“its a greenhouse gas that nobody has been able to quantify how it has affects the climate.”

Everyone: “Your points don’t make sense. Here’s why.”

The 2002 VW golf had a base MSRP of $15,000, now its $21,845. Name another product (not commodity) that is getting more expensive over time.

Nitrogen oxides and methane are worse by weight, but they are emitted in such small amounts relative to carbon that their radiative forcing effect is quite small. Here’s a comparison from a recent paper:

Ah yes, Trump, the guy who pulled back from attacking Iran at the absolute last minute, the one who threatens them with destruction constantly, the one who hired John “Please let me attack Iran” Bolton - that’s the guy who will ensure we don’t end up in a war with Iran.

Keep gargling Trump’s balls, maybe senpai will notice you.

Uh oh, he’s posting Wikipedia articles that he clearly hasn’t actually read. Climate science will surely be defeated now!

Exactly. I don’t like Seinfeld’s stand up, but he’s a good interviewer.

Somehow, you seem to be under the impression that people in the scientific community haven’t read about issues in peer review, or ever heard any of the litany of pathetic objections to ACC before. Allow me to disabuse you of that hilariously incorrect notion. Scientists are not in a bubble, they just reject this…

Lol, whatever guy. You pretty much ruin any illusion of credibility when you drop links to Breitbart. I’m sure the entire scientific community will be defeated by right wing bloggers who think that issues in peer review somehow translate to an indictment of an entire scientific field. Errors in peer review would have…

Fucking hell, you’re posting a Breitbart article to criticize peer review? What next, Infowars? Here’s a hint: the issues with peer review don’t impact climate science in the same way they do sociology or medicine. The massive datasets are built up over decades by tens of thousands of people - you can’t p-hack or game…

He’s not funny?

So, I am a natural scientist, and did my graduate work alongside climatologists in the Arctic. The “other side” you’re referencing does’t get as much airplay because it’s scientifically bankrupt. We have ways of testing the claims made in science, and it’s called peer review. Climate skepticism doesn’t make it through…

He’s not another Manchin. He’s relatively close with the oil business, having worked in it until the 80s and it being a huge part of Denver’s economy until pretty recently, but he’s helped pass a bunch of stringent emissions regulations on them as well.

So you’re throwing out a bunch of repeatedly-debunked claims here. NASA did not say there was no global warming (there’s a window from 1998 that looks like a trend if you egregiously cherry pick and ignore longer trends before and after), nor has NOAA changed their temperature data. Some datasets are modified as time…

It won’t though. Combined cycle gas is cheaper, so you would see more of that being installed (as is already happening). Gas is cheaper than coal, and is cleaner. There are plenty of forecasts that look up the impact of greater BEV share, and none of them indicate more coal coming online.

Strictly speaking, San Marino did it several hundred years earlier, but they don’t really count.

With the gas prices here, I’d absolutely buy the 4 cylinder. If I were buying an Audi, I’d do it for their excellent interiors, not for the speed.

Because it has a nicer interior, better styling, and more usable infotainment system, and handles better? The 2.0 motor is solid and pretty reliable, so this thing is hardly going to be like owning an Alfa.

“Look! She gets media attention and is therefore the voice of the Democrats! Despite the fact the she has almost no policy influence, has passed no legislation, and is opposed by a much larger section of the party than the one supporting her!”