GeorgeRux

@RogerPielkeJr So you are attacking the man rather than addressing the issue. Pathetic

Update My comment at Real Climate apparently was not allowed They can say false things about me but I cannot correct the record Cool cool Climate “science” 🤓

@johnrhanger Dream on EV Eunuch. Without subsidies, sales collapse. USA sales in 2025 only 8%. Rest of the world will eventually follow.

EV global market share nears 30% in 2026! IEA said in 2019 EV market share would be 5% in 2026. EVs go from 80 million in 2025 to 510 million by 2035. Wow! EV trucks were 10% of global sales in 2025. Oil burning autos, buses, vans, trucks are doomed. iea.org/news/close-to-…

@Tw_timerAlder What evidence do you have that Tice rejects climate science? He is rejecting climate BS, just like Trump. Drill baby drill and Make England Great Again { MEGA)

Richard Tice fundamentally rejects climate science. He threatened to walk out of then interview when presented with the science and refused to name the advisors who convinced him climate science was wrong. Ladies and gentlemen… Reform 🤪 bloomberg.com/news/articles/…

@AssaadRazzouk @IEA Dream on. Drop the subsidies and EV purchases will drop like a rock. Half the population will never buy an EV since they don’t own a home with a garage. Without subsidies, USA market share of EVs in 2025 was 8%. That’s about right. Fringe sales by self righteous fringe Americans

New: EVs set to capture an impressive 28% of global car sales in 2026 says @IEA. Petrol cars will, very soon, be for museums only Wild how off the mark the IEA has been: In 2019, they thought we'd barely hit a 5% share by now

@GeoffreyLean How many centuries?

No-one knows of course. But this useful piece on recent research suggests it could be quite fast. I won’t see it either, of course, but future generations matter - and won’t thank us….. scientificamerican.com/article/antarc…

@AkshatRathi lol. They are easy to stop. Just stop subsidizing them

Renewables are unstoppable. BNEF's New Energy Outlook for this year says solar is set to be biggest source of electricity in 2032 and wind second biggest in 2034. Both coal and gas displaced from those thrones. This is the business-as-usual scenario. 🎁🔗 bloomberg.com/news/articles/…

@mzjacobson @meyerwerft Read the article: Last sentence: “That’s why electric boats are so difficult to build, and that’s why electric power is generally reserved for small mom-and-pop watercraft (above) that people use on a Sunday.”

World’s first 100% battery-electric cruise ship (1,865 passengers, 275 meters, 82,000 tonnes) to operate by 2031. @meyerwerft supercarblondie.com/german-shipbui…

@mzjacobson @meyerwerft Short ferry routes , perhaps. But ocean going cruise ships? Not going to happen

@TheDisproof So what? A child with a straight edge and a crayon could develop this forecast.

Climate models are fine, thanks theclimatebrink.com/p/comparing-cl…

@Tw_timerAlder AGW “Does? “Do you mean “Might Do?” Lots of speculation listed. No evidence. Why did the 1C warming the past century do none of these things?

Since many climate cranks think the world is safe from the worst possible outcome of unabated emissions so all is fine & we don’t need to do anything here is a reminder of what 3 degrees C of AGW does. For anyone who values life & the environment more than money it’s not good.

Please try to find one showing human burning of fossil fuels is responsible for over 50% of the increase CO2 concentrations. I have found studies deriving estimates from 3% to about 30%. But none deriving an estimate of over 50%. Sadly, the IPCC ignores the problem by just assuming humans are 100% responsible

Yes, I am still trying to find at least 1 of those 3896 papers that show, using publicly availalbe data, that CO2 is the cause of AGW (man-made climate change).

@M3othra012 @wideawake_media Is there a term for LW stirrers for attention seeking bullshitter with paranoid delusions? Do you genuinely think Right Wingers are more paranoid than Left wingers?

@wideawake_media In today’s news: a new term has been devised by RW stirrers for attention seeking bullshitter with paranoid delusions: interdisciplinary scientist.

Interdisciplinary scientist Denis Rancourt argues that—based on all-cause mortality data from Europe and the US—there was no Covid pandemic. He notes that excess deaths appeared only after the WHO declared a pandemic and aggressive hospital interventions began, contradicting the official narrative of an infectious viral respiratory illness.

@DanCady @DrBibekBhatta @TheDisproof Ok, so the paper estimates an ECS of 3.6. So what? There is no evidence human burning of fossil fuels has a majority of the impact increasing CO2 concentrations. Nor is there evidence that increased warming is detrimental to humans

@DrBibekBhatta @TheDisproof You've got to be kidding. If you're not familiar with the names posted and the contents of their papers, I must regard you as exceptionally deficient. Have a nice day.

@M3othra012 @latimeralder Assuming an additional 1C warming over the next century, which of these statistics do you predict will trend unfavorably?

@CAGWfool @latimeralder … 2. These statistics reflect past changes, they do not reflect future changes, for which of course statistics do not exist. The prospectus warns the investor that past performance does not guarantee future performance, for a reason. …

Climate Quiz: Q1. Is the climate changing? A1: Yes. Q2: For better or worse? A2: For the better. Q3: So why are we 'fighting climate change'? A3: Beats me. Self harm? Please add your views and thoughts. If you can, use real data about real things that really happened.

@M3othra012 @latimeralder What interpretations have I made with which you disagree? I’m just showing data. What statistics connected to social, technological, and/or economic change can you cite that are unfavorable?

@CAGWfool @latimeralder Your ability to interpret statistics is not great. 1. Many of these statistics are not connected to climate, they are connected to social, technology and economic changes. …

@M3othra012 @latimeralder Do you acknowledge that “recognizing the experts” is merely an appeal to authority and not evidence to support your claims?

@CAGWfool @latimeralder … I prefer to understand the mechanisms of change, recognise who the real experts are and not be fooled by normalcy bias. That way I can make a best guess about future occurrences. Kind of like investing. Some bets will be wrong, but the net result will be a decent return.

@ECOWARRIORSS @morgfair Do you really think our use of fossil fuels has any impact on whether the Antarctic ice shelf breaks off?

"‘doomsday’ glacier’s giant ice shelf is about to break away Worse still, its collapse is expected to set off a domino effect in the entire West Antarctic ice sheet, ultimately resulting in a calamitous sea-level rise of 3.3 metres and changing the coastline of the entire planet"

@M3othra012 @latimeralder Data shows us climate is changing for the better. See attached. We know your feelings as you post often. Do you have any data to support your feelings?

@latimeralder …. Thinks climate is changing for the better, because feelings, not data, not risk analysis. “It’s hard to do anything about climate change, so climate change must be good” is a logical fallacy. …

@Various93891835 @latimeralder Could you please cite any way you think climate change has not been beneficial? By almost all metrics, the environment for humans is better now compared to a century ago when the world was about 1C cooler. See attached.

@latimeralder In what way is the climate changing beneficial? It obviously isn’t!

@M3othra012 @latimeralder Is there any engineering, physics, chemistry and/or biology that indicates climate change is dangerous to humans? If so, could you please explain how?

@latimeralder … Pretends other people are “fighting climate change” so they must be irrational and doing it for no reason… Meanwhile engineering, physics, chemistry and biology.