[late]

Lurkers, I don't respond to Truth to Power on ACC, because he never replies with anything more than a simple denial.
In this case (the part I highlighted), he has said this several times. One time I pointed out the the many freezing deaths from the cold in Texas 2 winters ago was caused by the waviness of the jet stream that is being caused by ACC. He just ignored me.
The waviness is being caused by ACC and it is causing more extreme weather including very cold waves, heat waves, droughts, and flooding rains. TtP ignores this, and keeps making his denials.

He has got to be a paid troll...

[Truth To Power]

Lurkers, I don't respond to Truth to Power on ACC, because he never replies with anything more than a simple denial.

That is a bald falsehood.

In this case (the part I highlighted), he has said this several times. One time I pointed out the the many freezing deaths from the cold in Texas 2 winters ago was caused by the waviness of the jet stream that is being caused by ACC. He just ignored me.

No, I identified the fact that there is no credible scientific reason to think anthropogenic CO2 has caused the jet stream to be less stable.

The waviness is being caused by ACC and it is causing more extreme weather including very cold waves, heat waves, droughts, and flooding rains. TtP ignores this, and keeps making his denials.

Because it's transparently anti-rational nonscience.

[late]

That is a bald falsehood.

He didn't do a good job of saying you're full of crap.

But you are.

You are also anti-science, anti-civilisation, and just generally fruit loops.

[BlutoSays]

Full of numbers and other nasty FACTUAL information.

Oct 12, 2022 -

Mineral Supply Challenges to Phase Out Fossil Fuels with Simon Michaux, Associate Professor of Geometallurgy at the Geological Survey of Finland in the Circular Economy Solutions Unit

Find out about the data that's been collected on global mineral reserves, as the world gradually moves toward renewable energy. The estimated total quantity of raw materials to manufacture one generation of renewable technology units (solar panels, wind turbines, etc.) to completely phase out fossil fuels (replace the fossil fuel technology existing system) was collected.

[late]

Full of numbers and other nasty FACTUAL information.

That's one of the reasons why we will need to build a bunch of nuke reactors to tide us over until we can develop, and deploy, a new generation of renewables.

[Pants-of-dog]

…. there is no credible scientific reason to think anthropogenic CO2 has caused the jet stream to be less stable.
….

That depends on what you mean by “less stable”.

We know that ACC is raising temperatures in the Arctic. We also know that the jet stream gets more energy as the Arctic gets colder.

So this means the jet stream should have less energy overall, and this could lead to more blocking events. Blocking events are times when the weather moving along the jet stream is stopped or diverted over a region.

So weather gets more “stable”, and by this I mean that the weather stays the same for a long time. If it is hot and dry, it can be a heatwave. If it cold and dry, it can become a cold snap. Et cetera.

So, more stable, but dangerously so?

[Truth To Power]

That depends on what you mean by “less stable”.

No it doesn't. There is no credible empirical evidence that CO2 from fossil fuels has made the jet stream less stable no matter what you think that means.

[Pants-of-dog]

No it doesn't. There is no credible empirical evidence that CO2 from fossil fuels has made the jet stream less stable no matter what you think that means.

Exactly.

The jet stream is now no longer as dynamic as it was, leading to long spells of similar weather, which in turn causes more extreme weather events.

[Truth To Power]

The jet stream is now no longer as dynamic as it was, leading to long spells of similar weather, which in turn causes more extreme weather events.

And (to the modest extent that it has) we have no idea why that change has occurred, so attributing it to CO2 is nothing but a post hoc fallacy -- the stock in trade of anti-fossil-fuel hysteria mongers.

[Truth To Power]

He didn't do a good job of saying you're full of crap.

But you are.

You are also anti-science, anti-civilisation, and just generally fruit loops.

Then why do ACTUAL PHYSICAL EVENTS keep proving me right and you wrong?

[late]

Then why do ACTUAL PHYSICAL EVENTS keep proving me right and you wrong?

Easy, you're incompetent.

[Pants-of-dog]

And (to the modest extent that it has) we have no idea why that change has occurred, so attributing it to CO2 is nothing but a post hoc fallacy…

If you want to believe that something else is warming the Arctic and slowing down the het stream, feel free.

Science suggests that anthropogenic climate change due to greenhouse gases is the most plausible explanation.

[Truth To Power]

Science suggests that anthropogenic climate change due to greenhouse gases is the most plausible explanation.

"Science"?? No. Just anti-fossil-fuel hate propaganda.

[Truth To Power]

Easy, you're incompetent.

No, that's not very likely when I am consistently right about actual physical events and you are consistently wrong.

[Pants-of-dog]

"Science"?? No. Just anti-fossil-fuel hate propaganda.

No, this seems to be merely an ad hominem.

[late]

No, that's not very likely when I am consistently right about actual physical events and you are consistently wrong.

Incorrect.

Scientists found warming in the 70s, and that has never faced a serious challenge.

Do you really need the money that much??

[Truth To Power]

No, this seems to be merely an ad hominem.

No. It's an accurate description of CO2-centered climate nonscience.

[Truth To Power]

Incorrect.

No. I am objectively correct as a matter of physical fact, and I will thank you to remember it.

Scientists found warming in the 70s,

No, that's just false. They found the earth had cooled from the 1940s to the 1970s. The 20th century warming was ~1910-1940 and after 1970.

and that has never faced a serious challenge.

The earth certainly warmed in the twentieth century because the sun was extremely active (a decades-long multimillennium high). The fact that the earth has warmed since the coldest 500-year period in the last 10,000 years -- when the sun was, not coincidentally, extremely inactive -- is not evidence that CO2 (or any other specific factor) caused it to warm. The fact that CO2 increased at the same time the earth warmed is not evidence that CO2 was the principal cause of the warming. That is just a blatant post hoc fallacy. You just don't know enough basic science or logic to understand that.

Do you really need the money that much??

You continue to make ridiculous and laughable personal accusations with no evidence. You are desperate because you are aware of the fact that actual physical events continue to prove me right and you wrong. I get it. But it is absolutely certain that that is going to continue to happen, so I hope you will be able to get used to it.

[late]

No, that's just false. They found the earth had cooled from the 1940s to the 1970s. The 20th century warming was ~1910-1940 and after 1970.

You tried that before, dumbass.

It wasn't until the 1970s computers got powerful enough to model the climate, and those were incredibly expensive. So it was only DARPA and Big Oil that could afford them.

That has never been challenged, it is the consensus theory of climatology, and supported by the larger scientific community.

You keep repeating crap, and that's all it is.

Dumbass crap that's oil propaganda. You ought to be ashamed of yourself for that prostitution..

[Pants-of-dog]

No. It's an accurate description of CO2-centered climate nonscience.

No. I think you are incorrect.

And I will go further and say that you will not support this accusation with evidence.