For all of you tree hugging leftists.....

[Boilermaker03]

If you measure the temperature on the surface of your skin, won't it go up while wearing a jacket? For exactly the reason you said, heat dispersion is being limited and "you are heating you".

The temperature on the surface of the Earth (skin) is partly due to the atmosphere (coat) trapping heat being released from the Earth (you).

Ugh, NO! You're conflating two different things. Your body is being cooled beyond the amount of heat (work) that it produces. You are running cooler. Trap that cooling effect and you'll get hotter until equilibrium.

According to climate alarm, the Earth would be an ice ball if it wasn't for GHG's. The reason they claim is that the solar input only heats to -15 C (or whatever the temp they claim it would be. Somewhere in the negative) So they are claiming that the Earth is only warm because they claim that "heat" is being captured and warming beyond the capability of the Sun. Meaning the energy from the Sun is only capable of heating the Earth to -15 C. By trapping the heat, you're only heating the COLDER air around it, not making the surface hotter. We've reached equilibrium until the Sun puts out more energy OR the albedo goes down or both.

Two different things. One (your body) is being cooled but if trapped in can heat up to it's heat potential. The other, the Earth, they claim is very cold, but insulation is allowing heat to multiply. Hence why I put in the statement above. Here it is again:

When a hot and a cold body are brought into contact with each other, heat energy will flow from the hot body to the cold body until they reach thermal equilibrium, i.e., the same temperature. However, the heat will never move back the other way; the difference in the temperatures of the two bodies will never spontaneously increase

 

[Droid12345]

When a hot and a cold body are brought into contact with each other, heat energy will flow from the hot body to the cold body until they reach thermal equilibrium, i.e., the same temperature. However, the heat will never move back the other way; the difference in the temperatures of the two bodies will never spontaneously increase

The Earth's surface and a random molecule of CO2 20 feet above the surface are not in contact with each other. As you've acknowledged, an object above absolute zero emits radiation in all directions. A random molecule of CO2 is an object above absolute zero, therefore it emits radiation in all directions. Some of this directions must necessarily intersect with the surface. That emitted radiation can either be reflected by or absorbed by the surface. If it is absorbed, it must be emitted by the surface a second time.

 

[mdthornb]

Ugh, NO! You're conflating two different things. Your body is being cooled beyond the amount of heat (work) that it produces. You are running cooler. Trap that cooling effect and you'll get hotter until equilibrium.

According to climate alarm, the Earth would be an ice ball if it wasn't for GHG's. The reason they claim is that the solar input only heats to -15 C (or whatever the temp they claim it would be. Somewhere in the negative) So they are claiming that the Earth is only warm because they claim that "heat" is being captured and warming beyond the capability of the Sun. Meaning the energy from the Sun is only capable of heating the Earth to -15 C. By trapping the heat, you're only heating the COLDER air around it, not making the surface hotter. We've reached equilibrium until the Sun puts out more energy OR the albedo goes down or both.

Two different things. One (your body) is being cooled but if trapped in can heat up to it's heat potential. The other, the Earth, they claim is very cold, but insulation is allowing heat to multiply. Hence why I put in the statement above. Here it is again:

When a hot and a cold body are brought into contact with each other, heat energy will flow from the hot body to the cold body until they reach thermal equilibrium, i.e., the same temperature. However, the heat will never move back the other way; the difference in the temperatures of the two bodies will never spontaneously increase

In the diagram we have discussed before the surface radiation of earth is 396 and the back radiation from the atmosphere is 333. The heat is flowing from hot to cold. No violation of the second law. Both bodies are emitting radiation. The hotter one is emitting more so the net flow is from the hot to the cold.

 

[Boilermaker03]

The Earth's surface and a random molecule of CO2 20 feet above the surface are not in contact with each other. As you've acknowledged, an object above absolute zero emits radiation in all directions. A random molecule of CO2 is an object above absolute zero, therefore it emits radiation in all directions. Some of this directions must necessarily intersect with the surface. That emitted radiation can either be reflected by or absorbed by the surface. If it is absorbed, it must be emitted by the surface a second time.

The atmosphere is in contact with the surface.

Energy emitted from the surface to the atmosphere (warming a colder object) cannot reheat the object it left. It can make it last longer, but you cannot heat something more by returning the same energy it gave off.

 

[Boilermaker03]

In the diagram we have discussed before the surface radiation of earth is 396 and the back radiation from the atmosphere is 333. The heat is flowing from hot to cold. No violation of the second law. Both bodies are emitting radiation. The hotter one is emitting more so the net flow is from the hot to the cold.

How did the surface get to 396? Where did that energy come from? It's not the Sun according to their diagram. Doesn't matter what their diagram shows. You can put anything into a drawing, but if you can't explain how it happens WITHOUT VIOLATING THE LAWS OF THERMODYNAMICS then it's all wishful thinking.

 

[Boilermaker03]

Look, you guys can keep trying to convince yourselves that this system works the way the alarmists want you to think all you want, but you're going to have to ask yourselves this. Would you rather believe in a system that violates the laws of thermodynamics because they calculate the heat input of the Earth in a theoretical way (spreading the sunlight all over the surface of the Earth) OR you can come to the realization that in the REAL WORLD the Sun only shines on half of the Earth at any given time. And when you make the calculations based on the FACT that the Sun only shines on half of the Earth at any given time, then you will realize that there is NO need for a greenhouse effect (backheating) because the Sun almost alone is responsible for heating the Earth. As I've clearly demonstrated.

 

[mdthornb]

How did the surface get to 396? Where did that energy come from? It's not the Sun according to their diagram. Doesn't matter what their diagram shows. You can put anything into a drawing, but if you can't explain how it happens WITHOUT VIOLATING THE LAWS OF THERMODYNAMICS then it's all wishful thinking.

Black body radiation from the earths surface. Only dependent on the temperature of the earth and has nothing to do with the sun. The temperature of the earth is maintained by the sun. .9 w/m2 more energy enters the earth system than leaves it which results in the warming we are experiencing. At no point on the image is there a violation of conservation of energy or the 2nd law of thermodynamics. You can argue with the numbers all you want but the diagram does not violate the laws of thermodynamics. That image pretty closely matched the one put out by nasa. Why would you think nasa would publish a graphic with elementary errors?

 

[Droid12345]

Look, you guys can keep trying to convince yourselves that this system works the way the alarmists want you to think all you want, but you're going to have to ask yourselves this. Would you rather believe in a system that violates the laws of thermodynamics because they calculate the heat input of the Earth in a theoretical way (spreading the sunlight all over the surface of the Earth) OR you can come to the realization that in the REAL WORLD the Sun only shines on half of the Earth at any given time. And when you make the calculations based on the FACT that the Sun only shines on half of the Earth at any given time, then you will realize that there is NO need for a greenhouse effect because the Sun almost alone is responsible for heating the Earth. As I've clearly demonstrated.

And you can keep trying to convince yourself that the half of the planet not in sunlight doesn’t matter in the “real world.” You can continue to ignore that the numbers that describe solar irradiance indicate the amount of energy reaching a square meter of the surface in a single second, so to accurately calculate how much energy that particular square meter receives OVER TIME you have to account for 50% of the seconds when it receives nothing. Fact is, the model doesn’t do the thing you’re accusing it of doing.

 

[Boilermaker03]

Black body radiation from the earths surface. Only dependent on the temperature of the earth and has nothing to do with the sun. The temperature of the earth is maintained by the sun. .9 w/m2 more energy enters the earth system than leaves it which results in the warming we are experiencing. At no point on the image is there a violation of conservation of energy or the 2nd law of thermodynamics. You can argue with the numbers all you want but the diagram does not violate the laws of thermodynamics. That image pretty closely matched the one put out by nasa. Why would you think nasa would publish a graphic with elementary errors?

What? So you're claiming that the Earth's surface has more heat than the Suns inputs? GTFOH. Nowhere is that ever mentioned btw. I have never heard anyone suggest that the Earth creates it's own heat.

NASA would publish something with elementary errors because they haven't yet realized their blunder. In fact most "deniers" haven't realized this yet either. The greenhouse theory is false. The Earth does not generate heat. The Sun only puts in what it puts in and the surface of the Earth cannot heat beyond the heat input, which is what they want you to believe in that diagram. It absolutely violates the laws of thermodynamics.

AGAIN, there is no need for this magical thinking if you calculate the heating from the Sun the way it happens in the real world.

 

[Boilermaker03]

And you can keep trying to convince yourself that the half of the planet not in sunlight doesn’t matter in the “real world.” You can continue to ignore that the numbers that describe solar irradiance indicate the amount of energy reaching a square meter of the surface in a single second, so to accurately calculate how much energy that particular square meter receives OVER TIME you have to account for 50% of the seconds when it receives nothing. Fact is, the model doesn’t do the thing you’re accusing it of doing.

I've never said that the half that doesn't receive sunlight doesn't matter. I don't know why you would make that assumption. In fact I specifically said that the GHG's insulate which makes the heat stick around longer, but it cannot cause heating beyond the input of the system.

How am I ignoring the numbers that describe solar irradiance? I've given you the top of atmosphere irradiance and I've given you the albedo (PER NASA!) yet in the diagram they take 60% MORE out of the system than the albedo as well as dilute the solar energy to the entire planet. Then they claim that back radiation causes the system to warm even more (impossible).

Let me ask you, does the Sun illuminate the entire Earth at once?

 

[mdthornb]

What? So you're claiming that the Earth's surface has more heat than the Suns inputs? GTFOH. Nowhere is that ever mentioned btw. I have never heard anyone suggest that the Earth creates it's own heat.

NASA would publish something with elementary errors because they haven't yet realized their blunder. In fact most "deniers" haven't realized this yet either. The greenhouse theory is false. The Earth does not generate heat. The Sun only puts in what it puts in and the surface of the Earth cannot heat beyond the heat input, which is what they want you to believe in that diagram. It absolutely violates the laws of thermodynamics.

AGAIN, there is no need for this magical thinking if you calculate the heating from the Sun the way it happens in the real world.

Shows how to calculate radiation from the sun to the earth:

Energy from the Sun - American Chemical Society

American Chemical Society: Chemistry for Life.

www.acs.org

Earth emission:
5.67e-6w/m^2k^4*(288k)^4 = 390 w/m^2

Both numbers are pretty close to the numbers seen in these pictures.

The earth is a long way from the sun and radiation flux falls off by this distance squared.

 

[Boilermaker03]

Shows how to calculate radiation from the sun to the earth:

Energy from the Sun - American Chemical Society

American Chemical Society: Chemistry for Life.

www.acs.org

Earth emission:
5.67e-6w/m^2k^4*(288k)^4 = 390 w/m^2

Both numbers are pretty close to the numbers seen in these pictures.

The earth is a long way from the sun and radiation flux falls off by this distance squared.

Sure, what's your point?

 

[mdthornb]

Sure, what's your point?

That it’s not ridiculous that the earth emits more radiation than it receives from the sun.

 

[Droid12345]

NASA would publish something with elementary errors because they haven't yet realized their blunder.

Earlier it was propaganda, now they just got it wrong and don't know it. Which is it? Is NASA lying to us or are they just wrong? Is the scientific community at large purposely hiding the truth by suppressing dissenting opinions or have they just not figured out what's true, yet? Can't be both.

 

[Boilermaker03]

That it’s not ridiculous that the earth emits more radiation than it receives from the sun.

That formula in no way proves that. And yes, it is ridiculous. I've linked the parts of the 2nd law of thermodynamics that the theory violates and you're just like, naw that's not true.

 

[Boilermaker03]

Earlier it was propaganda, now they just got it wrong and don't know it. Which is it? Is NASA lying to us or are they just wrong? Is the scientific community at large purposely hiding the truth by suppressing dissenting opinions or have they just not figured out what's true, yet? Can't be both.

Cute meme, but when people get invested in a certain idea (*cough YOU for example) it's easy for them to dismiss a perfectly viable alternative. Just as science did to Einstein until he was proven right.

Now you're asking me to know what is in the minds of all scientists. I think most don't realize their folly. I think a select few know it's false.

 

[BuilderBob6]

Cute meme, but when people get invested in a certain idea (*cough YOU for example) it's easy for them to dismiss a perfectly viable alternative. Just as science did to Einstein until he was proven right.

Now you're asking me to know what is in the minds of all scientists. I think most don't realize their folly. I think a select few know it's false.

Problem is your definition of "perfectly viable alternative" (PVA).

You've argued here against the results of the election but offered no PVA's. People have said the FBI was behind 1/6. Others on the right say trump is still president or will be reinstated. Q is a driving force in the republican party and you're talking about PVA's?

 

[Droid12345]

Now you're asking me to know what is in the minds of all scientists. I think most don't realize their folly. I think a select few know it's false.

I'm not asking you to know, you've claimed to know all along. You've said the greenhouse effect is propaganda. That implies that those perpetuating the notion of the greenhouse effect know it's false. You've claimed the government won't give funding to scientists with alternative theories. That implies the government knows the "mainstream" theories are false.

But now, you say most scientists just haven't figured out they're wrong, yet. Except, the thing you think they're wrong about is high school level physics. How did any of these people get their PhDs without correctly understanding high school level physics? Isn't the more likely explanation that the people who actually study this stuff for a living and are highly educated in the subject matter actually understand the nuances better than you or I? I don't have a science degree, so how could I ever expect to know more than the people who are experts? I don't know your education, but that's what you're doing. But also, you're saying that they actually DO know. Maybe it's just the people granting the PhDs that know and they're just lying to their students? They've somehow convinced them to do away with their understanding of thermodynamics for the sake of climate change?

Even the study you posted was from people who aren't physicists. Isn't it possible (nay, almost certain) that physicists understand physics better than forest ecologists?

You could argue that the greenhouse effect model was created to fit the climate change narrative all you want, but the greenhouse effect was discovered in the mid-1800s, WELL before anyone was even aware of climate change.

 

[Boilermaker03]

Problem is your definition of "perfectly viable alternative" (PVA).

You've argued here against the results of the election but offered no PVA's. People have said the FBI was behind 1/6. Others on the right say trump is still president or will be reinstated. Q is a driving force in the republican party and you're talking about PVA's?

How stupid of an argument to come here and bring in politics and some people's positions as if that has anything to do with this discussion. Like you've never been wrong before either. That in no way makes what I'm proposing not a PVA. I even linked a paper that was peer reviewed (because I know how important that is to you guys) and it was published in other journals UNTIL they learned WHO published it. Never heard of science being invalidated before because of the author and not the work, have you?

 

[Boilermaker03]

I'm not asking you to know, you've claimed to know all along. You've said the greenhouse effect is propaganda. That implies that those perpetuating the notion of the greenhouse effect know it's false. You've claimed the government won't give funding to scientists with alternative theories. That implies the government knows the "mainstream" theories are false.

But now, you say most scientists just haven't figured out they're wrong, yet. Except, the thing you think they're wrong about is high school level physics. How did any of these people get their PhDs without correctly understanding high school level physics? Isn't the more likely explanation that the people who actually study this stuff for a living and are highly educated in the subject matter actually understand the nuances better than you or I? I don't have a science degree, so how could I ever expect to know more than the people who are experts? I don't know your education, but that's what you're doing. But also, you're saying that they actually DO know. Maybe it's just the people granting the PhDs that know and they're just lying to their students? They've somehow convinced them to do away with their understanding of thermodynamics for the sake of climate change?

Even the study you posted was from people who aren't physicists. Isn't it possible (nay, almost certain) that physicists understand physics better than forest ecologists?

You could argue that the greenhouse effect model was created to fit the climate change narrative all you want, but the greenhouse effect was discovered in the mid-1800s, WELL before anyone was even aware of climate change.

Wait a minute. You're conflating a few things here. Yes there is a ton of propaganda going on, but mostly from the media and politicians. Most of the time the media will see something put out by the alarmist scientists and that info will have a range of scenarios. The media always publishes the worst case as if that's what the science really says. That's propaganda.

Politicians are using it for propaganda as well. Pushing things that are not better for us, nor will change the supposed problem, but just create a whole new set of problems.

The government is run by politicians. No, you cannot get funding if you have an alternative view. That's been shown before. Many very highly regarded scientists lost their funding as soon as they displayed their disbelief in AGW.

I believe the scientists that are manipulating the temperature data have to at least know they are doing something wrong. The vast majority of scientists base their work off of the working theory being true. I don't think many of them have any clue because they don't do the study that would be required to show that the working theory is incorrect.

 

[Droid12345]

I believe the scientists that are manipulating the temperature data have to at least know they are doing something wrong. The vast majority of scientists base their work off of the working theory being true. I don't think many of them have any clue because they don't do the study that would be required to show that the working theory is incorrect.

Then my meme stands.

And you apparently didn't need an experiment to "prove" that the current model violates thermodynamics. Why do the scientists (the regular ones, not the evil temperature-manipulators) need one? If the error is so basic and fundamental, why haven't they been able to figure it out?

 

[Boilermaker03]

Then my meme stands.

And you apparently didn't need an experiment to "prove" that the current model violates thermodynamics. Why do the scientists (the regular ones, not the evil temperature-manipulators) need one? If the error is so basic and fundamental, why haven't they been able to figure it out?

It's because this is what they've been taught. If it's in university, it must be true. Or so people believe.

 

[DG Boiler]

It's because this is what they've been taught. If it's in university, it must be true. Or so people believe.

Ah, so now colleges are joining the media as passing falsehoods off as fact? Your contention is that the only sources of fact are YouTube videos and websites run by discredited scientists?

 

[Droid12345]

It's because this is what they've been taught. If it's in university, it must be true. Or so people believe.

They've been taught to disregard that the greenhouse effect model violates the second law of thermodynamics? And yet, we've never seen recent grads coming out saying "hey, they taught us to ignore thermodynamics!!!!"

Or are the universities just not teaching thermodynamics so their graduates won't figure out the scam?

Maybe you should run your posts in this thread by them to show them the error of their ways. If it's SO OBVIOUS to you that this model violates the laws of physics, you should be able to convince a real scientist lickety-split.

 

[mdthornb]

They've been taught to disregard that the greenhouse effect model violates the second law of thermodynamics? And yet, we've never seen recent grads coming out saying "hey, they taught us to ignore thermodynamics!!!!"

Or are the universities just not teaching thermodynamics so their graduates won't figure out the scam?

Maybe you should run your posts in this thread by them to show them the error of their ways. If it's SO OBVIOUS to you that this model violates the laws of physics, you should be able to convince a real scientist lickety-split.

If I was perpetuating climate change as a hoax I sure would do something much more subtle that botching Freshman year science.

 

[Droid12345]

If I was perpetuating climate change as a hoax I sure would do something much more subtle that botching Freshman year science.

Nah, NASA does this all the time. I mean, they want us to believe they landed on the moon in a spaceship that looks like it was made by a fifth grade class out of tin foil and cardboard. Par for the course for the NASA propagandists.

I'm also still waiting on an explanation of WHY the government wants to use climate change alarmism to destroy the economy. Or why scientists in other countries ALSO perpetuate the hoax. Does the German government want the US economy to fail, too? Are they working with the US government on this? Are the German scientists taught incorrect science in American universities or do their universities ALSO not teach thermodynamics?

 

[mdthornb]

Nah, NASA does this all the time. I mean, they want us to believe they landed on the moon in a spaceship that looks like it was made by a fifth grade class out of tin foil and cardboard. Par for the course for the NASA propagandists.

I'm also still waiting on an explanation of WHY the government wants to use climate change alarmism to destroy the economy. Or why scientists in other countries ALSO perpetuate the hoax. Does the German government want the US economy to fail, too? Are they working with the US government on this? Are the German scientists taught incorrect science in American universities or do their universities ALSO not teach thermodynamics?

Something something socialism is what I guess the answer to that would be.

Meanwhile deniers cant for the life of them think up a reason why the oil and gas industry would want to spread distrust in climate science.

 

[Boilermaker03]

Ah, so now colleges are joining the media as passing falsehoods off as fact? Your contention is that the only sources of fact are YouTube videos and websites run by discredited scientists?

I don't think it's intentional. It's just a part of the system.

 

[Boilermaker03]

They've been taught to disregard that the greenhouse effect model violates the second law of thermodynamics? And yet, we've never seen recent grads coming out saying "hey, they taught us to ignore thermodynamics!!!!"

Or are the universities just not teaching thermodynamics so their graduates won't figure out the scam?

Maybe you should run your posts in this thread by them to show them the error of their ways. If it's SO OBVIOUS to you that this model violates the laws of physics, you should be able to convince a real scientist lickety-split.

There are scientists that have already done so. Some found the revelation fascinating. Others are too steeped in the way it's done now that they ignored it. Richard Spencer is one that ignored it.

 

[Boilermaker03]

If I was perpetuating climate change as a hoax I sure would do something much more subtle that botching Freshman year science.

Again, I don't think that part of climate science was originally intended to be a hoax.

 

[Boilermaker03]

Nah, NASA does this all the time. I mean, they want us to believe they landed on the moon in a spaceship that looks like it was made by a fifth grade class out of tin foil and cardboard. Par for the course for the NASA propagandists.

I'm also still waiting on an explanation of WHY the government wants to use climate change alarmism to destroy the economy. Or why scientists in other countries ALSO perpetuate the hoax. Does the German government want the US economy to fail, too? Are they working with the US government on this? Are the German scientists taught incorrect science in American universities or do their universities ALSO not teach thermodynamics?

I never said they are trying to use it to destroy the economy. The why's of each group is unknown. The fact that you think I would be able to tell you is beyond me.

As far as the scientists, like I said. There are only a small few that are in on the hoax. The rest do their work based off of the idea that the theory is true. The climate gate emails showed several that colluded to change some of the temps. I know you guys will say that the climate gate emails didn't show anything, but that was the media doing what the media does.

Here's another example of how the media lies to us constantly. Yes it's a video, but the video links news articles and data proving those articles wrong.

 

[Boilermaker03]

Something something socialism is what I guess the answer to that would be.

Meanwhile deniers cant for the life of them think up a reason why the oil and gas industry would want to spread distrust in climate science.

The oil and gas industry is backing climate alarm you moron. I think there's only one maybe that isn't. They realized that it's good for them. Every time a D is running the country, oil prices skyrocket. You think that upsets them?

 

[Boilermaker03]

Here's something to consider. The word "heat" is being thought of incorrectly. Here is a section of an article written by an astrophysicist I follow on occasion.

"There is no such thing as “trapping heat”, and no way to interpret what it would actually mean. Heat flow is spontaneous and transient and represents the performance of work done at the molecular level – it doesn’t mean anything to say that one can “trap” this; it is like saying that we can “trap running”, or that we can “trap swimming”, or that we can “trap typing”. Heat isn’t a noun, it is a verb, just as work is a verb. This is why in the First Law heat and work appear equated to a delta, i.e. to a CHANGE, the dU, change in internal energy.


If you ever see one of them talking about “trapping heat” again (of course, this is constant), then ask them how to trap “running”? Heat is an action of energy, not energy itself, and energy can only perform this action if it has sufficient potential. This is just like work: energy may be spent trying to move something, but if there is no movement because the energy isn’t powerful enough, then there is no work performed. Of course this is why they try to equate all energy with heat, but this identical to saying that a shoe is the same thing as running. Energy is a noun, an object; heat (and work) is a verb, an action."

 

[BoilerJS]

Nah, NASA does this all the time. I mean, they want us to believe they landed on the moon in a spaceship that looks like it was made by a fifth grade class out of tin foil and cardboard. Par for the course for the NASA propagandists.

I'm also still waiting on an explanation of WHY the government wants to use climate change alarmism to destroy the economy. Or why scientists in other countries ALSO perpetuate the hoax. Does the German government want the US economy to fail, too? Are they working with the US government on this? Are the German scientists taught incorrect science in American universities or do their universities ALSO not teach thermodynamics?

How much coal, natural gas or oil reserves does Germany have?
Economies are driven by energy costs.
There is no reason for Germany to push for expensive green energy transformations.
OK!

 

[mdthornb]

The oil and gas industry is backing climate alarm you moron. I think there's only one maybe that isn't. They realized that it's good for them. Every time a D is running the country, oil prices skyrocket. You think that upsets them?

They are backing climate alarm because it makes them look good knowing it will destroy their businesses if the changes are made to slow climate change?

 

[Droid12345]

As far as the scientists, like I said. There are only a small few that are in on the hoax. The rest do their work based off of the idea that the theory is true. The climate gate emails showed several that colluded to change some of the temps. I know you guys will say that the climate gate emails didn't show anything, but that was the media doing what the media does.

If the falsehood that their work is built upon is so obvious that anyone with a basic understanding of thermodynamics can discover it, why haven’t more discovered it? If most scientists are honest people, shouldn’t more of them have figured it out and come forward by now?

 

[Droid12345]

How much coal, natural gas or oil reserves does Germany have?
Economies are driven by energy costs.

Good thing renewables are cheaper than fossil fuels, then. And the question remains, if switching to renewables would tank the economy, and everyone knows this, then why does our government want to do it? Why would they back a policy they know will destroy their own economy?

There is no reason for Germany to push for expensive green energy transformations.
OK!

Except Germany gets a far higher percentage of its energy than we do and are accelerating that transition. So they ARE pushing for a green transformation. And what about Norway? They have lots of oil, but generate almost 100% of their electricity with renewables. Why would they be working so hard to decrease demand for a product of which they have a lot of supply?

I picked Germany at random, though, to ask the question why these other countries that are not beholden to the lies of the American government would help to perpetuate the climate hoax? How would they benefit from a tanking American economy?

 

[mdthornb]

Good thing renewables are cheaper than fossil fuels, then. And the question remains, if switching to renewables would tank the economy, and everyone knows this, then why does our government want to do it? Why would they back a policy they know will destroy their own economy?

Except Germany gets a far higher percentage of its energy than we do and are accelerating that transition. So they ARE pushing for a green transformation. And what about Norway? They have lots of oil, but generate almost 100% of their electricity with renewables. Why would they be working so hard to decrease demand for a product of which they have a lot of supply?

I picked Germany at random, though, to ask the question why these other countries that are not beholden to the lies of the American government would help to perpetuate the climate hoax? How would they benefit from a tanking American economy?

Something something socialism?

 

[Droid12345]

The oil and gas industry is backing climate alarm you moron. I think there's only one maybe that isn't. They realized that it's good for them. Every time a D is running the country, oil prices skyrocket. You think that upsets them?

Democrats vs. Republicans – Gas Prices of the Last 100 Years

I Drive Safely has put together this infographic to take a look at gas prices during every presidential term in the last century, what do you think?

www.idrivesafely.com

 

[mdthornb]

Democrats vs. Republicans – Gas Prices of the Last 100 Years

I Drive Safely has put together this infographic to take a look at gas prices during every presidential term in the last century, what do you think?

www.idrivesafely.com

Ha. Funny that the Democratic price is lower. I’m actually it probably depends little on who the president is but on worldwide issues.