Mr 0,
> I saw somewhere the other day that China is now putting more carbon
> into the atmosphere than the rest of the world put together.
I think you misunderstood what you saw.

If you look at the twenty highest emission countries and the rest of the world, you'll find that the biggest emitter (China) emits more CO2 than the rest of the world, but nowhere near as much as the other nineteen.

And yes, Australia is in the top twenty.

BTW your vapid criticism of Bazz comes across as intellectual snobbery. If you can't point out the actual flaws in his reasoning or assumptions, it's best to keep quiet.
_______________________________________________________________________________

individual,
Population growth is largely a re herring. Stoping population growth would be insufficient to stop global warming. But if we value the environment, we can solve the problem even with a much higher population.

_______________________________________________________________________________

runner,
gw deniaism is now a religion for the deluded to preach to the masses. And why would the Chinese be laughing with uneconomic coal plants they built for political reasons?

_______________________________________________________________________________

Bazz,
Now that wind and solar have become cheaper than fossil fuels, it's disappointing that you're still spreading the lie that we can't afford them.

Meanwhile the temperature keeps getting hotter, completely destroying the credibility of your hypothesis that it's all down to cycles.

The article in question is at http://rclutz.wordpress.com/2020/05/25/pick-your-a-team-arrhenius-or-angstrom/ but it is rather incoherent, with overuse of obscure abbreviations and unsupported assertions.

Aidan,

I said: "I saw somewhere the other day that China is now putting more carbon into the atmosphere than the rest of the world put together." Savvy? "I saw somewhere ......"

If pseudo-scientists like Bazz can't handle criticism then stop spreading bullsh!t about things they have never studied and hence have no knowledge and experience about.

All they do is create false ideas about the seriousness of global warming and climate change and give people false hope that everything will be alright if they fail to act.

What Bazz, Hasbeen, mhaze, and a long list of other pseudo-scientists are selling is a cancer for life on Earth.

And this is because none of them have ever studied science but think they know more that the scientists do.

If there was a University of Bullsh!t these guys would all be Professors of Bullsh!t.

Mr 0,
Yes you saw somewhere. Now it could be that what you saw was an outright lie, but I think it's more likely you just misunderstood what "rest of the world" meant.

>If pseudo-scientists like Bazz can't handle criticism...
There's more than one kind of criticism. If you'd pointed out (as I did) some examples of why what he said was wrong, there'd be no problem. But instead you resorted to ad hominems. You used your presumptive and rather dubious criticism of him as an excuse for your failure to provide any objective criticism of what he said.

>All they do is create false ideas about the seriousness of global warming and climate
>change and give people false hope that everything will be alright if they fail to act.
True. But when instead of proper criticism you disparage their ability to hold valid opinions, it damages your credibility not theirs.

Aidan,

I refuse to engage in discourse with people who have nothing to offer to a discussion but lies.

Would I discuss the Holocaust with Holocaust deniers? NO.

So I also refuse to discuss global warming and climate change with the deniers.

God gave me X number of heartbeats and I'm not wasting any of them on people who don't know what they are talking about.

A spade is a spade is a spade is a shovel.

Aiden, re affordability of solar and wind.
It is the duplication of turbines and solar panels that makes them unaffordable.
I agree that probably a wind turbine in a wind that enables it to
generate maximum output is producing the cheapest electricity ever.
However figures I have seen suggest that any one turbine will produce
35% of its yearly nameplate KW/Hrs. Some recent designs are said to reach 50%.
That being so it means that you have to install two more turbines in
two other locations.
I have seen argument that that duplication factor is as high as 12.
Seems too high to me but the figures of existing wind farms should
give reasonable estimates. However to find alternative wind systems
far enough away to be active when the first is calm is the trick.
That is the crux of my argument, although it gets worse for other
reasons, but please explain where I have that wrong.

M 0,
>I refuse to engage in discourse with people who have nothing to offer to a discussion but lies.
Firstly, is such a refusal wise? These are lies they've fallen for rather than lies they've made up!
Secondly, if that's how you feel, you shouldn't've responded to Bazz at all.

> God gave me X number of heartbeats
Humans are not limited in the number of heartbeats they have. Heart failure is never the result of running out of beats!

> and I'm not wasting any of them on people who don't know what they are talking about.
If that's your concern, it's not just this thread you shouldn't waste your time on, but this entire board.

> A spade is a spade is a spade is a shovel.
Their functions overlap, but a spade is primarily a cutting tool, whereas a shovel is primarily a transferring tool.
_________________________________________________________________________________

Bazz,
The affordability of wind and solar power are based on estimates of what they'll actually generate, not their nameplate capacity. Where storage is needed, that too is taken into account.