I'd pick the one where the $275T didn't go to scammers, but instead ended up in the hands of folks seizing the means of production with it to create the blessings of civilization themselves, and cutting off parasitic 'useless eaters' like Yuval Hariri, Kill Gates, John Kerry, and King Charles from their sole source of wealth and power, and that's why. I like all the people I've met that have merit because they carry their weight, and I dislike all the people I've met that suck wealth out of my wallet.
so first and foremost, you want whatever serves your financial interest the most, and then you want people who act in a way that they are aligned with your view of meritocracy to benefit, and then you want people whose actions go against what's right in your view of meritocracy to be either punished or not have the opportunity to against your view of meritocracy. okay
Water vapor is ~90% of the GHG in Earth's atmosphere. The minor gases like CO2 and methane all together contribute the other ~10% of greenhouse effect. Without the GHG effect Earth would be a ball of ice, much like Europa and other moons and asteroids across the solar system in which liquid water is only in protected regions under the solid crust. Maybe life can exist in such places, but life on Earth in all it's robust fecundity is only possible because of GHG's that keep the temperature warm enough on the surface for all three phases of water to exist.
Nasa says CO2 represents 20% alone, while clouds and water vapor represent 75% combined. Because CO2 traps heat, there's more heat, which means more water vapor, which also means more clouds. This means that an increase in CO2 also leads to an increase in the amount of the rest of GHGs. So more CO2 means more heat across 95% of the GHG board, not just in the CO2 part.
define climate
climate means the regional weather patterns of a certain region for at least a 30 years span. how different is this normative definition from what you had in mind, in your opinion?
Anyway, my personal take on this stuff isn't much use to you.
your personal "take", or rather, your scientifical understanding of this topic is relevant because I wouldn't take you seriously if I noticed you are content with parroting. "flat earth" believers and "we never went to the moon" believers are generally content with parroting. I expect you to either be better than them, or I expect you to be okay with not being taken seriously and to serve as an example of a pattern others shouldn't buy in
If that's what you call not wanting to be robbed, then you're right. Other than that I didn't mention my financial interest at all. You keep trying to fit my personal financial interests into our discussion, and it doesn't belong here. You then go on with (more) mangled grammar to impugn merit. People whose opinions I care about all have merit, and them as don't have merit don't have opinions I care about, for very good reasons. The most obvious feature of your comments is your pejorative intent. Are you a lawyer IRL? Maybe a spook? You have mentioned flat Earth a couple times too, which is something spooks are always pushing.
Here's a thought: quit trying to find (and insinuate, imply, and falsely assert) flaws in my character, and look at the evidence regarding climate I have posted. If you're only here to attack me personally, just go away.
your reply here has mentioned it, so I included it.
I'm here partially to try to enlighten to both you and I as to why you align yourself with this study. I find that it is to rid you of guilt. you want to do good in the world and you want to pursue financial interests. however, if you believe that climate change is real, then you will feel guilt and blame yourself for enabling it through whatever direct and indirect means. so you've grown emotionally attached to this one idea that makes everything fine: both what you believe in and all of your actions. you need this study to be right. there will be existential dread if it is wrong.
all of this speaks positively of your character, except for your self-image, which is about average.
do you think I'm wrong?
it's okay if you think I'm wrong
but this is how your words and actions so far have made me see you
I'm sure you have an opinion of me as well
No, it doesn't. Stop putting words in my mouth.
You're doing it again. I'm pointing to evidence and data that disproves the AGW scam. That's not anything else but that. Quit insinuating, implying, and maligning me and others, and discuss the data and evidence, or go talk to others that want to deprecate dissent and obfuscate facts.
You do it again. Not once have I mentioned financial interests of mine in this discussion, and you continually try to assert that I do. It is now obviously malicious. Quote me when you claim I said something, so I can prove you're wrong.
I have stated climate change is provably real, and that all humanity is incapable of causing it. You must be projecting your reason for such blatant disingenuity, unless you're actually on the take, in which case you're projecting to deflect consequences away from you.
I need civil society to prosper, and the facts in evidence reveal a $275T scam ongoing that will dramatically harm people I care very much about. This study discusses those facts in evidence, so I have posted it to alert people so they can prevent being scammed and enable civil society to prosper. You, as is typical of your claims, insinuate more, that I am psychologically some kind of zealot - but again, that's only another baseless and false claim about me you're making up out of hole cloth to malign me, dissent against the AGW scam, and the authors of the linked paper.
You have proved you have no interest in scientific evidence, but are only interested in derogation of my character. Perhaps you can find some self esteem that isn't derived from putting others down with proper counseling. I don't provide that service here.
I was explaining how I see you based on what you've demonstrated. you're saying you don't agree with it. that's fine.
jesus. just change that sentence to "if you believe that anthropogenic climate change".
man, something is really off with how you read others. if they're not incredibly specific, the conversation is derailed. yeah, you can blame it on them. on me. go ahead.
I don't think that was derogatory. I think it places you in a pretty average position as a human being.
you know what? I agree with you. it is very derogatory. it sucks that this was the conclusion I came to. I wish it was different. but it is what it is and I just have to deal with it. having someone tell you this must suck, but dealing with this sucks too, so... shrug. we part ways
if you mean literal grammar of the english language, I'm doing my best. if you don't then nvm
well, actually,
I like when good logic is used and I'm annoyed when bad logic is used. I saw bad logic in your post so I chased it. this is my actual primary motivator.
later on, I noticed that your leaps in logic and your motivation peak my interest so I chased them. this is my secondary motivator