Anthropogenic Negative Climate Change (ANCC)

[Tom O'Donnell]

Physical interventions to interrupt or reduce the spread of respiratory viruses - Jefferson, T - 2023 | Cochrane Library

"We included 12 trials (10 cluster‐RCTs) comparing medical/surgical masks versus no masks to prevent the spread of viral respiratory illness (two trials with healthcare workers and 10 in the community). Wearing masks in the community probably makes little or no difference to the outcome of influenza‐like illness (ILI)/COVID‐19 like illness compared to not wearing masks (risk ratio (RR) 0.95, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.84 to 1.09; 9 trials, 276,917 participants; moderate‐certainty evidence. Wearing masks in the community probably makes little or no difference to the outcome of laboratory‐confirmed influenza/SARS‐CoV‐2 compared to not wearing masks (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.42; 6 trials, 13,919 participants; moderate‐certainty evidence). Harms were rarely measured and poorly reported (very low‐certainty evidence)."

I would like to add that I know a lot of people who used the same mask hour after hour, day after day.

[Sid Belzberg]

As long as I believe MSM about MSS, then a calamity awaits. I am not anxious.....I am nervous about very little. I manage. But this may take tools and effort which will be very difficult to assemble.

I do not fear death.....I ought to have died in May, 1996. I don't care when or how. But I'd prefer our species survive.

So don't label me, please, one of the "climate - anxious". I noted long ago your complaint about inaccurate labelling.....that you were not a "climate-denier".

As to the answers to the questions, I am attempting to verify your position as best I can, until I run into some contraction.

My 3 questions seem the appropriate places to start to understand the "Natural modelling". I do not doubt the naturalists' position that we are in a long-term Earth "warming cycle" and have been for some time now. Do any others with such an interest feel that some other questions are necessary to make some progress on this project of mine? If so, please respond.

So I am, with some help, trying to assemble a layman's (As opposed to scientist's) description of what the Naturalists are explaining to the rest of us.

~ Bob A (T-S/P)

As long as I believe MSM about MSS, then a calamity awaits.

Good News for you, since the majority of MSS no longer supports anthropogenic climate change as per the peer-reviewed paper https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs...30508783900744 discussed, you can rest assured no calamity awaits.
Have a good sleep Bob! Oh wait, I just noticed you need the MSM to read for you what you can read yourself! Good luck
with that Bob, you don't need me to post answers, just have the MSM do the thinking for you.

[Bob Armstrong]

My 3 questions - the Naturalists REFUSE to help simplify their position on the legitimate inquiry of an Anthropogenicist, trying to understand it, who is himself just a lay pleb: Sid: "...you don't need me to post answers, just have the MSM do the thinking for you."

Only Legitimate Takeaway - Their position simplified collapses for all to see; best to keep using the smokescreens.

I am undeterred.....why.........because I consider your position the most legitimate threat to mine....so I need to either prove it right or wrong. I will "do it my own" as my granddaughter says.

Thanks to all the CT Naturalists.......for nothing.

~ Bob A (T-S/P)

[Sid Belzberg]

My 3 questions - the Naturalists REFUSE to help simplify their position on the legitimate inquiry of an Anthropogenicist, trying to understand it, who is himself just a lay pleb: Sid: "...you don't need me to post answers, just have the MSM do the thinking for you."



Only Legitimate Takeaway - Their position simplified collapses for all to see; best to keep using the smokescreens.

I am undeterred.....why.........because I consider your position the most legitimate threat to mine....so I need to either prove it right or wrong. I will "do it my own" as my granddaughter says.

Thanks to all the CT Naturalists.......for nothing.

~ Bob A (T-S/P)

so I need to either prove it right or wrong

1)when did the last natural cooling cycle end?

2. What was the rate of warming, and the gross global temperature, from then up to the mid-1800's? (I think this date is identified as the date of the start of the "First Industrial Revolution (FIR)". This I believe is when anthropogenic climate changers' say that "man starts ADDING to the rate of warming, of an already warming planet, by the start of industrial manufacturing, with its pollution and starting to introduce extra Methane, CO2, and other Greenhouse gases into the air/atmosphere. Please correct me if I am wrong on this start date, or if there is some precise date being used, please post it).

So Bob, your "position" or "MSM" is that the natural forces of temperature change pre industrial revolution ceased functioning in the 20th century? Since the late end of the 17th century the temperature has risen around 1.5 degree C . There was no rate of increase in the industrial revolution or up to the early 21st century.

The Central England temperature record (HadCET) contains the longest continuously measured thermometer-based regional temperature dataset in the world, going back more than 350 years. This record began in 1659, in the depths of the Little Ice Age (1250 – 1800) which was marked by some of the coldest temperatures in nearly 8,000 years. The period of the late 17th century and early 18th century was a horrifically cold period known as the Maunder Minimum. Thankfully, the current warming trend we are in began in the year 1695. The next 40 years had more than twice the rate of warming as we experienced in the 20th century. The first half of this 300-plus year warming had about the same amount of temperature rise as the latter half and was entirely naturally driven. The natural forces driving temperature changes for the first 200 years of this temperature history did not cease functioning in the 20th century.

https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcet/

Temp: Parker DE, Legg TP, Folland CK (1992) A new daily Central England Temperature Series, 1772 – 1991. Int. J. Clim., Vol 12, pp 317–342, https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs

CO2: Boden TA, Marland G, Andres RJ (2016) Global CO2 emissions from Fossil-Fuel Burning Cement Manufacture and Gas Flaring 1751 – 2013. CDIAC, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, U.S. Dept of Energy, Oak Ridge, TN, USA, DOI 10.3334/CDIAC/00001_V2010

Source(s): Temp: Parker DE, Legg TP, Folland CK (1992) A new daily Central England Temperature Series, 1772 – 1991. Int. J. Clim., Vol 12, pp 317–342
Source(s): , Boden TA, Marland G, Andres RJ (2016) Global CO2 emissions from Fossil-Fuel Burning Cement Manufacture and Gas Flaring 1751 - 2013. CDIAC, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, U.S. Dept of Energy, Oak Ridge, TN, USA, DOI 10.3334/CDIAC/00001_V2010

[Sid Belzberg]

3. What do the "Naturalists" say that the temperature rise from the FIR to Jan. 1, 2023 has been naturally?

Solar activity as has been the cause long before the FIR Recent evidence of this:

By P Gosselin on 19. May 2021

A new, shattering study by scientists shows natural El Niño Southern Oscillations (ENSO) are undoubtedly linked to the 22-year Hale solar cycle – far beyond any coincidence. NOTHING TO DO WITH CO2.

German climate news site Die Klimaschau, Episode 36, reports on the new findings published in the journal of Earth and Space Science by Robert Leamon et al (2021). The new study ties solar variability to the onset of decadal La Niña events.

https://notrickszone.com/2021/05/19/...me-since-1960/

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2020EA001223

[Bob Armstrong]

Sid - Thank you.

No, anthropogenicists do NOT say: (Your words) "...that the natural forces of temperature change pre-industrial revolution, ceased functioning in the 20th century."

I accept that we currently are in a longitudinal Earth warming cycle......I'm wanting to find out the year that the last natural cooling cycle ended, and this one started. I'll see if your material answers this very simple 1st Q.

I assume that a warming cycle is constant on average, not going through long regresses of cooling and then the heat rate increasing again to go past last peak temperature. So the heat graph up is more or less a straight moderately rising line. If we started with xC at the start of the warming period, we know that on Jan. 1, 2023 Earth had gotten to an average air/atmosphere temperature of yC (I have to research the current average Earth temperature at the start of 2023......if someone already knows the answer, or if Sid in his contribution has it in there, could someone save me the work and just give it to me? I'm spontaneously writing my thoughts before going through Sid's material).

We will then know that the temp rose in two periods:

1. Start of the warming period to the end of the Pre-industrial Period, which is in the mid-1800's. I'd love for someone to show me the exact date of the start of the modern Industrial Revolution, if anyone has been so bold.
2. The start of the Industrial Revolution in the mid-19th century, to Jan. 1, 2023 (Our control end for this modelling, given these recent stats are available).

What is then to be calculated is the rate or temperature increase that was expected for period # 2, without the Industrial Revolution.

If we know the average rate of increase per year during period # 1, then we can calculate the expected Jan. 1, 2023 temp, since we know it is a 1,523 year period (Period # 2).

This is my methodology - seems to me pretty simple; seems to me pretty understandable by plebs who can do a bit of math; seems to me we will get close to the contradiction in the two systems.

If you disagree, and see a hole in my logic, please go ahead and enlighten me.......I would be ecstatically happy, because this seems to me to be pretty much a no-brainer analysis (But that still doesn't necessarily mean it is wrong).

Now I'll go read Sid's material and look for the data I need, since his material gives lots of data on lots of things that I think are tangential to the very simple basic inquiry.

~ Bob A (T-S/P)

[Bob Armstrong]

Climate Change Declaration

From this point forward (Which is when? - trivia question), Earth's temperature (Global Warming) must NOT rise beyond 1.5 C before, or after, the target year (2nd trivia Q - when is our doomsday deadline year?)

"For years, there’s been a consensus in the climate movement: no more than 1.5 degrees Celsius above preindustrial levels. The figure comes from the Paris Agreement, a climate treaty ratified in 2016, and world leaders such as President Joe Biden bring it up all the time: “If we’re going to win this fight, every major emitter nation needs [to] align with the 1.5 degrees,” he said in November. Youth activists at the Sunrise Movement call 1.5 degrees a “critical threshold.” Even the corporate world is stuck on 1.5 degrees. Companies including Apple, Google, and Saudi Aramco—the world’s largest oil company—claim to be transitioning their operations in alignment with the 1.5 goal.

But here’s the thing: 1.5 degrees, or 2.7 degrees Fahrenheit, isn’t based on any scientific calculation. It doesn’t represent a specific planetary threshold or ecological tipping point. It was first proposed during international climate negotiations as a moral statement, a rebuke of the idea that the world could accept some disruption and suffering in order to burn fossil fuels just a bit longer. That’s the takeaway of a new study on the history of the target from two French academics, Béatrice Cointe from the Centre for the Sociology of Innovation and Hélène Guillemot from the Centre Alexandre Koyré, both funded by the French National Centre for Scientific Research. From the perspective of the present, it’s a relief that 1.5 degrees doesn’t represent a scientific threshold, because we are almost certainly going to blow past it. As a rebuke, however, it may live on."

https://www.theatlantic.com/science/...eekly%20Planet

~ Bob A (T-S/P)

[Sid Belzberg]

Sid - Thank you.

No, anthropogenicists do NOT say: (Your words) "...that the natural forces of temperature change pre-industrial revolution, ceased functioning in the 20th century."

I accept that we currently are in a longitudinal Earth warming cycle......I'm wanting to find out the year that the last natural cooling cycle ended, and this one started. I'll see if your material answers this very simple 1st Q.

I assume that a warming cycle is constant on average, not going through long regresses of cooling and then the heat rate increasing again to go past last peak temperature. So the heat graph up is more or less a straight moderately rising line. If we started with xC at the start of the warming period, we know that on Jan. 1, 2023 Earth had gotten to an average air/atmosphere temperature of yC (I have to research the current average Earth temperature at the start of 2023......if someone already knows the answer, or if Sid in his contribution has it in there, could someone save me the work and just give it to me? I'm spontaneously writing my thoughts before going through Sid's material).

We will then know that the temp rose in two periods:

1. Start of the warming period to the end of the Pre-industrial Period, which is in the mid-1800's. I'd love for someone to show me the exact date of the start of the modern Industrial Revolution, if anyone has been so bold.
2. The start of the Industrial Revolution in the mid-19th century, to Jan. 1, 2023 (Our control end for this modelling, given these recent stats are available).

What is then to be calculated is the rate or temperature increase that was expected for period # 2, without the Industrial Revolution.

If we know the average rate of increase per year during period # 1, then we can calculate the expected Jan. 1, 2023 temp, since we know it is a c23 year period (Period # 2).

This is my methodology - seems to me pretty simple; seems to me pretty understandable by plebs who can do a bit of math; seems to me we will get close to the contradiction in the two systems.

If you disagree, and see a hole in my logic, please go ahead and enlighten me.......I would be ecstatically happy, because this seems to me to be pretty much a no-brainer analysis (But that still doesn't necessarily mean it is wrong).

Now I'll go read Sid's material and look for the data I need, since his material gives lots of data on lots of things that I think are tangential to the very simple basic inquiry.

~ Bob A (T-S/P)

I want to find out the year that the last natural cooling cycle ended, and this one started. I'll see if your material answers this very simple 1st Q.

I already answered that question in my answer to you.
https://forum.chesstalk.com/forum/ch...369#post224369
As you can see from the chart, many temp variations exist in the trend, so trying to extrapolate what the temp will be in the next 50 years or 100 years is a fool's game. Secondly, predicting the temp does not prove CO2 has anything to do with it, and in fact, the evidence points to solar activity as the cause.
Third, the start of Modern Global warming was in 1695, long before the industrial revolution. In three hundred years, the temp increased by 1.5%. At that rate, we will see an increase by .5 of 1 degree in another hundred years. That, by the way, is consistent with many other data points.

The only reason you would start at the industrial revolution is to try to show the rise in a shorter time and blame it on emissions when for the previous 150(!) years, the temp was rising at the same rate.
I am sorry to disappoint you, Bob. For obvious reasons, the consensus among scientists (not corrupt politicians) is there is NO CLIMATE EMERGENCY.

[Sid Belzberg]

Climate Change Declaration

From this point forward (Which is when? - trivia question), Earth's temperature (Global Warming) must NOT rise beyond 1.5 C before, or after, the target year (2nd trivia Q - when is our doomsday deadline year?)

"For years, there’s been a consensus in the climate movement: no more than 1.5 degrees Celsius above preindustrial levels. The figure comes from the Paris Agreement, a climate treaty ratified in 2016, and world leaders such as President Joe Biden bring it up all the time: “If we’re going to win this fight, every major emitter nation needs [to] align with the 1.5 degrees,” he said in November. Youth activists at the Sunrise Movement call 1.5 degrees a “critical threshold.” Even the corporate world is stuck on 1.5 degrees. Companies including Apple, Google, and Saudi Aramco—the world’s largest oil company—claim to be transitioning their operations in alignment with the 1.5 goal.

But here’s the thing: 1.5 degrees, or 2.7 degrees Fahrenheit, isn’t based on any scientific calculation. It doesn’t represent a specific planetary threshold or ecological tipping point. It was first proposed during international climate negotiations as a moral statement, a rebuke of the idea that the world could accept some disruption and suffering in order to burn fossil fuels just a bit longer. That’s the takeaway of a new study on the history of the target from two French academics, Béatrice Cointe from the Centre for the Sociology of Innovation and Hélène Guillemot from the Centre Alexandre Koyré, both funded by the French National Centre for Scientific Research. From the perspective of the present, it’s a relief that 1.5 degrees doesn’t represent a scientific threshold, because we are almost certainly going to blow past it. As a rebuke, however, it may live on."

https://www.theatlantic.com/science/...eekly%20Planet

~ Bob A (T-S/P)

What corrupted politicians have to say (Paris Agreement) is irrelevant. You were given answers to the questions you asked so if you accept that there has been a long term warming trend pre industrial revolution hence not anthropogenic and Solar evidence is clear what more is there to discuss? Or do you prefer to eliminate livestock and eat insects (that are really bad for your health) even though it won't make any difference to the climate?

https://twitter.com/EvaVlaar/status/1621532747259953156

[Dilip Panjwani]

What corrupted politicians have to say (Paris Agreement) is irrelevant. You were given answers to the questions you asked so if you accept that there has been a long term warming trend pre industrial revolution hence not anthropogenic and Solar evidence is clear what more is there to discuss? Or do you prefer to eliminate livestock and eat insects (that are really bad for your health) even though it won't make any difference to the climate?

Bob,
Do you realize that restricting the use of fertilizers, thereby reducing food production, is a cruel act towards the world's poor, as is the call to restrict the production of oil resources, thereby inflating the price of energy? Only the pathologically climate-anxious, if otherwise decent, can support such restrictions...
D

[Neil Frarey]

Climate Change Declaration

From this point forward (Which is when? - trivia question), Earth's temperature (Global Warming) must NOT rise beyond 1.5 C before, or after, the target year (2nd trivia Q - when is our doomsday deadline year?)


~ Bob A (T-S/P)

Greta Thunberg

Since it's a well established fact that China is the world's largest polluter generating 30% of all harmful gas emissions ... why hasn't she, your darling Greta Thunberg, campaigned her woke message in to the streets of Beijing?

Huh???

Shouldn't all you woke fakes should start an online petition to send her to China. Yes?

That's if you actually care about planet Earth.

Which I really doubt you do, Bob A.

Get that petition started!

Then perhaps we'll believe the veracity of your posts here on CT, ha!

I'll wait.

[Bob Armstrong]

ChessTalk

Negative Anthropogenic Climate Change (NACC) Thread

(Started: 21/12/9)




Week # 5 (23/1/30 – 23/2/5: 7 days)

Weekly Stats:

Views
.....................................................2023 Average.... 2022 Average
Last Week's......Prior Week's........Views/Day..........Views/Day
Views/Day........Views/Day.............(5wks.)........ ......(5 wks.).

........45....................7..........................34.....................44

Responses (Posts)

......................................................2023 Average.........2022 Average

....Last Week's.....Prior Week's......Responses/Day......Responses/Day

Responses/Day....Resp./Day......... (5 wks.)....................... (5 wks.)

.............3....................1.........................3..........................5.

Analysis of Last Weeks Stats

The stats for last week are significantly up; this is a result of more responses each day than in the prior week.

Climate Change Thread “Responses”

There are lots of climate change articles out there, both on negative anthropogenic climate change, and negative natural climate change.

This thread encourages CT'ers on all sides to re-post here, as responses, the climate change posts of interest they see elsewhere. Overall, ChessTalker's have been quite active here in posting “responses” and it seems that chessplayers across Canada re wanting information on climate change, a challenge unlike any our species has ever faced before.

Note:

1. The goal of this thread is not to woodshed an opposing view into submission. Every position is entitled to post as it sees fit, regardless of the kind of, and amount of, postings by other positions. What is wanted is serious consideration of all posts........then you decide.
2. I personally, as the thread originator, am trying to post a new response at least every 2^nd day, but admit my busy schedule means I am sometimes falling short on this. So it is great that a number of other CT'ers are posting responses here somewhat regularly.

The Pressing Climate Change Issue

The core issue:

Building a sense of URGENCY on this issue in society. We must realize that we cannot kick it down the road any longer!

The public is aware of the climate change issue.......

BUT.....

climate activists must find strategies to “AWAKEN” the public to the “urgency”.

It is expected, though somewhat disheartening, to see other negative issues of the day climb immediately to the top of the public's agenda, with climate change being sometimes substantially downgraded in importance. We will all pay for this.........

The Time Line

Nature's Tipping point is estimated to be, on current trajectory, only 9 years away (Around Jan. 1, 2031). Capping the temperature rise at only 1.5 degrees Celsius (the original international target) is now impossible (UN Climate Change Panel's most recent report). Their position is that the problem at this time is mostly due to human activity, and that radical change in our method of living is the only way to avoid this rising, very problematic, temperature. UNCCP noted that current government deadlines were totally insufficient to solve the problem. CO 2 must be capped by 2025! Methane is another greenhouse gas of concern, with some maintaining it contributes more to the problem than CO2. The extent of involvement in the greenhouse effect of water vapour is somewhat controversial.

Also, it has now become necessary to add in the process of CO 2 “removal”, along with “eliminating” the spewing of greenhouse gases into our atmosphere by human activity.

Our window of opportunity is fast closing.

The Large Picture Solutions

Can we come up with at least one viable suggestion of some impressive, radical thing that might wake up the public, that we could then put out there to other concerned climate activists?

Negative “Natural” Climate Change

This thread has had a number of CT'ers arguing for Natural Climate Change, and arguing that the human economic activity contribution to negative climate change is negligible. We are just in one of Nature's long warming cycles.

We would encourage everyone to consider the materials being presented, and then see whether they in any way change your perspective, if you are an adherent of negative Anthropogenic climate change. Whether you change anything, or not, your assessment of the evidence would be most welcome in this thread.

CT'ers' Local Actions on Climate Change

You can do something! When you like one of this thread's links on an aspect of climate change, spread the news by posting it to your social media accounts and other Websites/Discussion Boards you participate in!

~ Bob (T-S/P)

[Sid Belzberg]

ChessTalk

Negative Anthropogenic Climate Change (NACC) Thread

(Started: 21/12/9)




Week # 5 (23/1/30 – 23/2/5: 7 days)

Weekly Stats:

Views
.....................................................2023 Average.... 2022 Average
Last Week's......Prior Week's........Views/Day..........Views/Day
Views/Day........Views/Day.............(5wks.)........ ......(5 wks.).

........45....................7..........................34.....................44

Responses (Posts)

......................................................2023 Average.........2022 Average

....Last Week's.....Prior Week's......Responses/Day......Responses/Day

Responses/Day....Resp./Day......... (5 wks.)....................... (5 wks.)

.............3....................1.........................3..........................5.

Analysis of Last Weeks Stats

The stats for last week are significantly up; this is a result of more responses each day than in the prior week.

Climate Change Thread “Responses”

There are lots of climate change articles out there, both on negative anthropogenic climate change, and negative natural climate change.

This thread encourages CT'ers on all sides to re-post here, as responses, the climate change posts of interest they see elsewhere. Overall, ChessTalker's have been quite active here in posting “responses” and it seems that chessplayers across Canada re wanting information on climate change, a challenge unlike any our species has ever faced before.

Note:

1. The goal of this thread is not to woodshed an opposing view into submission. Every position is entitled to post as it sees fit, regardless of the kind of, and amount of, postings by other positions. What is wanted is serious consideration of all posts........then you decide.
2. I personally, as the thread originator, am trying to post a new response at least every 2^nd day, but admit my busy schedule means I am sometimes falling short on this. So it is great that a number of other CT'ers are posting responses here somewhat regularly.

The Pressing Climate Change Issue

The core issue:

Building a sense of URGENCY on this issue in society. We must realize that we cannot kick it down the road any longer!

The public is aware of the climate change issue.......

BUT.....

climate activists must find strategies to “AWAKEN” the public to the “urgency”.

It is expected, though somewhat disheartening, to see other negative issues of the day climb immediately to the top of the public's agenda, with climate change being sometimes substantially downgraded in importance. We will all pay for this.........

The Time Line

Nature's Tipping point is estimated to be, on current trajectory, only 9 years away (Around Jan. 1, 2031). Capping the temperature rise at only 1.5 degrees Celsius (the original international target) is now impossible (UN Climate Change Panel's most recent report). Their position is that the problem at this time is mostly due to human activity, and that radical change in our method of living is the only way to avoid this rising, very problematic, temperature. UNCCP noted that current government deadlines were totally insufficient to solve the problem. CO 2 must be capped by 2025! Methane is another greenhouse gas of concern, with some maintaining it contributes more to the problem than CO2. The extent of involvement in the greenhouse effect of water vapour is somewhat controversial.

Also, it has now become necessary to add in the process of CO 2 “removal”, along with “eliminating” the spewing of greenhouse gases into our atmosphere by human activity.

Our window of opportunity is fast closing.

The Large Picture Solutions

Can we come up with at least one viable suggestion of some impressive, radical thing that might wake up the public, that we could then put out there to other concerned climate activists?

Negative “Natural” Climate Change

This thread has had a number of CT'ers arguing for Natural Climate Change, and arguing that the human economic activity contribution to negative climate change is negligible. We are just in one of Nature's long warming cycles.

We would encourage everyone to consider the materials being presented, and then see whether they in any way change your perspective, if you are an adherent of negative Anthropogenic climate change. Whether you change anything, or not, your assessment of the evidence would be most welcome in this thread.

CT'ers' Local Actions on Climate Change

You can do something! When you like one of this thread's links on an aspect of climate change, spread the news by posting it to your social media accounts and other Websites/Discussion Boards you participate in!

~ Bob (T-S/P)

As mentioned to you this post https://forum.chesstalk.com/forum/ch...369#post224369 shows that temp increases at .5 degrees every 100 years and in fact the sharpest increase was pre industrial revolution so we can extrapolate that 100 years from now the temp will be up by .5 degrees.

This post shows you that the driver of climate is solar activity https://forum.chesstalk.com/forum/ch...371#post224371.

Nature's Tipping point is estimated to be, on current trajectory, only 9 years away (Around Jan. 1, 2031).

Why do you continue to post this statement, given the data you asked for does not support it at all or, for that matter, any of the other related statements made in your weekly post?

[Dilip Panjwani]

As mentioned to you this post https://forum.chesstalk.com/forum/ch...369#post224369 shows that temp increases at .5 degrees every 100 years and in fact the sharpest increase was pre industrial revolution so we can extrapolate that 100 years from now the temp will be up by .5 degrees.

This post shows you that the driver of climate is solar activity https://forum.chesstalk.com/forum/ch...371#post224371.




Why do you continue to post this statement, given the data you asked for does not support it at all or, for that matter, any of the other related statements made in your weekly post?

And Bob, as a champion Marxist for the downtrodden in this world, would you eliminate from your proposed 'solutions', the restrictions being placed on fertilizers and cheap sources of energy like coal and oil, restrictions which play havoc on our world's poor?

[Bob Armstrong]

Negative Anthropogenic Climate Change (NACC)

The Legal Route

Climate change is threatening their paradise: Four Indonesians fight back by suing the global corporation Holcim.

https://www.nzz.ch/english/four-indo...erm=2023-02-09

~ Bob A (T-S/P)