Maximal temperatures in the US have DECREASED over the last 100 years

On Thu, 19 Sep 2019 22:15:58 +1200, Eric Stevens
wrote:

On Thu, 19 Sep 2019 09:03:42 +0200, "Carlos E.R."
wrote:

On 19/09/2019 03.12, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Thu, 19 Sep 2019 00:14:19 +0200, "Carlos E. R."
wrote:

On 18/09/2019 23.06, Char Jackson wrote:
On Wed, 18 Sep 2019 15:29:18 +0200, "Carlos E.R."
wrote:

On 18/09/2019 11.07, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Tue, 17 Sep 2019 22:30:33 -0400, "Mayayana"
wrote:


I don't know what to think, personally. I'm not convinced that
we have the capability to really know what's happening or why.
But I do know that I used to play hockey on local ponds from
late November to March when I was young, and in recent years
the ponds rarely even freeze over.

So wouldn't it make sense to just avoid actions that might
contribute to global warming, just to be on the safe side?
What harm is there in increasing solar and wind energy sources,

It will lead to horrendously expensive and unreliable power.

LOL. There is an island in Spain that has gone a month with only wind
and solar power. Just an example.

A second example is the Isle of Eigg, near Scotland.

"Eigg generates virtually 100% of its electricity using renewable
energy." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eigg

Indeed. It is early days for that technology, but it shows that it is
possible and that we can achieve it, with time and effort. At worst,
fuel will last longer, because as sure as death exists and is
inevitable, fosil fuel will one day be spent.

You should read
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/09/...-civilization/

LOL. Already proven wrong.

That's interesting. By whom? In what respect? Can you give me
reference?


It depends what you call "modern civilization", though. I live with 2.3
Kw. Most houses here are limited to 3.5 or 4.6.

Now, what about a steel mill? A chemical refinery? An aluminium
smelter? A cement plant? A paper mill? A railway system? Have you
really thought about the problems of supporting such industries with
solar or wind?

Hypothetical example: If you could move 300 million homes off of the
electric grid and onto solar or wind-powered electricity, you wouldn't
see that as a net gain because the factories have been left behind? Does
a solution have to be all or nothing before it can be called a solution?

On Thu, 19 Sep 2019 12:34:51 -0500, Char Jackson
wrote:

On Thu, 19 Sep 2019 22:15:58 +1200, Eric Stevens
wrote:

On Thu, 19 Sep 2019 09:03:42 +0200, "Carlos E.R."
wrote:

On 19/09/2019 03.12, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Thu, 19 Sep 2019 00:14:19 +0200, "Carlos E. R."
wrote:

On 18/09/2019 23.06, Char Jackson wrote:
On Wed, 18 Sep 2019 15:29:18 +0200, "Carlos E.R."
wrote:

On 18/09/2019 11.07, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Tue, 17 Sep 2019 22:30:33 -0400, "Mayayana"
wrote:


I don't know what to think, personally. I'm not convinced that
we have the capability to really know what's happening or why.
But I do know that I used to play hockey on local ponds from
late November to March when I was young, and in recent years
the ponds rarely even freeze over.

So wouldn't it make sense to just avoid actions that might
contribute to global warming, just to be on the safe side?
What harm is there in increasing solar and wind energy sources,

It will lead to horrendously expensive and unreliable power.

LOL. There is an island in Spain that has gone a month with only wind
and solar power. Just an example.

A second example is the Isle of Eigg, near Scotland.

"Eigg generates virtually 100% of its electricity using renewable
energy." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eigg

Indeed. It is early days for that technology, but it shows that it is
possible and that we can achieve it, with time and effort. At worst,
fuel will last longer, because as sure as death exists and is
inevitable, fosil fuel will one day be spent.

You should read
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/09/...-civilization/

LOL. Already proven wrong.

That's interesting. By whom? In what respect? Can you give me
reference?


It depends what you call "modern civilization", though. I live with 2.3
Kw. Most houses here are limited to 3.5 or 4.6.

Now, what about a steel mill? A chemical refinery? An aluminium
smelter? A cement plant? A paper mill? A railway system? Have you
really thought about the problems of supporting such industries with
solar or wind?

Hypothetical example: If you could move 300 million homes off of the
electric grid and onto solar or wind-powered electricity, you wouldn't
see that as a net gain because the factories have been left behind? Does
a solution have to be all or nothing before it can be called a solution?

It certainly would reduce CO2 but its a fail if you are trying to
eliminate the production of CO2.

--


Eric Stevens

There are two classes of people. Those who divide people into
two classes and those who don't. I belong to the second class.

"Eric Stevens" wrote

| It certainly would reduce CO2 but its a fail if you are trying to
| eliminate the production of CO2.
|

Yes. Come to think of it, we'd have to eliminate all
animal life to stop the production of CO2. So I guess
you're right, we should burn as much petroleum as
possible. Your logic is so brilliant that sometimes it's
just hard for us mere mortals to keep up.

Mayayana wrote:
"Eric Stevens" wrote

| It certainly would reduce CO2 but its a fail if you are trying to
| eliminate the production of CO2.
|

Yes. Come to think of it, we'd have to eliminate all
animal life to stop the production of CO2. So I guess
you're right, we should burn as much petroleum as
possible. Your logic is so brilliant that sometimes it's
just hard for us mere mortals to keep up.

The state of planet Venus, is an example of a possible endpoint.
Even though Venus may seem entirely different than Earth,
it shares some features in terms of atmospheric circulation.

https://www.lpi.usra.edu/vexag/nov_2...s/schubert.pdf

If you did burn all the petroleum, you might just succeed in
raising the GHG effect to the same level as Venus. This would
sterilize the earth, pretty well permanently. No life form,
not even tardigrades, would survive.

Conditions on the surface of Venus are so bad, you can't
keep a landed spacecraft operating for very long, before
it's destroyed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venus

Mean surface temperature 864 °F (higher than the ignition point of paper)
Surface pressure 91 atm (same pressure as a 80L tank of gas from Linde)

96.5% carbon dioxide
3.5% nitrogen
0.015% sulfur dioxide
0.0070% argon
0.0020% water vapour
0.0017% carbon monoxide
0.0012% helium
0.0007% neon
trace carbonyl sulfide \
trace hydrogen chloride \___ "flavoring and added colors"
trace hydrogen fluoride /

Above the dense CO2 layer are thick clouds consisting mainly
of sulfuric acid, which is formed by sulfur dioxide and water
through a chemical reaction resulting in sulfuric acid hydrate.
Additionally, the atmosphere consists of approximately 1% ferric chloride.

But they'll build a hotel there one day, and there will be a McDonalds.

Paul

On 20/09/2019 01:36, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Thu, 19 Sep 2019 12:34:51 -0500, Char Jackson
wrote:

On Thu, 19 Sep 2019 22:15:58 +1200, Eric Stevens
wrote:

On Thu, 19 Sep 2019 09:03:42 +0200, "Carlos E.R."
wrote:

On 19/09/2019 03.12, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Thu, 19 Sep 2019 00:14:19 +0200, "Carlos E. R."
wrote:

On 18/09/2019 23.06, Char Jackson wrote:
On Wed, 18 Sep 2019 15:29:18 +0200, "Carlos E.R."
wrote:

On 18/09/2019 11.07, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Tue, 17 Sep 2019 22:30:33 -0400, "Mayayana"
wrote:


I don't know what to think, personally. I'm not convinced that
we have the capability to really know what's happening or why.
But I do know that I used to play hockey on local ponds from
late November to March when I was young, and in recent years
the ponds rarely even freeze over.

So wouldn't it make sense to just avoid actions that might
contribute to global warming, just to be on the safe side?
What harm is there in increasing solar and wind energy sources,

It will lead to horrendously expensive and unreliable power.

LOL. There is an island in Spain that has gone a month with only wind
and solar power. Just an example.

A second example is the Isle of Eigg, near Scotland.

"Eigg generates virtually 100% of its electricity using renewable
energy." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eigg

Indeed. It is early days for that technology, but it shows that it is
possible and that we can achieve it, with time and effort. At worst,
fuel will last longer, because as sure as death exists and is
inevitable, fosil fuel will one day be spent.

You should read
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/09/...-civilization/

LOL. Already proven wrong.

That's interesting. By whom? In what respect? Can you give me
reference?


It depends what you call "modern civilization", though. I live with 2.3
Kw. Most houses here are limited to 3.5 or 4.6.

Now, what about a steel mill? A chemical refinery? An aluminium
smelter? A cement plant? A paper mill? A railway system? Have you
really thought about the problems of supporting such industries with
solar or wind?

Hypothetical example: If you could move 300 million homes off of the
electric grid and onto solar or wind-powered electricity, you wouldn't
see that as a net gain because the factories have been left behind? Does
a solution have to be all or nothing before it can be called a solution?

It certainly would reduce CO2 but its a fail if you are trying to
eliminate the production of CO2.

Elimination of CO2 production is not the end game. Straw man.

On Thu, 19 Sep 2019 23:11:42 -0400, "Mayayana"
wrote:

"Eric Stevens" wrote

| It certainly would reduce CO2 but its a fail if you are trying to
| eliminate the production of CO2.
|

Yes. Come to think of it, we'd have to eliminate all
animal life to stop the production of CO2. So I guess
you're right, we should burn as much petroleum as
possible. Your logic is so brilliant that sometimes it's
just hard for us mere mortals to keep up.

Gee! You rattle from one extreme to to the other.

--


Eric Stevens

There are two classes of people. Those who divide people into
two classes and those who don't. I belong to the second class.

On Fri, 20 Sep 2019 09:36:51 +0100, Chris wrote:

On 20/09/2019 01:36, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Thu, 19 Sep 2019 12:34:51 -0500, Char Jackson
wrote:

On Thu, 19 Sep 2019 22:15:58 +1200, Eric Stevens
wrote:

On Thu, 19 Sep 2019 09:03:42 +0200, "Carlos E.R."
wrote:

On 19/09/2019 03.12, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Thu, 19 Sep 2019 00:14:19 +0200, "Carlos E. R."
wrote:

On 18/09/2019 23.06, Char Jackson wrote:
On Wed, 18 Sep 2019 15:29:18 +0200, "Carlos E.R."
wrote:

On 18/09/2019 11.07, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Tue, 17 Sep 2019 22:30:33 -0400, "Mayayana"
wrote:


I don't know what to think, personally. I'm not convinced that
we have the capability to really know what's happening or why.
But I do know that I used to play hockey on local ponds from
late November to March when I was young, and in recent years
the ponds rarely even freeze over.

So wouldn't it make sense to just avoid actions that might
contribute to global warming, just to be on the safe side?
What harm is there in increasing solar and wind energy sources,

It will lead to horrendously expensive and unreliable power.

LOL. There is an island in Spain that has gone a month with only wind
and solar power. Just an example.

A second example is the Isle of Eigg, near Scotland.

"Eigg generates virtually 100% of its electricity using renewable
energy." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eigg

Indeed. It is early days for that technology, but it shows that it is
possible and that we can achieve it, with time and effort. At worst,
fuel will last longer, because as sure as death exists and is
inevitable, fosil fuel will one day be spent.

You should read
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/09/...-civilization/

LOL. Already proven wrong.

That's interesting. By whom? In what respect? Can you give me
reference?


It depends what you call "modern civilization", though. I live with 2.3
Kw. Most houses here are limited to 3.5 or 4.6.

Now, what about a steel mill? A chemical refinery? An aluminium
smelter? A cement plant? A paper mill? A railway system? Have you
really thought about the problems of supporting such industries with
solar or wind?

Hypothetical example: If you could move 300 million homes off of the
electric grid and onto solar or wind-powered electricity, you wouldn't
see that as a net gain because the factories have been left behind? Does
a solution have to be all or nothing before it can be called a solution?

It certainly would reduce CO2 but its a fail if you are trying to
eliminate the production of CO2.

Elimination of CO2 production is not the end game. Straw man.

What then is the end of the game you have in mind?

--


Eric Stevens

There are two classes of people. Those who divide people into
two classes and those who don't. I belong to the second class.

"Paul" wrote

| Yes. Come to think of it, we'd have to eliminate all
| animal life to stop the production of CO2.

| If you did burn all the petroleum, you might just succeed in
| raising the GHG effect to the same level as Venus. This would
| sterilize the earth, pretty well permanently. No life form,
| not even tardigrades, would survive.
|

Finally, someone with a coherent plan to save the planet.

Chris wrote:
On 20/09/2019 01:36, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Thu, 19 Sep 2019 12:34:51 -0500, Char Jackson
wrote:

On Thu, 19 Sep 2019 22:15:58 +1200, Eric Stevens
wrote:

On Thu, 19 Sep 2019 09:03:42 +0200, "Carlos E.R."
wrote:

On 19/09/2019 03.12, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Thu, 19 Sep 2019 00:14:19 +0200, "Carlos E. R."
wrote:

On 18/09/2019 23.06, Char Jackson wrote:
On Wed, 18 Sep 2019 15:29:18 +0200, "Carlos E.R."
wrote:

On 18/09/2019 11.07, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Tue, 17 Sep 2019 22:30:33 -0400, "Mayayana"
wrote:


I don't know what to think, personally. I'm not convinced that
we have the capability to really know what's happening or why.
But I do know that I used to play hockey on local ponds from
late November to March when I was young, and in recent years
the ponds rarely even freeze over.

So wouldn't it make sense to just avoid actions that might
contribute to global warming, just to be on the safe side?
What harm is there in increasing solar and wind energy sources,

It will lead to horrendously expensive and unreliable power.

LOL. There is an island in Spain that has gone a month with only wind
and solar power. Just an example.

A second example is the Isle of Eigg, near Scotland.

"Eigg generates virtually 100% of its electricity using renewable
energy." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eigg

Indeed. It is early days for that technology, but it shows that it is
possible and that we can achieve it, with time and effort. At worst,
fuel will last longer, because as sure as death exists and is
inevitable, fosil fuel will one day be spent.

You should read
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/09/...-civilization/

LOL. Already proven wrong.

That's interesting. By whom? In what respect? Can you give me
reference?


It depends what you call "modern civilization", though. I live with 2.3
Kw. Most houses here are limited to 3.5 or 4.6.

Now, what about a steel mill? A chemical refinery? An aluminium
smelter? A cement plant? A paper mill? A railway system? Have you
really thought about the problems of supporting such industries with
solar or wind?

Hypothetical example: If you could move 300 million homes off of the
electric grid and onto solar or wind-powered electricity, you wouldn't
see that as a net gain because the factories have been left behind? Does
a solution have to be all or nothing before it can be called a solution?

It certainly would reduce CO2 but its a fail if you are trying to
eliminate the production of CO2.

Elimination of CO2 production is not the end game. Straw man.

Don't knock it! By not responding to your point and moving the
goalpost (into outer space), he implicitly conceded your point: I.e. a
potential solution does not have to be - and, more to the point,
*cannot* be - a one-size-fits-all solution. Any and all solutions will
only be able to solve *part* of the total problem(s).

That's the main problem - with the deniers and greeny-zealots alike -,
oversimplying a set of problems/solutions, which are not at all simple
to begin with.

Eric Stevens wrote:
On Fri, 20 Sep 2019 09:36:51 +0100, Chris wrote:

On 20/09/2019 01:36, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Thu, 19 Sep 2019 12:34:51 -0500, Char Jackson
wrote:

On Thu, 19 Sep 2019 22:15:58 +1200, Eric Stevens
wrote:

On Thu, 19 Sep 2019 09:03:42 +0200, "Carlos E.R."
wrote:

On 19/09/2019 03.12, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Thu, 19 Sep 2019 00:14:19 +0200, "Carlos E. R."
wrote:

On 18/09/2019 23.06, Char Jackson wrote:
On Wed, 18 Sep 2019 15:29:18 +0200, "Carlos E.R."
wrote:

On 18/09/2019 11.07, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Tue, 17 Sep 2019 22:30:33 -0400, "Mayayana"
wrote:


I don't know what to think, personally. I'm not convinced that
we have the capability to really know what's happening or why.
But I do know that I used to play hockey on local ponds from
late November to March when I was young, and in recent years
the ponds rarely even freeze over.

So wouldn't it make sense to just avoid actions that might
contribute to global warming, just to be on the safe side?
What harm is there in increasing solar and wind energy sources,

It will lead to horrendously expensive and unreliable power.

LOL. There is an island in Spain that has gone a month with only wind
and solar power. Just an example.

A second example is the Isle of Eigg, near Scotland.

"Eigg generates virtually 100% of its electricity using renewable
energy." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eigg

Indeed. It is early days for that technology, but it shows that it is
possible and that we can achieve it, with time and effort. At worst,
fuel will last longer, because as sure as death exists and is
inevitable, fosil fuel will one day be spent.

You should read
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/09/...-civilization/

LOL. Already proven wrong.

That's interesting. By whom? In what respect? Can you give me
reference?


It depends what you call "modern civilization", though. I live with 2.3
Kw. Most houses here are limited to 3.5 or 4.6.

Now, what about a steel mill? A chemical refinery? An aluminium
smelter? A cement plant? A paper mill? A railway system? Have you
really thought about the problems of supporting such industries with
solar or wind?

Hypothetical example: If you could move 300 million homes off of the
electric grid and onto solar or wind-powered electricity, you wouldn't
see that as a net gain because the factories have been left behind? Does
a solution have to be all or nothing before it can be called a solution?

It certainly would reduce CO2 but its a fail if you are trying to
eliminate the production of CO2.

Elimination of CO2 production is not the end game. Straw man.

What then is the end of the game you have in mind?

Sustainable, renewable energy.

On 20/09/2019 11.51, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Fri, 20 Sep 2019 09:36:51 +0100, Chris wrote:

On 20/09/2019 01:36, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Thu, 19 Sep 2019 12:34:51 -0500, Char Jackson
wrote:

On Thu, 19 Sep 2019 22:15:58 +1200, Eric Stevens
wrote:

On Thu, 19 Sep 2019 09:03:42 +0200, "Carlos E.R."
wrote:

On 19/09/2019 03.12, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Thu, 19 Sep 2019 00:14:19 +0200, "Carlos E. R."
wrote:

On 18/09/2019 23.06, Char Jackson wrote:
On Wed, 18 Sep 2019 15:29:18 +0200, "Carlos E.R."
wrote:

On 18/09/2019 11.07, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Tue, 17 Sep 2019 22:30:33 -0400, "Mayayana"
wrote:


I don't know what to think, personally. I'm not convinced that
we have the capability to really know what's happening or why.
But I do know that I used to play hockey on local ponds from
late November to March when I was young, and in recent years
the ponds rarely even freeze over.

So wouldn't it make sense to just avoid actions that might
contribute to global warming, just to be on the safe side?
What harm is there in increasing solar and wind energy sources,

It will lead to horrendously expensive and unreliable power.

LOL. There is an island in Spain that has gone a month with only wind
and solar power. Just an example.

A second example is the Isle of Eigg, near Scotland.

"Eigg generates virtually 100% of its electricity using renewable
energy." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eigg

Indeed. It is early days for that technology, but it shows that it is
possible and that we can achieve it, with time and effort. At worst,
fuel will last longer, because as sure as death exists and is
inevitable, fosil fuel will one day be spent.

You should read
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/09/...-civilization/

LOL. Already proven wrong.

That's interesting. By whom? In what respect? Can you give me
reference?


It depends what you call "modern civilization", though. I live with 2.3
Kw. Most houses here are limited to 3.5 or 4.6.

Now, what about a steel mill? A chemical refinery? An aluminium
smelter? A cement plant? A paper mill? A railway system? Have you
really thought about the problems of supporting such industries with
solar or wind?

Hypothetical example: If you could move 300 million homes off of the
electric grid and onto solar or wind-powered electricity, you wouldn't
see that as a net gain because the factories have been left behind? Does
a solution have to be all or nothing before it can be called a solution?

It certainly would reduce CO2 but its a fail if you are trying to
eliminate the production of CO2.

Elimination of CO2 production is not the end game. Straw man.

What then is the end of the game you have in mind?

Reducing it as much as we can is one of the goals.

If one industry can't, then tackle another.

--
Cheers, Carlos.

On 2019-09-20, Chris wrote:
Sustainable, renewable energy.

Not interested.

--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Roger Blake (Posts from Google Groups killfiled due to excess spam.)

NSA sedition and treason -- http://www.DeathToNSAthugs.com
Don't talk to cops! -- http://www.DontTalkToCops.com
Badges don't grant extra rights -- http://www.CopBlock.org
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

On Fri, 20 Sep 2019 00:02:14 -0400, Paul
wrote:

--- snip --

If you did burn all the petroleum, you might just succeed in
raising the GHG effect to the same level as Venus.

I can't lay my hands on the data but somewhere I have seen analysis
which shows that there is not enough accessible carbon in the earth to
generate so much CO2 that there is a real problem.

--


Eric Stevens

There are two classes of people. Those who divide people into
two classes and those who don't. I belong to the second class.

On Fri, 20 Sep 2019 18:59:21 -0000 (UTC), Chris
wrote:

Eric Stevens wrote:
On Fri, 20 Sep 2019 09:36:51 +0100, Chris wrote:

On 20/09/2019 01:36, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Thu, 19 Sep 2019 12:34:51 -0500, Char Jackson
wrote:

On Thu, 19 Sep 2019 22:15:58 +1200, Eric Stevens
wrote:

On Thu, 19 Sep 2019 09:03:42 +0200, "Carlos E.R."
wrote:

On 19/09/2019 03.12, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Thu, 19 Sep 2019 00:14:19 +0200, "Carlos E. R."
wrote:

On 18/09/2019 23.06, Char Jackson wrote:
On Wed, 18 Sep 2019 15:29:18 +0200, "Carlos E.R."
wrote:

On 18/09/2019 11.07, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Tue, 17 Sep 2019 22:30:33 -0400, "Mayayana"
wrote:


I don't know what to think, personally. I'm not convinced that
we have the capability to really know what's happening or why.
But I do know that I used to play hockey on local ponds from
late November to March when I was young, and in recent years
the ponds rarely even freeze over.

So wouldn't it make sense to just avoid actions that might
contribute to global warming, just to be on the safe side?
What harm is there in increasing solar and wind energy sources,

It will lead to horrendously expensive and unreliable power.

LOL. There is an island in Spain that has gone a month with only wind
and solar power. Just an example.

A second example is the Isle of Eigg, near Scotland.

"Eigg generates virtually 100% of its electricity using renewable
energy." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eigg

Indeed. It is early days for that technology, but it shows that it is
possible and that we can achieve it, with time and effort. At worst,
fuel will last longer, because as sure as death exists and is
inevitable, fosil fuel will one day be spent.

You should read
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/09/...-civilization/

LOL. Already proven wrong.

That's interesting. By whom? In what respect? Can you give me
reference?


It depends what you call "modern civilization", though. I live with 2.3
Kw. Most houses here are limited to 3.5 or 4.6.

Now, what about a steel mill? A chemical refinery? An aluminium
smelter? A cement plant? A paper mill? A railway system? Have you
really thought about the problems of supporting such industries with
solar or wind?

Hypothetical example: If you could move 300 million homes off of the
electric grid and onto solar or wind-powered electricity, you wouldn't
see that as a net gain because the factories have been left behind? Does
a solution have to be all or nothing before it can be called a solution?

It certainly would reduce CO2 but its a fail if you are trying to
eliminate the production of CO2.

Elimination of CO2 production is not the end game. Straw man.

What then is the end of the game you have in mind?

Sustainable, renewable energy.

OK. Understood. You are not focussed on total elimination of
anthropogenic CO2. In that case we do not have any real argument.

--


Eric Stevens

There are two classes of people. Those who divide people into
two classes and those who don't. I belong to the second class.

Eric Stevens wrote:
On Fri, 20 Sep 2019 18:59:21 -0000 (UTC), Chris
wrote:

Eric Stevens wrote:
On Fri, 20 Sep 2019 09:36:51 +0100, Chris wrote:

On 20/09/2019 01:36, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Thu, 19 Sep 2019 12:34:51 -0500, Char Jackson
wrote:

Hypothetical example: If you could move 300 million homes off of the
electric grid and onto solar or wind-powered electricity, you wouldn't
see that as a net gain because the factories have been left behind? Does
a solution have to be all or nothing before it can be called a solution?

It certainly would reduce CO2 but its a fail if you are trying to
eliminate the production of CO2.

Elimination of CO2 production is not the end game. Straw man.

What then is the end of the game you have in mind?

Sustainable, renewable energy.

OK. Understood. You are not focussed on total elimination of
anthropogenic CO2. In that case we do not have any real argument.

I doubt anyone has that as a priority.

We know very well that as long as CO2 levels are maintained at certain
levels the effects are climate change will be minimal.