Do the climate cult members ever really have answers?
Sen. John Kennedy, R-La., left one Biden administration official without words Wednesday when he pressed him to answer one simple question: How much would spending $50 trillion in American taxpayer money to become carbon-neutral lower global temperatures?
“If we spend $50 trillion to become carbon-neutral by 2050 in the United States of America, how much is that going to reduce world temperatures?” Kennedy asked Deputy Energy Secretary David Turk during a Senate Appropriations Subcommittee hearing.
Turk appeared unable to provide a specific number, and instead began arguing that the U.S. needed to do everything it could to reduce carbon emissions before being interrupted by Kennedy pressing for an answer to the question.
This is something they should have an answer to, right? Not deflecting away?
“How much, if we do our part, is it going to reduce world temperatures?” Kennedy asked again.
“So, we’re 13% of global emissions right now,” Turk responded, before Kennedy jumped in again, saying, “You don’t know, do you? You don’t know, do you?”
“You don’t know, do you, Mr. Secretary?” Kennedy asked as Turk appeared to continue dancing around the question. “If you know, why won’t you tell me?”
“If we went to zero, that would be 13% —” Turk said.
“You don’t know, do you? You just want us to spend $50 trillion, and you don’t have the slightest idea whether it’s going to reduce world temperatures,” Kennedy said.
He still tried to deflect after that, and Kennedy pointed out that this is taxpayer money. Would you spend your money on things with absolutely no idea what it will get you? Because this isn’t about the climate it’s about controlling people.
WATCH: @SenJohnKennedy Destroys Dep. Energy Secretary – Exposes Climate Change Fraud By Asking One Question
KENNEDY: "If we spent $50 trillion to become carbon neutral…How much is that going to reduce world temperatures?"
SEC TURK: "This is a global problem."
KENNEDY: "You… pic.twitter.com/eja5PJzM00
— Daily Caller (@DailyCaller) May 4, 2023
Of course, if we spend $50 trillion, or whatever the figure turns out to be, that will be money which is just plain wasted, and it will make Americans poorer.
Our parish had a second collection on Sunday, for the Estill County Food Bank. The panicdemic cost a lot of people their jobs, and not all of them have gotten back to the state they were in before the ridiculous, illegal, and unjustified shutdowns, and that has led the Food Bank to need to serve more people than ever. Throw in inflation on grocery prices, over 19% over two years March 2021 to March 2023, and the fact that the federal ‘State of Emergency’, and the money the Food Bank had been receiving from the government either has already ended, or will end this month.
The people who use the Food Bank are people who have difficulty putting food on the table today, people struggling to keep a roof over their heads today, and what the temperature will be 80 years into the future is a much more distant concern. Fighting
global warmingclimatechangeemergency is something for the well-to-do, the ones who have the resources to not have to worry about from where their next meal will come.Note that Senator Kennedy asked one simple question. In spend 50 trillion, how much will the temp be reduced? The idiots could not even begin to answer the question. Carbon has nothing to do with climate, zero.
david7134: In spend 50 trillion, how much will the temp be reduced?
That is what is required to reach carbon neutral. The final stable global mean temperature will be about 1½-2°C warming above the 1901-1960 average. Business as usual means about 3-4°C warming by the end of the century.
https://www.science.org.au/files/userfiles/learning/images/climate-change/climate-figure-4-1.jpg
Just like Turk that is not an answer to the question… it’s a supposition.
Cry harder, kiddieZzz.
#TheScienceIsSettled
Bwaha! Lolgf
Pups,
He really didn’t say anything.
The $50 billion is the estimate for global spending through 2050. Global GDP will be over $1,000 trillion across that period. Some of the money would have to be spent anyway as infrastructure ages out. And some will have knock-on benefits—plus the benefits of avoiding the worst outcomes with regards to global warming.
Should read $50 trillion.
The crux of our incompetent deputy energy secretary’s problem is that if the rest of the world does NOT cooperate with this nonsense, every cent spent by the US is wasted. And that assumes that we are even addressing a real physical problem. A huge assumption in itself.
And what are the odds that China and India are going to cooperate with our deluded climate hysterics?
The deputy energy secretary’s technical incompetence is glaring. He advocates for an ideology that he doesn’t really even understand except in broad executive-summary-for-idiots brushstrokes. Which means he can’t answer basic common sense back of the envelope type questions. Incomeptence. So how can he expect that we will be sold on his irrationally expensive budget projections when he hasn’t or can’t provide a quantitative benefit? Why trust morons who have put their moron-ness on full public display?
ruralcounsel: And that assumes that we are even addressing a real physical problem. A huge assumption in itself.
It’s not an assumption, but a strongly supported scientific finding.
ruralcounsel: And what are the odds that China and India are going to cooperate with our deluded climate hysterics?
China: New wind and solar power capacity hits record: “Newly installed capacity of renewable energy reached 152 million kW last year, or 76.2 percent of the country’s total newly added installed energy capacity, including 37.63 million kW of wind power, 87.41 million kW of solar power and 3.34 million kW of biomass power generation”
It’s not “scientific” if it’s assumptions based on assumptions that cannot be tested or falsified.
Might want to check the meaning the scientific method instead of spreading the warmist cult ideology.
#TheScienceIsSettled
Bwaha! Lolgf
Only non-scientists think that it is a strongly supported finding that human-origin carbon dioxide is generating any measurable global temperature increase. And that is because they are easily bamboozled by an onslaught of media hype and propaganda. They are “true believers” in the cult. And it is a cult.
There are many scientists who are willing to publicly play along in order to get research grants, but in their hearts they know they are just playing the game. It’s virtually a requirement to pretend to believe, and search for any ridiculous rationale for including climate change as part of their writing.
Which are you, Zachriel?
It’s your contention that the media has bamboozled scientists with hype and propaganda? What is the motivation for the media? Communism?
What motivates the Denier Cult? Ignorance? Greed? Contrarianism?
Which are you, ruralcounsel?
Your reading comprehension is poor, Elwood. I said the non-scientists were bamboozled.
No wonder you are one of the bamboozled. You can’t even read.
What motivates those of us who deny anthropomorphic global warming is the lack of real proof, the counterfactual data, and the observation of the massive propaganda campaign for measures that decrease individual rights and freedoms with no measurable impact on the supposed “problem” by powerful interests.
rural counsel: What motivates those of us who deny anthropomorphic global warming is the lack of real proof
There is substantial evidence, and from multiple scientific fields. The evidence the Earth is warming comes not just from land stations, but from ocean measurements, satellite instruments, and observations of changes to glaciers and ecosystems. The effect of greenhouse gas concentrations is supported by the basic physics of heat energy.
ruralcounsel: Only non-scientists think that it is a strongly supported finding that human-origin carbon dioxide is generating any measurable global temperature increase.
Well, that’s obviously false, as a perusal of any scientific journal on atmospherics would show. The American Association for the Advancement of Science, American Geophysical Union, and U.S. National Academy of Sciences all agree that Earth’s climate is warming in response to human activities.
Your “substantial evidence” has been tampered with, or fails to distinguish between natural warming and anthropogenic warming. An appeal to authority is not proof, nor even good logic. Authorities have been proven wrong time after time. For example, the hypothesis that the Great Barrier Reef is dying from warmer waters has been disproven. There are more polar bears now than 50 years ago. We find many so-called experts postulating well outside their fields of expertise.
The basic physics is simplistic, and fails to account for many real world complications. For example, carbon dioxide absorbs radiation in a few wavelengths, and already absorbs over 95% of the energy available in those wavelengths, meaning the heat effect is saturated, and cannot continue linearly.
All the gloom and doom forecasts are based on computer modeling that has failed time after time to make accurate predictions. The globale warming crowd has been forced to move the goalposts on their apocalyptic utterences dozens of times, just like the fringe religious groups that keep trying to predict the end of the world.
ruralcounsel: Your “substantial evidence” has been tampered with
The evidence is across multiple fields with different scientists using disparate methods that can be independently confirmed.
ruralcounsel: An appeal to authority is not proof, nor even good logic.
Um, you made the appeal to authority when you claimed, falsely, that “Only non-scientists think that it is a strongly supported finding”.
ruralcounsel: For example, carbon dioxide absorbs radiation in a few wavelengths, and already absorbs over 95% of the energy available in those wavelengths, meaning the heat effect is saturated, and cannot continue linearly.
The heat that the Earth emits into space comes largely from the upper atmosphere. As greenhouse gases accumulate, the effective layer of emissions moves higher into the atmosphere, which is more tenuous, colder, and dryer; and so emits less well. In addition, the absorption regions are narrower.
You don’t understand what an “appeal to authority” is, obviously.
The evidence does not show anything about the origin of the warming trends.
You cannot absorb more energy than the sun provides at any given wavelength.
https://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2023/04/30/facts-are-stubborn-things/
ruralcounsel: You don’t understand what an “appeal to authority” is, obviously.
It was your claim. You said, “Only non-scientists think that it is a strongly supported finding”. Your claim is that scientists do not think global warming is a strongly supported finding. That’s a {false} appeal to authority.
ruralcounsel: You cannot absorb more energy than the sun provides at any given wavelength.
The Earth can certainly absorb more at some wavelengths than others. Generally, the Earth will absorb higher wavelengths (visible light) and emit lower wavelengths (infrared). In particular, if heat radiation is reduced, then the Earth will warm until it returns to equilibrium at a higher temperature.
Zachriel, you are actually taking the word of https://english.www.gov.cn/static/common/img/GOV_Logo.png regarding Chinas compliance, performance and construction of green shit?
You leftist communists suck each others dicks so hard you make Dylan Mulvaney look straight.
CarolAnn,
Do you kiss your children with that filthy mouth? And you have been obsessed with cocksucking the past week or so. Have a Bud Light and relax.
You don’t need to rely on that citation since there a dozens that support that China is committed to renewable energy.
We know, we know… but, but… the Chinese are building coal plants. Yes! And both things can be true. This is why we have international agreements.
Again for you who fail to understand how this works’ Leftists/communists like China or you for example are masters of lies and propaganda. You have been spouting and supporting both here since I began reading your silly comments. Anyone with common sense knows when the left “quotes” a statistic it must come from a leftist site. That’s why you the nonsense you do. China and India are the largest polluters and contributors of pollutants on earth. Regardless of how much of our tax money we pour into the climate scam as long as communist countries continue their 2nd world industry nothing can change except we get hurt economically.
I fully support your right to reduce your carbon production, reduce your income and to cut your standard of living to support your religion of climate. I just think it’s immoral to force me to worship your false god.
When you and H both drive EV’s and switch your entire lifestyle to a carbon free state then I’ll believe you. Until then you will remain both liars and hypocrites.
What mouth? I didn’t say anything I typed it fool. I don’t drink Bud Light but if I did I’d switch. Bud light is for faggots.
CarolAnn: Zachriel, you are actually taking the word of https://english.www.gov.cn/static/common/img/GOV_Logo.png regarding Chinas compliance, performance and construction of green shit?
The claims are easily verified from satellite and other observations, as well as from public records.
Something like this is hard to hide.
We seem to be getting caught in the moderation filter.
Sorry, “attribution science” isn’t evidence. “We attribute the warming to human influence. ”.
In the end, that’s still an educated guess.
And the what they say is “evidence” are simply correlations-all of them have happened before with lease CO2. “Extreme events are getting worse”. No, they’re not. But even if they were, that still doesn’t prove causation. Interesting, because even if some were getting worse there’s some that have become less extreme. So if “some events are getting worse” proves human influence then the ones that are becoming less extreme would disprove it. Can’t have it both ways.”Oceans are acidifying”. Yes, and that’s never happened before. Actually, they’re on average at about 8.1 on the scale, so if anything slightly less alkaline.
“attribution science” isn’t evidence. “We attribute the warming to human influence. ”.
We attribute the acceleration to the force applied to the mass. — attributed to Isaac Newton
Jl: And the what they say is “evidence” are simply correlations-all of them have happened before with lease CO2.
There are many drivers of climate change, including changes in solar irradiance, orbital variations, natural changes in atmospheric content, volcanism, continental drift, changes in albedo, even the occasional cosmic impact. However, Earth’s climate history can’t be adequately explained without including the greenhouse effect. Indeed, without the greenhouse effect, the Earth’s oceans would be largely frozen.