Guys, here's another one that 'went through to the keeper'.
Just one of many questions for the CC freaks.
If this CC is so serious, so dangerous, a matter of life and death, with all this urgency and threat of death and the list goes on, would we not have seen some REAL and tangible results which were actually turning things around, instead of all this money and grants and research which has achieved nothing in over forty years with NO real advancement in any of the alternative energy sources.
Solar has been around since the beginning of the 20th century, as was wind, even earlier.
The only two left in the race and they are both older than most posters on OLO.
There is nothing new about renewables today other than the 'tidying up' of an old technology, to make it seem like a new technology.
Sure batteries are slightly more efficient today, but that was already in the pipeline well before CC came along.
These are undeniable facts just like the failure of the renewables to even come close to nuclear or other older tried and true technology.
So in closing, we must ask, if CC is so serious and it has been talked about for a very long time, then why are we really no further advanced than we were nearly a century ago?
The answer is; Because it's all a load of BS and there are too many people making too much money from it, otherwise we would have had the new technology up and running well and truly by now, to mitigate the death of all living things on Earth.
So by logical deduction, CC cannot be a real thing, and so we are not seeing any real response to a BS problem.

Struth, WWF explaining how the we're-all-gunna-die meme really really is real. What's next? ISIS explaining how Islam really really is the religion pf peace and how the 10 year old sex slaves really benefit from it?

Just take one of their ten mythbusts - the bridge analogy. Here's what I wrote to Rache a while back when she fell for the story:

" how did that 97% figure came about...Two researchers sent out two questions to ~10000 scientists. About 3000 replied. When the researchers compiled the answers they didn't like the results. So they started discarding certain types of scientists eg geologists, solar experts and so on. Finally they got the result they wanted - 75 out of 77 (97%) answered yes to both questions. Remember that's 77 out of the original ~10000. Only in a field so corrupt as climate science would this be considered appropriate. But it was the result they wanted so.....

So what were the two questions..1. Do you think temperatures have increased since 1800 and 2." “Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?” (Significant wasn't defined so could mean anything from 10% to 100%.

So back to your engineers. They aren't saying the bridge isn't safe. They are saying its changed since it was built and man played some part in it. That's it....

But since we're now in the realms of pretend let's say that most of your 97 engineers think it will be unsafe at some time. When?
Tomorrow? Next month? Next year? No, in fact it'll be toward the end of the century. So they aren't saying you shouldn't cross now but that your great grand-kids shouldn't cross it in 80 or 90 years because it'll be unsafe then.

Now we know our great grandkids will be immeasurably more wealthy we we are, and we know that they'll have access to technology that our futurists haven't even imagined yet, but somehow we also think they'll be morons who won't be able to repair the bridge themselves. So we have to do it for them."

The mindless insult
Hurled at those of us who believe the science?
Why
Just think very near half of the world agrees with us
Many many country,s do too
What is it that brings people to be so outright dreadful when talking of those with another opinion

Altrav- Thanks for your feedback.

Trump on the Paris agreement:

“The Paris Accord is not working out too well for Paris." (referring to the yellow vest riots).

Those riots are people finally deciding that they can't pay any more to the global warming gods.

But we see it all over. Do a survey and large numbers will agree that 'sumfing' should be done about GW. But someone else should pay for that 'sumfing'. Part of the angst in Paris is that the measures fall disproportionately on country-folk while the elites get a pass.

How many stories have we seen of people telling us that we have to sacrifice while they continue their CO2 generating lifestyle. As Glenn Reynolds says, I'll believe GW is real when those telling me its real starting acting like its real.

Its here as well. Greenies based in the cities are just fine with closing down Adani and any other coal mine. Job losses don't matter to them - its not their jobs.

But when it does affect them - electricity prices, petrol? Then the government is required to do 'sumfing'. We've been through how many PMs trying to reconcile the desire to do something about GW with the demand that that something affect someone else.

If the Libs/ALP/Greens really thought we're-all-gunna-die then they'd be telling people that they welcome higher electricity prices, higher (much much higher) petrol prices. They don't because they don't.

Belly,

"The mindless insult...what is it that brings people to be so outright dreadful when talking of those with another opinion"

Yeah, right-on. Like calling some a flat-earther, a denier or just stupid because they have different views on the THE science (sarc).

Luckily Belly, you're so fair-minded and 'woke' that you'd never do that, heh?