Well, yes, we really ought to listen to the balance of the science

We have carbon tax, the greens don’t shut up. Perhaps we must listen to more than one kind of economist?

Oh, and as required to note, man-made CO2-caused climate catastrophe is bunk. How do I know? Because we are not allowed to debate it.

The algorithm section is too loud.

A trace gas (0.0415% of the atmosphere) which in the history of the world has coincided, in greater amounts than currently, with both warmer (never hot) and freezing (ice ages are seriously cold) periods is OBVIOUSLY not controlling the climate. There are far better candidates.

Therefore our small contribution to the current increase in CO2 in the atmosphere is irrelevant. There is no crisis, there is is no crisis caused by Man’s activity and everything we do to minimise our CO2 output hurts us. That is why China is building HUNDREDS of new coal plants. Geddit? All climate green stuff is baloney. Dirt is shitty (clean up the environment)and we should be careful to incinerate plastic once used to make energy.

Meanwhile, COAL FOR AFRICA (creativity in Africa can be stunning and it is time to make sure they have the basics for self-development), no money for renewables (they stand or fall by themselves), electric cars for the poseurs if they are willing to pay (no grants), frack like crazy for gas and oil and develop small nuclear.

I’m cheap as energy ministers go, if you want me, and I have no Princess Nut-Nut hanging on. My squeeze is ok with my craziness (although she would not forgive the term ‘squeeze’).

Hang in there Tom. We still want those petroleum products for a long time yet. A little extra on the cost, and getting rid of subsidies to burn the stuff is cool with me. Can’t believe in the UK we paid people to burn wood in empty barns for no reason.

Publish the data and all assumptions, let others validate it. At that point we’ll start listening.

Once the thought that GT was on puberty blockers to keep up the innocent schoolgirl shtick entered my mind I couldn’t get rid of it.

If you listened to public health experts before corona, the biggest health risks were smoking, drinking and eating too much. And if you looked at what they actually did, a global pandemic was not one of their priorities. I think the science is clear, the experts duffed it.

Lockdown slashed CO₂ emissions. Temperatures did not follow suit. The Science is wrong.

How dare you! That’s because the wrong sort of CO₂ emissions were cut. Real climate change action has never been tried yet.

Andrew M

I believe you, but got a reference to some credible measurements?

To cheer yourself up, go look at the Mauna Loa CO2 measurements this year. These measurements are offered up by some as the gold standard of real measurements of the actual CO2 content of the atmosphere, so accurate and with such precision you can see the effect of the passage of the seasons, year after year; and the measurments aren’t downstream from some coal-fired power station, so they’re pure, baby, pure.

No observable difference in the Q2 measurements, nor indeed at all.

Their commentary is a little bizarre. If I understand it correctly, man made CO2 is such a small part of overall CO2 that seeing the expected overall 8% reduction this year is kinda hard and sorta buried in the noise. This makes no sense to me whatsoever. They’ve got ppm numbers for December this year and December last year, and oh horrors the level is increasing.

My guess is that this will disappear from the Greenastrophe List o’Science Facts within the year.

Also, it’s on a volcano, so it’s probably measuring local seepage 🙂

Bloke in Tejas,

BBC reports a Copernicus (EU) study saying that global CO₂ emissions are on track to fall 7% in 2020. The IEA (Int’l Energy Agency) also claims 6-7%. That seems plausible, as air travel has fallen off a cliff.

On the other side of the equation, 2020 is on course to be either the hottest or joint-hottest (along with 2016) according to NASA, NOAA, WMO, Met Office, and all the usual reputable sources.

One might argue that there’s a lag between CO₂ and temperature; or that CO₂ levels are so high that temperatures can be expected to rise anyway, just at a slower rate. Both of those are plausible; but each chips away at the credibility of the overall science. The latter argument in particular, if true, means we have an impossible task ahead (we can’t realistically reduce CO₂ emissions that far); so it will be interesting to see how the greenies respond to it. (In practice they won’t debate that many steps ahead.)

Another greenie article of faith exposed thanks to lockdowns – diesel pollution didn’t drop during lockdown’s either:

Once again we find in Germany another article reporting how pollution from diesel cars has been massively over-hyped. Despite a massive reduction in car traffic due to the COVID-19 lock down, nitrogen oxide levels still remain high, reports German weekly FOCUS here. The air is no cleaner than before the lock down.

This virtually disproves the basis of the diesel bans that environmentalists have been hotly pursuing across over the recent months. The diesel engine, they told us, was the primary source of fine particle pollution in German cities and that it was high time to ban them. This prompted activist city administrations to plan action against cars in cities. Diesel emissions, they said, were causing millions to die prematurely.

The science, they claimed, told us there was no choice. COVID-19 has since exposed that claim to be fake.

Still pushing that illusion, Tim?

Real [carbon tax] has never been tried yet.

@Bloke InTejas, they counter the fact that Mauna Loa is a volcano by taking the CO2 samples at certain times of the day when the prevailing wind is from the ocean which is mainly during the day. They do various other stuff too.

https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/about/co2_measurements.html