1/26》Cornel West @CornelWest, abundant, affordable energy from fossil fuels has been lifting people out of poverty for >200 years, but the Climate Industry is reversing that progress. Do you care how many people suffer to promote the climate scam? sealevel.info/learnmore.html
2/26》There's no consensus among scientists that manmade climate change is dangerous, nor even that it is harmful at all. The best SCIENTIFIC evidence is that manmade climate change is modest & benign, and CO2 emissions are beneficial, rather than harmful.
3/26》Do you care how many people die due to energy poverty, to make climate scammers rich?
This story is from the UK, but it's also happening here. Replacing clean, reliable, affordable fossil fuels with hideously expensive wind & solar KILLS poor people independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-n…
4/26》There is no "climate emergency." When climate activists survey scientists about their opinions on climate change, they ask only whether it's "real," not whether it's harmful — because if they asked THAT then their surveys wouldn’t show a consensus. quora.com/Did-30-000-sci…
@CornelWest 5/26》Scientists call warm climate periods, including periods warmer than now, "climate optimums." That's because scientists & historians know warmer climates are objectively better than cold climates.
@CornelWest 6/26》Have you noticed how little fur you have on your body? Humans are a tropical species, and most of the Earth is much too cold. Studies show that even in tropical countries cold kills far more people than heat does.
7/26》Have you ever had to choose between food & heat? High energy prices to prop up "renewable" energy scams are far more deadly than any plausible hypothetical consequence of anthropogenic climate change.
8/26》The global climate industry is around US$2 trillion per year.
The global oil market is also around US$2 trillion per year.
The difference is that the oil industry produces needed products that improve lives, and the climate industry produces poverty.
@CornelWest 9/26》The scientific evidence is compelling that manmade #ClimateChange is modest and benign, CO2 emissions are beneficial rather than harmful, and the "social cost of carbon" is negative.
10/26》Contrary to climate industry propaganda, none of the supposed major harms of carbon emissions are actually happening. They are all merely hypothetical, and mostly implausible.
Sea-level trends have been virtually unchanged for 90+ years.
@CornelWest 11/26》Extreme weather is not worsening.
The first type of extreme weather most people think of is hurricanes and typhoons. They're not worsening. Nor are extratropical storms. sealevel.info/learnmore.html…
@CornelWest 12/26》Tornadoes are a big problem in the United States, but they are not worsening, either. sealevel.info/learnmore.html…
@CornelWest 13/26》Polar bears and coral reefs are doing fine.
In fact, the scientific data shows elevated CO2 (eCO2) is very beneficial for natural ecosystems. polarbearscience.com
14/26》Droughts are not worsening, and elevated CO2 levels mitigate drought impacts, by making plants more water efficient and drought resistant.
Elevated CO2 (eCO2) helps plants use water more efficiently, by improving CO2 stomatal conductance relative to transpiration. It's especially helpful in arid regions & during drought. Here's a paper about corn: sealevel.info/learnmore.html…
@CornelWest 15/26》Fires are not worsening, either:
Scientific organizations like the CO2 Coalition @CO2Coalition, and many top scientists, refute the climate industry propaganda blaming fires on manmade climate change. sealevel.info/learnmore.html… co2coalition.org
16/26》ALL important effects of CO2 emissions are positive. In fact, improved crop yields from CO2 Fertilization & drought impact mitigation from higher CO2 levels, have helped eliminate major drought-triggered famines for the first time in human history! sealevel.info/learnmore.html…
17/26》Agronomists have done thousands of rigorous studies, measuring the benefits of elevated CO2 for agriculture. It's long-settled science: eCO2 is beneficial for ALL major crops. It's one of the most important reasons that famines have become rare. sealevel.info/learnmore.html…
18/26》It's impossible to overstate the importance of that blessing.
Compare:
● Covid-19 has killed about 0.1% of world population, so far
● The 1918 flu killed ≈2%
● WWII killed ≈2.7%
● The global drought & famine of 1876-78 killed an estimated 3.7% of world population
@CornelWest @CO2Coalition 19/26》Elevated CO2 is also very beneficial for natural ecosystems. By improving crop yields eCO2 releases land from agriculture, for natural forests.
It also benefits wild plants directly. In fact, it's "greening" the Earth, especially in arid regions! sealevel.info/learnmore.html…
20/26》This video about it is from NASA:
🟢It is ironic and sad that "Green Party" politicians are campaigning to make the Earth less green.🟢
@CornelWest @CO2Coalition 21/26》The Sahel (southern Sahara) is benefiting tremendously from rising CO2 levels.
@CornelWest @CO2Coalition 22/26》In 2009 @NatGeo reported, "Vast swaths of North Africa are getting noticeably lusher due to warming temperatures, new satellite images show, suggesting a possible boon for people living in the driest part of the continent." sealevel.info/Owen2009_Sahar…
@CornelWest @CO2Coalition @NatGeo 23/26》The best peer-reviewed science shows that CO2 emissions are beneficial and the "social cost of carbon" is negative. Here are some papers about it. sealevel.info/negative_socia…
@CornelWest @CO2Coalition @NatGeo 24/26》A few scientists have worried that better crop yields from eCO2 could be accompanied by nutrient level reductions (the "dilution effect"). That can happen if soil nutrient levels are low, but it's largely mitigated with agricultural best practices.
25/26》Food grown in greenhouses at 1500 ppmv CO2 is just as nutritious as food grown outdoors at 420 ppmv CO2.
The effects of elevated CO2 have been rigorously tested on all major crops, alone and in combinations with other environmental changes. The results are conclusive: eCO2 is uniformly beneficial.
26/26》To understand a contentious issue like climate change you need balanced information. I'm here to help:
That page has:
● accurate introductory climatology info
● in-depth science from BOTH skeptics & alarmists
● links to balanced debates between experts on BOTH sides
● info about climate impacts
● links to the best blogs on BOTH sides of the issue
The claim that wind and solar energy are less expensive than electricity from dispatchable sources like fossil fuels is false. It's a product of either economic illiteracy or deliberate deception by the renewable energy marketers, because it confuses price with total cost.
You've probably heard the old saying that there's nothing more expensive than a free puppy, except a free boat. Wind and solar energy are like that: it's not their price which makes them costly.
The reason average wind and solar electricity prices are low is they tend to produce power when it is not needed. Power produced when it isn't needed fetches low prices.
But it's the converse which is the big problem with wind and solar: they very often do not produce power when it is needed.
That unreliability causes enormous spikes in electricity prices.
During those price spikes most of the electricity being produced is generated by fossil fuels and nuclear plants. Wind and solar apologists pretend that means electricity from fossil fuels and nuclear plants is expensive. But the real reason for the high prices is replacement of reliable fossil fuel and nuclear plants with unreliable wind and solar.
Exorbitant electricity prices are an inevitable cost of reliance on wind and solar for electricity.
Fossil fuel and nuclear powered electricity generation is said to be "dispatchable," because their electricity production can be ramped up ("dispatched") to meet demand. Wind & solar output cannot be ramped up to meet demand, so increased reliance on wind and solar means increasingly unreliable electricity production. When demand increases and/or the wind dies, reliance on wind and solar causes enormous spikes in the price of electricity — or, in extreme cases, even brownouts and blackouts.
The inevitable consequences of increasing reliance on wind and solar "renewables" are rising electricity prices and worsening grid reliability — and absolutely no environmental benefit.
That's right: the punch line is that it's all for naught. The rationale for the immensely destructive transition to wind and solar is to "fight climate change." But that's a fool's errand, because the "climate crisis" is a marketing ploy. It's not real, it's just "FUD."
The scientific evidence is compelling that manmade climate change is modest and benign, and CO2 emissions are highly beneficial, rather than harmful.
Does that surprise you? If so, it means you're not getting balanced information. But I'm here to help:
That webpage has:
● accurate introductory climatology info
● in-depth science from BOTH skeptics & alarmists
● links to balanced debates between experts on BOTH sides
● info about climate impacts
● links to the best blogs on BOTH sides
@Stephen57908892 Stephen Maloney @Stephen57908892, did you read the article? Did you see WHY Duke Energy is raising our rates?
"closing the final chapters on our reliance on coal-fired generation"
"$3.5 billion investment in clean energy and grid resiliency"
"to achieve our carbon goals"
@Stephen57908892 2/3. Lazard's figures for new nuclear plants are almost entirely speculative. (They're based on only one data point, Vogtle Unit 3!) eia.gov/todayinenergy/…
@Kenneth72712993 @ScienceBlog3 @RichardLWeiss @Anvndarnamn5 @Michael_D_Crow @ammocrypta @Data79504085 @BenKoby1911 @emilio97493490 @InspirallPE @Mark_A_Lunn @ChrisBBacon3 @SpiruSensei @DenisDaly @WernerReinhard5 @controscience @Willard1951 @Fynnderella1 @SapientHetero @Veritatem2021 @C_R_O_M________ @balls95652097 @S_D_Mannix @Devonian1342 @AndreGrossza @Climatehope2 @S_Metzeler @priscian @3GHtweets @PvtMcAuslan @EdwardRiffle @AuroriaEn @JusticeTrudeau @judgementalbe1 @AristotleMrs @Coleski14 @wallytoms0 @LesserMegadeath @BillPrecht @DiseaseMatters @CoralReefFish @DavidJSuggett @CoralResearch @SteinhartBart @CoralMorph @ConnTrinity @reefgenomics 2/8. Note that Wong & Minnett didn't measure IR from CO2, they just mentioned it in passing. For their work they used IR from clouds, instead.
What's more, elsewhere in the paper they cited the IPCC's (too high) 3.7 W/m² (at TOA) per doubling figure. sealevel.info/Wong_and_Minne…
@Kenneth72712993 @ScienceBlog3 @RichardLWeiss @Anvndarnamn5 @Michael_D_Crow @ammocrypta @Data79504085 @BenKoby1911 @emilio97493490 @InspirallPE @Mark_A_Lunn @ChrisBBacon3 @SpiruSensei @DenisDaly @WernerReinhard5 @controscience @Willard1951 @Fynnderella1 @SapientHetero @Veritatem2021 @C_R_O_M________ @balls95652097 @S_D_Mannix @Devonian1342 @AndreGrossza @Climatehope2 @S_Metzeler @priscian @3GHtweets @PvtMcAuslan @EdwardRiffle @AuroriaEn @JusticeTrudeau @judgementalbe1 @AristotleMrs @Coleski14 @wallytoms0 @LesserMegadeath @BillPrecht @DiseaseMatters @CoralReefFish @DavidJSuggett @CoralResearch @SteinhartBart @CoralMorph @ConnTrinity @reefgenomics 3/8. 2.4 W/m² at the surface per doubling of CO2 and 3.8 W/m² at the surface per tripling of CO2 are consistent with van Wijngaarden & Happer's calculation of 3.0 W/m² radiative forcing at the mesopause per doubling of CO2.
@pbsnews @NewsHour @LisaDNews @mattloff @GeoffRBennett @tkconch 2/15》At 1:08 they reported, "He doubled down on climate denial, when asked about devastating wildfires & heatwaves that scientists agree are exacerbated by human activity."
That's false. MANY scientists DON'T "agree" that climate change exacerbates fires co2coalition.org
@pbsnews @NewsHour @LisaDNews @mattloff @GeoffRBennett @tkconch 3/15》Scientific organizations like the CO2 Coalition @CO2Coalition, and many top scientists, dispute the climate industry propaganda blaming fires on manmade climate change. What a shame that @PBSNews / PBS @NewsHour spread such misinformation.
@Whariwharangi @Data79504085 @RichardLWeiss @BenKoby1911 @JezRoff @emilio97493490 @balls95652097 @ScienceBlog3 @Kenneth72712993 @InspirallPE @Nockit1 @ammocrypta @Mark_A_Lunn @ChrisBBacon3 @SpiruSensei @DenisDaly @WernerReinhard5 @controscience @Willard1951 @Michael_D_Crow @Fynnderella1 @SapientHetero @Veritatem2021 @C_R_O_M________ @S_D_Mannix @Devonian1342 @AndreGrossza @Climatehope2 @S_Metzeler @priscian @3GHtweets @Anvndarnamn5 @PvtMcAuslan @EdwardRiffle @AuroriaEn @JusticeTrudeau @judgementalbe1 @AristotleMrs @Coleski14 @wallytoms0 @LesserMegadeath @BillPrecht @DiseaseMatters @DaviesswPhD @CoralReefFish @DavidJSuggett @CoralResearch @SteinhartBart @CoralMorph @ConnTrinity Also, at 49 minutes Valentina Zharkova claimed LW IR wavelenths are so long, "10,000 meters, something, I don't remember exactly" that "the energy produced by this radiation is negligible." The wavelength is actually about 15 µm, and the energy is far from negligible.
@DaleGribble_666 @priscian @ammocrypta @Michael_D_Crow @Data79504085 @BenKoby1911 @emilio97493490 @InspirallPE @ScienceBlog3 @Kenneth72712993 @Nockit1 @Mark_A_Lunn @RichardLWeiss @ChrisBBacon3 @SpiruSensei @DenisDaly @WernerReinhard5 @controscience @Willard1951 @Fynnderella1 @SapientHetero @Veritatem2021 @C_R_O_M________ @balls95652097 @S_D_Mannix @Devonian1342 @AndreGrossza @Climatehope2 @S_Metzeler @3GHtweets @Anvndarnamn5 @PvtMcAuslan @EdwardRiffle @AuroriaEn @JusticeTrudeau @judgementalbe1 @AristotleMrs @Coleski14 @wallytoms0 @LesserMegadeath @BillPrecht @DiseaseMatters @CoralReefFish @DavidJSuggett @CoralResearch @SteinhartBart @CoralMorph @ConnTrinity @reefgenomics …He also taught in ornithology & botany, and served as the Principal Investigator for the Neotropical Migratory Bird Monitoring of Riparian Habitats on the Tahoe National Forest project sponsored by the US Forest Service from 1991 to 2007.
@BenKoby1911 @DenisDaly @Zane1968 @Hji45519156 @SpiruSensei @AndreGrossza @Data79504085 @Willard1951 @ammocrypta @Climatehope2 @AristotleMrs @Anvndarnamn5 @InspirallPE @ChrisBBacon3 @C_R_O_M________ @S_Metzeler @priscian @ScienceBlog3 @3GHtweets @PvtMcAuslan @EdwardRiffle @Veritatem2021 @AuroriaEn @Michael_D_Crow @JusticeTrudeau @Mark_A_Lunn @judgementalbe1 @Coleski14 @wallytoms0 @LesserMegadeath @WernerReinhard5 @S_D_Mannix @JimBlack48 @Jaisans @CarrudoDon @LiveLifeBK24 @TheDisproof @Joeyd87745119 @Devonian1342 @waxliberty @SuperFoxyLoxy @JaapTitulaer @wjack76995 @Rocky35418823 @NobaconEgbert @balls95652097 @NASA Re: "The last interglacial period saw temperatures higher then we are now."
You're referring to the Eemian Interglacial Optimum. I have info on it here
Its peak is believed to have been substantially warmer than even the warmest part of current Holocene. https://t.co/JyRG6GyFxjsealevel.info/glossary.html#…
@BenKoby1911 @DenisDaly @Zane1968 @Hji45519156 @SpiruSensei @AndreGrossza @Data79504085 @Willard1951 @ammocrypta @Climatehope2 @AristotleMrs @Anvndarnamn5 @InspirallPE @ChrisBBacon3 @C_R_O_M________ @S_Metzeler @priscian @ScienceBlog3 @3GHtweets @PvtMcAuslan @EdwardRiffle @Veritatem2021 @AuroriaEn @Michael_D_Crow @JusticeTrudeau @Mark_A_Lunn @judgementalbe1 @Coleski14 @wallytoms0 @LesserMegadeath @WernerReinhard5 @S_D_Mannix @JimBlack48 @Jaisans @CarrudoDon @LiveLifeBK24 @TheDisproof @Joeyd87745119 @Devonian1342 @waxliberty @SuperFoxyLoxy @JaapTitulaer @wjack76995 @Rocky35418823 @NobaconEgbert @balls95652097 @NASA Re: "The fastest warming period in the last 15k years was the younger dryas."
True! The Younger Dryas termination saw warming about an order of magnitude faster than our recent warming.