change denialists like to misattribute reckless claims to climate scientists, when those claims actually came from celebrities or politicians. When climate scientists speak in terms of predictive ranges with a possible minimum and a possible maximum, denialists will commonly grab the most sensationalistic limit and call it a firm prediction without any scientific context. When it comes to climate computational models that attempt to predict the future, this “scientific context” typically comes in the form of inherent uncertainty from factors like cloud cover or worldwide legislative measures that reduce various air pollutants. The climate models favored by NASA GISS, unfortunately, have been very accurate since the 1990’s.

 

Scanning the last few pages of this thread…ugh…it’s more of the usual right-wing lunacy that keeps popping up…not understanding the difference between weather and climate, not understanding why warmer climates equate to greater weather variation, equating an established science of well over half a century with the real-time scientific predictions of an emerging pandemic…even the anthropogenic nature of the Holocene epoch extinction is apparently a liberal conspiracy…WTF…our country’s middle school science program is failing us!!

 

 

Irv!! It used to say “Moderator” for your profile location. Did they take away your PPP moderating powers??!!

 

Effing COMMUNISTS.

You set a standard that we all know won't happen, a bunch of people whose jobs rely on the climate being a problem need to come out and admit their jobs are meaningless. You also are comparing actual scientist- the FAFO type- with computer modelers. The models are often garbage but we don't discard them entirely if their results are favorable. 

[B-Man]

 

 

 

[B-Man]

 

 

 

[Orlando Tim]

Global warming alarmist are some of the dumbest people on the planet, they believe that the earth has had the hottest and coldest weather in the planets history all within 150 years of each other and within 3 degrees of each other. https://mashable.com/article/climate-change-cold-records-rare

 

[Doc]

[L Ron Burgundy]

49 minutes ago, Orlando Tim said:

Global warming alarmist are some of the dumbest people on the planet, they believe that the earth has had the hottest and coldest weather in the planets history all within 150 years of each other and within 3 degrees of each other. https://mashable.com/article/climate-change-cold-records-rare

 

Yes you know more than scientists because you use Google.   Very intelligent.   Make you sure you do extra research when you need surgery.   Lol.

[Orlando Tim]

1 hour ago, L Ron Burgundy said:

Yes you know more than scientists because you use Google.   Very intelligent.   Make you sure you do extra research when you need surgery.   Lol.

Do you actually think a person who creates a computer simulation is a scientist like Tesla and Edison?

[Tommy Callahan]

BS like this isn't helping the cause.

 

 

 

 

Edited February 14 by Tommy Callahan

[Irv]

46 minutes ago, Tommy Callahan said:

BS like this isn't helping the cause.

 

 

 

 

 

It all comes down to handouts.  Listen to the one clown mention all Americans are entitled to livable employment.   His/she/its parents must be really proud.  

[Orlando Tim]

In this forum I am being mocked by people who clearly think climate science is like other hard sciences. People who work for SpaceX use modeling software to predict how a launch will go. The launch of a rocket has a fraction of the variables that our climate does but until they test it in real world situations they often could not make proper predictions. The people who believe the climate models without question are people who were shocked the rockets sometimes explode, that is what science is, mess around and find out.

[Orlando Tim]

6 hours ago, L Ron Burgundy said:

Yes you know more than scientists because you use Google.   Very intelligent.   Make you sure you do extra research when you need surgery.   Lol.

This comment is actually even more telling then I initially noticed. When I had to to have minor surgery because of a health issue I did research what was best way and which doctor was best in my system. I went to different hospital than I normally go to so I could have the doctor with 15 years experience vs the guy with less than one. Unlike you someone who refers to themselves as a expert does not impress me unless I see some evidence of what they can do, the fact you listen to Greta Thunberg shows how much thought you have. 

[L Ron Burgundy]

2 hours ago, Orlando Tim said:

This comment is actually even more telling then I initially noticed. When I had to to have minor surgery because of a health issue I did research what was best way and which doctor was best in my system. I went to different hospital than I normally go to so I could have the doctor with 15 years experience vs the guy with less than one. Unlike you someone who refers to themselves as a expert does not impress me unless I see some evidence of what they can do, the fact you listen to Greta Thunberg shows how much thought you have. 

Who cares if Greta is saying it???  It makes zero difference it's not her research!  She's parroting what the scientific community is saying.  Nothing more.  

 

Your story doesn't even prove your point you just used a different expert.  And that's anecdotal- not that I expect you to comprehend that.  Just because your procedure went well, I assume,  doesn't mean statistically it was your best option. 

 

Finally, I never said I was an expert.   I said I trust experts because they've done research.   Their research is then reviewed by other experts in their field.  You know where the research is showing climate change is a hoax?  Nowhere it does not exist.   And before you verbally vomit more word salad about money or their funding think about how much big oil would give to a real study showing climate change is not a problem.  Probably a little bit right?

[Tommy Callahan]

 

[Orlando Tim]

7 hours ago, L Ron Burgundy said:

Who cares if Greta is saying it???  It makes zero difference it's not her research!  She's parroting what the scientific community is saying.  Nothing more.  

 

Your story doesn't even prove your point you just used a different expert.  And that's anecdotal- not that I expect you to comprehend that.  Just because your procedure went well, I assume,  doesn't mean statistically it was your best option. 

 

Finally, I never said I was an expert.   I said I trust experts because they've done research.   Their research is then reviewed by other experts in their field.  You know where the research is showing climate change is a hoax?  Nowhere it does not exist.   And before you verbally vomit more word salad about money or their funding think about how much big oil would give to a real study showing climate change is not a problem.  Probably a little bit right?

I am curious what you mean by expert? What makes someone an expert at global warming? Also which predictions from 20 years ago has been correct?

 

You and Kay keep acting like there is no evidence to the contrary because the facts don't agree with your beliefs. 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2217286/amp/Global-warming-stopped-16-years-ago-reveals-Met-Office-report-quietly-released--chart-prove-it.html

 

The information is out there, you just to read it yourself, not have someone tell you what it says.

 

 

[Precision]

This was the prediction for snow 24 hours in advance of the "storm" on Tuesday.  We should have received 5"-9" based on our location but did not get a single flake!  I was outside Tuesday working on the tractor in preparation for the storm and all we had were cloudy skies.

 

I hope these aren't the same satellites and computer simulations they are using for their climate change models.   

 

Embarrassing that they were so inaccurate a mere 24 hours in advance!

 

 

[All_Pro_Bills]

7 minutes ago, Precision said:

This was the prediction for snow 24 hours in advance of the "storm" on Tuesday.  We should have received 5"-9" based on our location but did not get a single flake!  I was outside Tuesday working on the tractor in preparation for the storm and all we had were cloudy skies.

 

I hope these aren't the same satellites and computer simulations they are using for their climate change models.   

 

Embarrassing that they were so inaccurate a mere 24 hours in advance!

 

 

Trust them.  And don't worry.  Even though they can't predict the localized impact of a storm 24 hours in advance they are more than capable of predicting the climate of the entire planet 5 to 100 years in the future. 

 

Their predictions are as good as mine.  2030 season Dolphins at Bills. Bills 30, Dolphins 13.  Count on it!   

 

 

[ComradeKayAdams]

On 2/14/2024 at 1:31 PM, Orlando Tim said:

Global warming alarmist are some of the dumbest people on the planet, they believe that the earth has had the hottest and coldest weather in the planets history all within 150 years of each other and within 3 degrees of each other. https://mashable.com/article/climate-change-cold-records-rare

 

<< Patrick Stewart facepalm meme >>

 

Ugh…this sub-forum…I swear…

 

Your Mark Kaufman article made NO SUCH CLAIM regarding the planet’s entire climate history! The domain of inquiry was only restricted to the most recent 150 years since the advent of the Industrial Revolution. The coldest recorded years are clustered around the beginning of the time domain, while the hottest recorded years are clustered around the end of the time domain. If the planet wasn’t systematically warming, we might expect a more even and random distribution.

 

On 2/15/2024 at 7:06 AM, Orlando Tim said:

I am curious what you mean by expert? What makes someone an expert at global warming? Also which predictions from 20 years ago has been correct?

 

You and Kay keep acting like there is no evidence to the contrary because the facts don't agree with your beliefs. 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2217286/amp/Global-warming-stopped-16-years-ago-reveals-Met-Office-report-quietly-released--chart-prove-it.html

 

The information is out there, you just to read it yourself, not have someone tell you what it says.

 

Your Daily Mail article (LOL…) is 12 years old. I see how conveniently omitting data from the most recent decade helps further your flimsy narrative. When we seek out the facts for ourselves, as you insisted, we find that global annual mean surface temperatures have risen 0.63 degrees Celsius between 1880 and 1997, another 0.19 degrees Celsius between 1997 and 2012, and then a whopping 0.52 degrees Celsius between 2012 and last year.

 

So things seem “relatively” more stable between 1997 and 2012 when you zoom into the scatterplot of temperature versus time, but then you can see the obvious positive correlation and a steep imaginary regression line when you zoom out between 1880 and last year. Statistical thermodynamic variation can explain the localized scatterplot bumps, but so far only an increase in atmospheric greenhouse gases is scientifically able to explain the underlying regression line pattern that we see.

 

On 2/14/2024 at 11:31 PM, L Ron Burgundy said:

You know where the research is showing climate change is a hoax?  Nowhere it does not exist.

 

What’s so amusing, L Ron, is that there ARE peer-reviewed scientific research papers challenging anthropogenic climate change! Right-wing denialists are simply too lazy to seek them out in the more obscure science journals. The papers tend to be poorly cited, however, and most have already been debunked. Occasionally you’ll still see a tired conspiracy claim (urban heat islands, underwater volcanoes, etc.) that was derived from one of these papers and which makes a recycled return to various right-wing arenas of dastardly, dullardly, denialist discourse (such as this sub-forum!).

 

Another amusing observation to me is the manner in which climate conspiracists believe actual science is performed. It’s practically impossible for blatantly poor/falsified science to persist in an international science community for multiple decades. You can have slowed scientific progress from groupthink, of course, but not nearly to the extent that the conspiracists postulate. What also greatly complicates the right-wing climate conspiracy is the fact that the global community of civil engineers and naval military personnel, among many other occupations, depend heavily on accurate climate data and climate forecasting to do their jobs.

 

I also want to address climate modeling because I’m seeing a lot of misinformed opinions on them here. Since I’m running out of time this morning, I’ll have to be super brief:

 

1. Climate modeling validity: computational science has become ubiquitous throughout all STEM fields (and other fields too). It’s just another tool, like statistics or math or any type of scientific diagnostic equipment. Any subject that deals with physics and differential equations and things like feedback control systems (i.e., like climatology) is probably going to make heavy use of this tool. Science experimentalists and science theorists alike use computer modeling. Probably the most famous example of computer modeling success: particle physics phenomenologists using it to help predict and discover new fundamental particles in accelerators.

 

2. Climate model accuracy: Dr. Gavin Schmidt of NASA GISS is a great first read on this issue, certainly better than any random pro football message board political sub-forum user.

 

3. Difference between weather modeling and climate modeling: this is actually a very good question raised from the skeptical crowd! It’s nearly possible to explain properly without multiple paragraphs, but I can say that one big reason why climate modeling has better potential for accuracy than weather modeling is due to the differences in objectives. The former must only worry about thermodynamic state averages, while the latter demands a comparatively high degree of temporally dependent thermodynamic precision despite the inherently chaotic nature of statistical mechanics and fluid mechanics. Another big reason is the large discrepancy between the number of restraining boundary conditions/initial value conditions available for application to each respective model’s governing set of equations. There are also major differences in the input variables, the characterizing physics equations, data sizes, etc… Ugh…is this paragraph making sense to anyone?? Meh…eff it. Hit “submit,” Kay, aaaaand...she’s out.

[B-Man]

 

 

Yeah. . . . . . . . . . oops.

 

 

 

[Orlando Tim]

5 hours ago, ComradeKayAdams said:

 

<< Patrick Stewart facepalm meme >>

 

Ugh…this sub-forum…I swear…

 

Your Mark Kaufman article made NO SUCH CLAIM regarding the planet’s entire climate history! The domain of inquiry was only restricted to the most recent 150 years since the advent of the Industrial Revolution. The coldest recorded years are clustered around the beginning of the time domain, while the hottest recorded years are clustered around the end of the time domain. If the planet wasn’t systematically warming, we might expect a more even and random distribution.

 

 

Your Daily Mail article (LOL…) is 12 years old. I see how conveniently omitting data from the most recent decade helps further your flimsy narrative. When we seek out the facts for ourselves, as you insisted, we find that global annual mean surface temperatures have risen 0.63 degrees Celsius between 1880 and 1997, another 0.19 degrees Celsius between 1997 and 2012, and then a whopping 0.52 degrees Celsius between 2012 and last year.

 

So things seem “relatively” more stable between 1997 and 2012 when you zoom into the scatterplot of temperature versus time, but then you can see the obvious positive correlation and a steep imaginary regression line when you zoom out between 1880 and last year. Statistical thermodynamic variation can explain the localized scatterplot bumps, but so far only an increase in atmospheric greenhouse gases is scientifically able to explain the underlying regression line pattern that we see.

 

 

What’s so amusing, L Ron, is that there ARE peer-reviewed scientific research papers challenging anthropogenic climate change! Right-wing denialists are simply too lazy to seek them out in the more obscure science journals. The papers tend to be poorly cited, however, and most have already been debunked. Occasionally you’ll still see a tired conspiracy claim (urban heat islands, underwater volcanoes, etc.) that was derived from one of these papers and which makes a recycled return to various right-wing arenas of dastardly, dullardly, denialist discourse (such as this sub-forum!).

 

Another amusing observation to me is the manner in which climate conspiracists believe actual science is performed. It’s practically impossible for blatantly poor/falsified science to persist in an international science community for multiple decades. You can have slowed scientific progress from groupthink, of course, but not nearly to the extent that the conspiracists postulate. What also greatly complicates the right-wing climate conspiracy is the fact that the global community of civil engineers and naval military personnel, among many other occupations, depend heavily on accurate climate data and climate forecasting to do their jobs.

 

I also want to address climate modeling because I’m seeing a lot of misinformed opinions on them here. Since I’m running out of time this morning, I’ll have to be super brief:

 

1. Climate modeling validity: computational science has become ubiquitous throughout all STEM fields (and other fields too). It’s just another tool, like statistics or math or any type of scientific diagnostic equipment. Any subject that deals with physics and differential equations and things like feedback control systems (i.e., like climatology) is probably going to make heavy use of this tool. Science experimentalists and science theorists alike use computer modeling. Probably the most famous example of computer modeling success: particle physics phenomenologists using it to help predict and discover new fundamental particles in accelerators.

 

2. Climate model accuracy: Dr. Gavin Schmidt of NASA GISS is a great first read on this issue, certainly better than any random pro football message board political sub-forum user.

 

3. Difference between weather modeling and climate modeling: this is actually a very good question raised from the skeptical crowd! It’s nearly possible to explain properly without multiple paragraphs, but I can say that one big reason why climate modeling has better potential for accuracy than weather modeling is due to the differences in objectives. The former must only worry about thermodynamic state averages, while the latter demands a comparatively high degree of temporally dependent thermodynamic precision despite the inherently chaotic nature of statistical mechanics and fluid mechanics. Another big reason is the large discrepancy between the number of restraining boundary conditions/initial value conditions available for application to each respective model’s governing set of equations. There are also major differences in the input variables, the characterizing physics equations, data sizes, etc… Ugh…is this paragraph making sense to anyone?? Meh…eff it. Hit “submit,” Kay, aaaaand...she’s out.

Kay the Mashable article is used to point out that precise data collection for a large swath of planet is a recent phenomenon. No precise data is available for the vast majority of the world until the past few centuries. In that time frame we are arguing 2 degrees as if that is not in the normal change in temperatures on the planet over a yearly basis, even the data from 1920 is questionable in how it was collected. But you hit on a good point with climate vs weather. Next year I know Josh will score 45-50 TDs, that is the climate vs weather which is game to game and quarter by quarter. 

[ComradeKayAdams]

On 2/16/2024 at 3:21 PM, Orlando Tim said:

Kay the Mashable article is used to point out that precise data collection for a large swath of planet is a recent phenomenon. No precise data is available for the vast majority of the world until the past few centuries. In that time frame we are arguing 2 degrees as if that is not in the normal change in temperatures on the planet over a yearly basis, even the data from 1920 is questionable in how it was collected. But you hit on a good point with climate vs weather. Next year I know Josh will score 45-50 TDs, that is the climate vs weather which is game to game and quarter by quarter. 

 

Your data precision demands are nonsensical. We do lose temporal resolution and eventually all sense of WEATHER as we continue looking back in time, but we still have enough detail of the global CLIMATE to see all its pertinent trends. What happens is that many different sources of climate evidence (ice core air bubbles, tree rings, oceanic/terrestrial sediments, coral reefs, sea sponges, glacial isotope ratios, isotope ratios in flora/fauna/microorganism fossils, etc.) obtained from many different locations on the earth converge and overlap to tell approximately the same climate story. This data congruence is what gives climatologists their confidence. New data continues coming in and continues refining the records, but so far the holistic climate paradigm has yet to be even remotely perturbed…let alone overturned.

 

I still can’t tell from your posts if you properly understand the difference between weather and climate?? Think back to that scatterplot of temperature (vertical axis, in degrees Celsius) versus time (horizontal axis, in years). Each dot represents an annual global mean surface temperature (simply constructed like this: take one location, average its temperature over every day and night of every season in a year, do the same for many other evenly distributed locations across the earth, and then find the average of all these averages). Think of this dot as a global WEATHER average for each year.

 

So the dot-to-dot connecting lines represent the changing WEATHER, while the scatterplot’s nonlinear regression line fit is the changing CLIMATE. The maxes and mins of the weather oscillations can be severe and can be completely natural in origin (solar activity variation, wildfires, volcanoes, ocean current variation, etc.). We mostly care about the trajectory of the nonlinear regression line (representing earth’s input/output energy balance), which changes comparatively slower. Some of the pre-Industrial Revolution sources of climate evidence that I listed above can also provide seasonal weather data, but aside from interesting max/min results, it’s each of their climate regression lines we care most about because these are modeling the trapped energy from the sun. And as they say: if all these regression lines fit, you must not quit (climate science)!!

 

While we’re thinking graphically…think about another important scatterplot: carbon dioxide (vertical axis, in ppm…parts-per-million) versus time (horizontal axis, in years). Thanks to all those ice core air bubbles, we have really good data that goes back 750k+ years. We see nothing above 300 ppm in the entirety of the previous 750k years, ~280 ppm in 1750, then a crossing of 350 ppm in the late 1980’s, and a crossing of 420 ppm last year. So that’s a very sudden and steep incline in this plot to match the sudden and steep incline of the regression line in the aforementioned temperature plot.

 

When you overlay these data plots that can go back hundreds of thousands of years, you see temperature lagging slightly behind carbon dioxide emission in an apparent correlated relationship. Based on our knowledge of greenhouse gases (known since the mid-1800’s), it makes sense that this relationship is causal and behaviorally representative of a positive climate feedback loop. But if you have any different explanation of the most recent spikes in these plots, please let us know! L Ron, Tibsy, and I met in a dark smoke-filled room and decided to relax the standard of a peer-reviewed scientific research paper. Just give us ONE idea of what’s happening in these plots that is not an anthropogenic explanation. If you don’t have a persuasive theory of your own, then don’t blame us if we choose to stick with the scientific consensus.

[Precision]

Climate Action 100+ lost key members last week, more to likely follow.  

 

BlackRock, JPMorgan Chase and State Street are quitting or scaling back their ties to an influential global investment coalition

"Climate hawks have long questioned the financial industry’s commitment to sustainable investing. But few foresaw JPMorgan Chase and State Street quitting Climate Action 100+, a global investment coalition that has been pushing companies to decarbonize. Meanwhile, BlackRock, the world’s biggest asset manager, scaled back its ties to the group.

All told, the moves amount to a nearly $14 trillion exit from an organization meant to marshal Wall Street’s clout to expand the climate agenda."

 

Bond manager PIMCO withdraws from Climate Action 100+ investor coalition

 

 

[BillStime]

18 minutes ago, Precision said:

Climate Action 100+ lost key members last week, more to likely follow.  

 

BlackRock, JPMorgan Chase and State Street are quitting or scaling back their ties to an influential global investment coalition

"Climate hawks have long questioned the financial industry’s commitment to sustainable investing. But few foresaw JPMorgan Chase and State Street quitting Climate Action 100+, a global investment coalition that has been pushing companies to decarbonize. Meanwhile, BlackRock, the world’s biggest asset manager, scaled back its ties to the group.

All told, the moves amount to a nearly $14 trillion exit from an organization meant to marshal Wall Street’s clout to expand the climate agenda."

 

Bond manager PIMCO withdraws from Climate Action 100+ investor coalition

 

 

Financial firms have faced growing pressure from Republican politicians over their membership of such groups, amid accusations that committing to shared action could be a breach of antitrust law or fiduciary duty.

[Precision]

I guess Toyota was right to focus on hybrid's over EV's.  I know some here will be shocked, ha ha ha.

 

Biden's lofty EV requirements might not survive the election year

• EPA's aggressive EV requirements are likely to ease up, according to reports.
• Automakers wouldn't have to reach 60% EV production by 2030 under revised rules.
• EV demand has softened significantly in the past six months.

The automotive industry was once split on the path forward for electric vehicles, with one camp seeking to skip plug-in hybrids and focus solely on pure electrics while the other focused on hybrids as a near-term technology bridge with more EVs down the road.

The EPA's revised requirements would support the hybrid approach, which is gaining momentum after a recent move from GM to bring hybrids to North America.

[Tommy Callahan]

2 minutes ago, Precision said:

• EPA's aggressive EV requirements are likely to ease up, according to reports.
• Automakers wouldn't have to reach 60% EV production by 2030 under revised rules.
• EV demand has softened significantly in the past six months.

Reads like the state mandating the means of production for the auto industry.  

 

[All_Pro_Bills]

On 2/18/2024 at 7:25 PM, BillStime said:

Financial firms have faced growing pressure from Republican politicians over their membership of such groups, amid accusations that committing to shared action could be a breach of antitrust law or fiduciary duty.

The simple truth is many firms have decided such a focus just isn't in the best interests of their business, employees, investors, and clients. 

[BillStime]

1 hour ago, All_Pro_Bills said:

The simple truth is many firms have decided such a focus just isn't in the best interests of their business, employees, investors, and clients. 

Hoax

[US Egg]

 

[Doc]

18 minutes ago, US Egg said:

 

 

Carbon off-sets, yo...

[Tommy Callahan]

 

[B-Man]

 

 

 

GREAT MOMENTS IN PRIORITIES:

 

 

 

 

 

Funny, I don’t recall reading about FDR, Truman, or their cabinet heads decrying the pollution output of the Nazis or imperial Japan during WWII, which I suppose shows just how blinkered their administrations’ focus was back then.

[B-Man]

 

 

Spread the Word: ‘Climate: The Movie’ Out Today Online for Free and It’s Terrific. 

 

“The film explores the nature of the consensus behind climate change. It describes the origins of the climate funding bandwagon, and the rise of the trillion-dollar climate industry. It describes the hundreds of thousands of jobs that depend on the climate crisis. It explains the enormous pressure on scientists and others not to question the climate alarm: the withdrawal of funds, rejection by science journals, social ostracism.”

 

https://hotair.com/tree-hugging-sister/2024/03/21/spread-the-word-climate-the-movie-out-today-online-for-free-and-its-terrific-n3785115

 

 

 

.

[BillsFanNC]

 

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

40 minutes ago, B-Man said:

 

 

Spread the Word: ‘Climate: The Movie’ Out Today Online for Free and It’s Terrific. 

 

“The film explores the nature of the consensus behind climate change. It describes the origins of the climate funding bandwagon, and the rise of the trillion-dollar climate industry. It describes the hundreds of thousands of jobs that depend on the climate crisis. It explains the enormous pressure on scientists and others not to question the climate alarm: the withdrawal of funds, rejection by science journals, social ostracism.”

 

https://hotair.com/tree-hugging-sister/2024/03/21/spread-the-word-climate-the-movie-out-today-online-for-free-and-its-terrific-n3785115

Cast:

 

@Irv as the irrepressible climate change denier who's signature phrase "What a hot mess!" is sure to resonate with audiences old and young;

@ComradeKayAdams as the passionately verbose climate warrior with a gritty can-do attitude and an abiding affection for Greta Thornberg, known only in the movie as "She who steals joy from the world";

@Tiberius as the object of Kay's affection, a tall homely lad with a crooked smile, lazy eye, and a man who knows so little about so much;

@muppy as "The Lady in the Black Dress", intrepid journalist international swimsuit model posing as a hostess at the hottest vegan restaurant/house of ill repute in Paris;

@The Frankish Reich as chief climate litigator on a path to save the planet, a long-winded yet genteel country lawyer producing enough carbon dioxide to kill three small villages in the Amazon every other day 

 

@B-Man man at bar;

 

 

 

 

 

 

@leh-nerd skin-erd, your faithful narrator

 

[muppy]

fast forward to the one minute mark. this is your girl le muppe' in her snazzy black fringe dress homey. You likey? lmao DI-VINE hermano  but VERY classy 😉

 

 @leh-nerd skin-erd

Edited March 22 by muppy

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

2 minutes ago, muppy said:

fast forward to the one minute mark. this is your girl le muppe' in her snazzy black fringe dress homey. You likey? lmao DI-VINE hermano  but VERY classy 😉

 

 

That dress would be appropriate in Pennsylvania Dutch country, I've got you in Paris.  I'm moving product here. 

[muppy]

10 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

That dress would be appropriate in Pennsylvania Dutch country, I've got you in Paris.  I'm moving product here. 

TAKE IT BACK. He KNOWS he can provoke me to Popeye .....I will throw down for le muppe' ON GARDE lmao

 

 

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

4 minutes ago, muppy said:

TAKE IT BACK. He KNOWS he can provoke me to Popeye .....I will throw down for le muppe' ON GARDE lmao

 

 

I cannot.  It's 2024 and Annie Lennox is dressed like she's going to a Mennonite barn raisin' in that video.  It was appropriate for the time, but time's change Mup.  If you wish to be recast as "PTA Mom at San Diego Yacht Club's annual Cotillion" I can do it, but people don't buy the steak, they buy the sizzle.