China and India are still building new coal fired power plants that are +50 year assets. Their carbon emissions are rising not falling and they are the worlds biggest polluters. China is investing heavily in solar and battery tech because the want to dominate those world markets not because they are trying to reduce their emissions. The US has made great progress in lowering carbon emissions due mainly from switching from coal to natural gas (creates half the carbon) as our main electricity fuel.
Global Climate Changes
- Thread starter Beatle Bum
- Start date
Welp. Hockey stick fellar had a bad day. Don't worry too much. NGOs have paid his lawfare from the beginning.
The DC Court that heard the defamation case brought by climate scientist Michael Mann against two bloggers has ruled today that Mann and his lawyers acted in ābad faithā during the case, by presenting false claims on multiple occasions related to Mannās grant funding:
This ruling follows closely on the heels of the same court reducing the punitive damages awarded to Mann against one of the defedents from $1,000,000 to $5,000. That reduction follows the Courtās order that Mann pay $530,820.21 of legal expenses that his lawsuit resulted in for The National Review ā which Mann had also sued, but whose case was dismissed.
Today things went from really bad to a whole lot worse for Dr. Mann.
In todayās ruling the judge pulled no punches, writing of Mann and his two lead lawyers:
They each knowingly made a false statement of fact to the Court and Dr. Mann knowingly participated in the falsehood, endeavoring to make the strongest case possible even if it required using erroneous and misleading information.
All of the background here:
The DC Court that heard the defamation case brought by climate scientist Michael Mann against two bloggers has ruled today that Mann and his lawyers acted in ābad faithā during the case, by presenting false claims on multiple occasions related to Mannās grant funding:
"Here, the Court finds, by clear and convincing evidence, that Dr. Mann, through [his lawyers] Mr. Fontaine and Mr. Williams, acted in bad faith when they presented erroneous evidence and made false representations to the jury and the Court regarding damages stemming from loss of grant funding. . . The Court does not reach this decision lightly."
This ruling follows closely on the heels of the same court reducing the punitive damages awarded to Mann against one of the defedents from $1,000,000 to $5,000. That reduction follows the Courtās order that Mann pay $530,820.21 of legal expenses that his lawsuit resulted in for The National Review ā which Mann had also sued, but whose case was dismissed.
Today things went from really bad to a whole lot worse for Dr. Mann.
In todayās ruling the judge pulled no punches, writing of Mann and his two lead lawyers:
They each knowingly made a false statement of fact to the Court and Dr. Mann knowingly participated in the falsehood, endeavoring to make the strongest case possible even if it required using erroneous and misleading information.
All of the background here:
That's why you always use more data rather than less when more data is available. More co2 doesn't end life. There was actually more life on Earth when we had more co2. All plant life would die at 150ppm co2. How about we just say thanks to the oil industry for saving life on Earth.
Exactly. The law of large numbers is a law for a reason.
Data released on Thursday ā¦
A side benefit from nat gas over coal is it doesn't create sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide which are extremely harmful to the environment and health. Also fly ash disposal is another environmental challenge from coal combustion (I had to deal with this some when I worked at TVA)
The US now produces more power from clean alt energy sources than it does coal which is good news and what can be expected as technology evolves in the energy production sector. Nuc also ready to make a big comback.
Deeeeefense, why don't you post more? The mutants have us outnumbered. The overwhelming opinion on this board, is Trust Big Oil lobbyist opinions of all else.
All of us, regardless of our positions have one thing in common, our opinions are largely a product of where we get our information from.
There are facts and there are agendas, it's up to each person to sort through it all the way they deem appropriate. I share what I think based on what I believe are reliable and truthful sources when I have time, for what it's worth.
I heard the LA wildfires put more co2 into the atmosphere than Cali has saved the last 18 years. LOL. They hurt their citizens and economy to save the planet and their policies backfired spectacularly.
There are a number of articles discussing the situation, but YES, studies show that wildfires are erasing Californiaās climate gains. Here is a piece from UChicago, released on 10/25/22, as an example. There may be more current articles out there ...
"UChicago study finds single year of wildfire emissions is close to double emissions reductions achieved over 16 years."
"Wildfire emissions need to be a key part of climate policy if California is going to meet its emission reduction goals.ā
āAsst. Prof. Amir Jina
Last edited:
Heās a life long cow farmer. Kinda of a biased opinion. No college degrees either.
Methane is the climate change boogeyman associated with cows. It oxidizes into COā and water vapor in about 12 years.
Chinaās investments in renewables has absolutely zero to do with saving the planet. Zero.
In 2024 China built more Coal fired plants than it has in any other year since 2015. This from the very left leaning TCDā¦
https://www.thecooldown.com/green-business/chinese-coal-power-plants-expansion/
They are overtaking us in solar, and hydrogen. Similar to , Australia, Korea, Finland, Norway, Spain, France, Canada
Itās all bullshite. Especially Europe.
Norway has long been considered the āgreenest countryā in Europe because of their āgreenā domestic policies. But they still drillā¦a lot. In fact, their state owned companies drill the mostā¦because the state is who issues the contracts to drill. Norway merely exports their GHG carbon footprint. They are the biggest exporter of fossil fuels in Europe by far. By far. Yet they still get ranked at the top of the list of āgreenā countries. Again, I call bullshite.
1) Norway set up a sovereign wealth fund several years ago called the āPetroleum Fundā which takes money from their state run drilling companies which exports oil & gas and puts it in a fund for Norwegian citizens.
2) They changed the name of the āPetroleum Fundā to the āGovernment Pension Fund Globalā (GPFG) because it sounded better to the Global Warming alarmist movement (which is now the Climate Change alarmist movement). But it still does the exact same things it did when it was called the āPetroleum Fundā.
3) Norwayās GPFG is managed by Norges Bank Investment Management (NBIM).
4) You and your friends keep referring to 2024 as the warmest year ever recorded.
5) In the first half of 2024 alone, NBIM invested in 20 NEW bond issues in the fossil fuel sector.
Does that sound like āplanet savingā policy to you? Then why is Norway still considered the European leader in countries āgoing greenā? You and all of the other alarmists that arenāt profiting have been duped. Itās all about the money. It has absolutely NOTHING to do with saving the planet.
China built the most coal fired plants in the world in 2024. They built more in the first half of 2024 then they did in all of 2022 & 2023 combined.
Countries with the most operational coal fired plants as of July 2024:
1) China 1,161
2) India 285
3) US 204
do you think coal is harmful to our planet? If so, is our planet worth fighting for?
I think China has you duped. China aināt on a planet saving mission, brother. Quite the opposite.
Iām also not the one touting Norway as a leader in āsaving our planetā. That would be you also.
Do you think GHG emissions are harmful to our planet? If so, is our planet worth fighting for?
Norway is a tiny little country with a population of 5.6 million people. Not even a blip on the radar when it comes to energy consumption. So them being close to 100% green domestically doesnāt even register on the global scale. However, Norway exports more than 10 times as much GHG emissions annually than they would emit if they were 100% GHG emissions & zero green energy domestically. Think about that. So if Norway stopped exporting oil & gas completely, stopped all of their green energy production domestically and switched to 100% fossil fuel energy domesticallyā¦then they would lessen their GLOBAL carbon emissions by a factor of 10 each and every year. In other words, they would have to do the above for the next 10 years just to offset last yearās GHG emissions that they exported. So why are you championing them? Donāt you care about the planet???
Now think about the fact that Norwayās Petroleum Fund was set up in the 70ās. Thatās over 50 years of that bullshite and you still havenāt caught on yet. In fact, just in the time frame since Algore first brought up Global Warming in congress, Norway has quadrupled their fossil fuel drilling. QUADRUPLED. Theyāve even doubled it just in the last decade or so right in the middle of the Climate Change alarmist movement.
As far as saving the planet goes does it matter whether Norway burns those fossil fuels domestically or if they export them to other countries? No. Burning fossil fuels is burning fossil fuels no matter if it is domestic or exported. If Norway is the one drilling & extracting then they are responsible for the output. Especially since Norwayās state owned companies are doing the majority of the drilling & extracting. I would argue that exporting them is actually worse. For starters, some of the importers of their oil & gas are far less developed countries. That means that the end product is burned a whole lot less efficiently & cleanly than Norway would do so domestically.
Wake up, brother. Youāve been hoodwinked.
Itās all bullshite. Norwayās green energy policy domestically has ZERO to do with āsaving the planetā. It has a little bit to do with geography and EVERYTHING to do with enriching their citizens & future citizens via their Petroleum Fund. To a tree-hugging, green energy champion like youā¦it should be obvious that Norway is actually killing the planet at an exponentially higher rate than they did BEFORE they went all in on green energy & EVās domestically. That should ALARM you. Instead you parrot the lefty sites that champion Norway as a green energy leader. Why is that? Donāt you think our planet is worth fighting for?
The climate alarmist who praises China! 
The idiocracy (Bill Gates?) wants to experiment with existence. The existential threat is us.
Hadn't seen this around here so I thought I throw it in. Seems like I remember some scientist claiming it's been growing all along a few years back. I have no particular opinion just thought I would share it.
Last time anyone went to go prove it was disappearing, they literally got stuck in all the new ice growth and had to be rescued.
That should've been the end of this nonsense, but with all those forces aligned on the propaganda we're still here.
China is working on a revolutionary space-based solar power station that could generate more energy than all the oil extracted on Earth annually. Unlike Earth-based solar panels, a solar station in geostationary orbit (36,000 km above Earth) would capture sunlight 24/7, unaffected by clouds or weather conditions. The energy would then be converted into microwaves and transmitted to receiving stations on Earth, providing continuous power.
Chinese scientists liken the project to moving the Three Gorges Dam into space, demonstrating the scale of its potential impact. To make this vision a reality, China plans to use Long March-9 rockets to transport and assemble the massive solar arrays in orbit. If successful, this could be one of the most advanced energy solutions ever developedāoffering a sustainable, non-fossil-fuel-based power source.
Chinese scientists liken the project to moving the Three Gorges Dam into space, demonstrating the scale of its potential impact. To make this vision a reality, China plans to use Long March-9 rockets to transport and assemble the massive solar arrays in orbit. If successful, this could be one of the most advanced energy solutions ever developedāoffering a sustainable, non-fossil-fuel-based power source.
Oh boy. That could be weaponized really easy. Don't like that at all... China shooting microwaves to Earth. Thank god they are known for their great build quality I guess.. LOL
Nothing about Sandersā life suggests he believes what he preaches. Atheist liberals love to point out hypocrisy when it comes to Christian leaders, but you just donāt hear or see them condemn their liberal leaders the same way. I believe Sanders never wanted to be president I believe he does not truly believe what he says, but rather it preaches a means to his end, a place in the Senate and a good life for a man that has always worked in taxpayer funded jobs.
Well, this will keep us on our toes regarding the one place Chinese (or our) microwave radiation could not reach: mineshafts. And given 150 years of coal, and metals mining, we now have a clear lead in potential āmineshaft safe places.ā
Should the Chinese adopt deep mining instead of their preferred open-earth, strip mining, they might quickly catch up to us, but Iām sure that our security agencies are monitoring any potential āmineshaft gapā that could potentially develop.
For a deeper discussion of mineshaft policy:
This report is brought to you by Chris Wright, the lifelong oil man who is our secretary of energy. Conveniently, he is also a climate denier, and found five other climate deniers too write the latest lies.
Chris Wright-Before his appointment, he was the CEO of Liberty Energy, North America's second largest hydraulic fracturing company, and served on the boards of Oklo Inc., a nuclear technology company, and EMX Royalty Corp., a Canadian mineral rights and mining rights royalty payment company. He has worked for fracking and other oil companies for 33 years.
Actually, brought to you from a panel of highly regarded scientists simply reporting the parts of the international report you fail to address. Now, tell us some more about how China, the top Co2 producer, is doing it right.
