Per capita fossil fuel usage of USA vs Germany.
Do they live so poorly in Germany, France, Ireland, UK
They use nearly half per capita fossil fuel.
We could do without luxury consumption which is 50% of the usage in the USA.
Well so an individual feels that protecting our planet for the survival of future generations is his primary concern he is a kook.
How about an individual who is indifferent to what mess we leave our grandchildren. This is the definition of a kook and if you don't agree you are in that box already.
Are seriously stupid.
It matters not a bit what climate was, what matters is the climate that we have developed our civilization around. If we were all living in caves then maybe it wouldn't matter but we have spent great effort over the last 300 years ( a time on geological scales that is invisible ) building out our society and laying boundaries that allow most of us to eke out a living.
MMGW is going to upend that in less than 50 years if we don't take action.
There is no reliable record of the global climate changing as fast as it is now due to our CO2 emissions, and yet we waste time considering the made up gotchas that the fossil fuel industry has paid scientist to invent for the consumption of the ignorant masses.
The society of idiots is just a big circus that one can only watch for entertainment ( with good popcorn of course ).
Does posting an anecdotal case where doctors were wrong prove anything or does it just feel relevant to you.
Repeatable ?? How many Earths do we have ..... idiot.
Causal Isolated ?? Tell us how to isolate the Earth from space and all its internal variation ... double idiot.
You may continue to post your uninformed opinion about the relationship between CO2 and warming without understanding a shred of the science but don't expect anybody other than your fellow half wits to listen.
No the theory was proposed over 100 years ago by a pioneer in thermodynamics
Like I said "dynamics" and " noise" can account for your misunderstanding.
This is just a bunch of uninformed opinion that just happens to counter the opinions of those educated in these matters. Any half wit who reads that junk and believes it is beyond hope anyway.
Those who have a scientific understanding of the problem say.
1 It is likely that increased temperatures will rearrange global food production from the current state our society has developed leading to mass starvation and probably wars for resources.
2 Sea level rise will likely destroy much of our highly valued coastal real estate.
3 The observed pause is likely a temporary phenomenon and some coming decade may see a reversal in this transient phenomena bringing extreme climate on us suddenly.
4 The fossil fuel industry is funding junk science to create the illusion of doubt in the public so idiots like hawcreek can play the useful fool propagating the denial and postponing useful steps to counter MMGW.
As far a faux knows and astrophysicist and aeronautical engineer are the same thing as they both like ta fly stuff.
One could not possible post this in earnest without also possessing an IQ expressed in only two decimal digits.
""In this market absent a material seller they pump it up""
Is this "absent a material seller" the opposite of "in play"
Can there not be "material sellers" in the absence of significant news and high volume.
Why are stocks less "in play" now than earlier times.
"" It is ironic that your application of the term not only shows you are clueless but also think algorithms can put a stock "in play" no, wrong that is manipulation ""
Well I judge the term "in play" as meaning subject to being sold.
Is this not your definition of in play. Have you made up something else new for the world to absorb.
Yes finally, I tried about a year ago to get ya to consider your silly opinion on whether stocks were in play.
At that time I concluded you weren't smart enough to grasp the question. Now a year later you figured it out.
Stocks are more "in play" now than they ever have been thanks to algorithmic trading.
Why should the percentage of stocks "in play" be lower than earlier times.
On topic ??
You brought up CO2 in a thread about gun control and then accuse me of being off topic.
You are one of a kind, thankfully.
""Spent my whole career with systems that were dynamic and made lots of noise.""
So do bulldozer operators but that doesn't mean they know much.
I just say that violent injury would be lower without guns. IT is one of those points that is obvious but you RWNJ don't like it said.