Parking place for my climatology posts

@DogMan the denialism comes from fear

@Ohplease47 You mean denial of looking at both sides of the science? Should we silence
scientists around the world that have different findings? Oh wait, you already do, never mind.

@DogMan Why do you choose to listen only to the 2.9% of climate researchers and ignore the 97.1%???

J. Cook, et al, "Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature," Environmental Research Letters Vol. 8 No. 2, (15 May 2013); DOI:10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024
studies all 11,944 peer reviewed climatology abstracts from from 1991–2011.
"Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming."

By the way,
The 50,000+ members of the American Physical Society STRONGLY support greenhouse gas reduction.
https://www.aps.org/policy/statements/15_3.cfm
The 173,000+ members of the American Chemical Society
STRONGLY support greenhouse gas reduction.
https://www.acs.org/content/dam/acsorg/policy/publicpolicies/sustainability/globalclimatechange/climate-change.pdf
The 120,000+ members of American Association for the Advancement of Science STRONGLY support greenhouse gas reduction.
https://www.aaas.org/resources/aaas-reaffirms-statement-climate-change

Those three scientific societies are NOT alone. They are joined by the American Geophysical Union, the American Meteorological Society, the The Geological Society of America, and the U.S. National Academy of Sciences among others. https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

Why do you, @DogMan choose to ignore these learned societies???

@ElwoodBlues So what would you like to see happen that we are not already doing?

@ElwoodBlues Come on Elwood, what should we do differently? It sounds like many
on the left want all petroleum products outlawed.

Would that save the planet? Or kill millions? Or should we just SPEND MORE on climate
change? Maybe spend everything we have?

Maybe lefties should first show us how to get by without petroleum. How about every lefty
swears off petro products, and everything made with petro, for 1 year, and see how that goes.

That will never happen because all you really want to do is complain about global warming.

You will never, EVER, do anything about it.

DUUUDE!!! So impatient!!!

@DogMan says Can you link to a single scientist or politician saying that?? No, you can't. Nice attempt at a straw man. If we reduce our CO2 output to two metric tons per person on Earth, that'll be enough.

Actually, we've already substantially reduced our CO2 emissions by substituting green energy sources. Too bad tRump is making war on green energy!

Europe is doing even better; the horizontal axis here runs 1965 to 2025

Climate predictions in the 1990s were based on the exponential growth you see in the left hand side of these curves. Far from doing "nothing," we've gotten off the exponential curve and even reduced output. Climate predictions in the 1990s foresaw a climate "tipping point." We've already pushed that tipping point decades into the future.

@ElwoodBlues How is Trump making war on clean energy?

@DogMan Aren't you going to thank me for taking the time to prove you wrong and demonstrate what progress has been made against CO2 in the past few decades??

In brief

Also see https://fortune.com/2025/08/22/trump-war-clean-energy-fossil-fuels-prices/
https://seia.org/blog/anti-solar-actions-are-restricting-energy-supply-right-when-the-grid-can-least-afford-it/
https://washingtonmonthly.com/2025/06/30/trump-war-on-renewable-energy/

@ElwoodBlues Thank you, so it seems that we have been doing a good job, right?

I know we are doing good things, thank you for providing that info.

This is why I believe that the government DOES NOT need a Green New Deal that will suck trillions
from our coffers, since most will be in the form of fraud and corruption.

Once we root out the extreme fraud and corruption currently happening around the country,
we will better be able to use our tax dollars wisely.

@DogMan The phrase "green new deal" was never defined; instead it is used as a boogeyman by the right-wing.

tRump is halting and reversing the good things we are doing; interfering with construction of solar and especially wind power sources.

Are we on track to two metric tons of CO2 emitted per person per year? I don't think so, not yet.

Oh, I forgot to mention EV charging infrastructure, part of Biden's infrastructure law.


There have been gov't subsidies for the fossil fuel business for decades; EVs deserve equivalent subsidies.

@ElwoodBlues The Green New Deal (GND) calls for public policy to address climate change, along with achieving other social aims like job creation, economic growth, and reducing economic inequality.

A prominent 2019 attempt to get legislation passed for a Green New Deal was sponsored by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) and Sen. Ed Markey (D-MA) during the 116th United States Congress,


Is AOC a rightwing boogeyman?

@DogMan OK, I stand corrected; I should have said that specifics "green new deal" were never defined.

But gosh, when you put it that way, it sounds like win-win-win all around! Aren't those goals vastly preferable to continuing fossil fuel subsidies?

She is used that way, for sure! She & Markey introduced resolutions, not a specific overall bill with specific spending.

@ElwoodBlues Do you think EV's are saving the planet?

@DogMan I think EVs do far less harm than gasoline vehicles; get us closer to two tons CO2. And I have lots of graphs and articles to support that view.