Photosynthesis: nature requires carbon dioxide
Another year, another season of so-called climate negotiations. The planet is more than capable of warming, or cooling, on its own without human activities. But the current obsession with minor trace gases, and their supposedly disproportionate effects on the global climate, has infected too many minds to consider such realities at the political level. As a result all manner of pointless ‘remedies’ have to be mulled over.
– – –
Banish fossil fuels, capture their emissions, pull CO2 from thin air—diplomats in Bonn for UN-led climate talks agree there’s too much planet-warming carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, but remain at loggerheads on the best way to reduce it, says Phys.org.
At stake is nothing less than a liveable world: even if humanity caps global warming at 1.5 degrees Celsius—a huge ‘if’—hundreds of millions will still confront devastating heat, drought, flooding and sea level rise, recent studies have shown. [Talkshop comment – often meaning the output of unreliable climate models using unlikely scenarios as input].
There are three ways to deal with the problem, intervening at different points in the CO2 “value chain” from source to tailpipe: stop burning fossil fuels, by far the main driver of warming; if you do burn them, stop carbon pollution from seeping into the air; and remove CO2 from the atmosphere once it’s there. [Talkshop comment – ‘carbon pollution’ is a false term].
“All technologies, all levers available need to be used,” Simon Stiell, the head of UN Climate, told AFP as the talks in Bonn opened.
“But the science is very, very clear: the fastest and most effective way of getting us to where we need to is the phasing down and phasing out of all fossil fuels.”
Politically, an informal “high ambition” coalition including the European Union (especially Germany) and scores of climate vulnerable developing countries are pushing—to cite the Association of Small Island States (AOSIS)—to “radically reduce fossil fuels now” through policy, regulatory and economic levers.
But major oil and gas exporters, the United States and some emerging economies are keen to shift the focus further downstream, saying the world can reduce carbon emissions without ditching the fossil fuels that generate them.
Full article here.
Tallbloke's Talkshop 
This won’t go away until all the mother WEFers are routed out and neutralized, including their sycophants.
‘scores of climate vulnerable developing countries are pushing’
How much fuel do such countries use now? Probably not much, in which case they have little to lose. But the prospect of some kind of compensation for being poor is tempting.
That may sound harsh but it’s what it looks like.
The fact is…
I assume we are seeing this stupidity because they don’t have any real scientists to call on for advice or they are seeing what they want to see rather than reality.
The main problem with the greens is a total lack of scientific understanding for which they substitute computer games and feelings and emotions.
Another thing, don’t the Association of Small Island States realise that if there is a ban on ‘fossil fuels’ they will no longer get any food or other supplies shipped to them by sea, wind just doesn’t cut it.
Reblogged this on Climate Collections.
“At stake is nothing less than a liveable world”
Says no science anywhere.
Dear OldBrew,
Of course it is nonsense.
The trick is to explain why that is the case as simply as possible so that any capable of open-mindedness can latch on to it even if they are light on scientific understanding.
That way we stand a chance of getting the penny to drop for ordinary people, but only that way.
If you look at the posts recently I came back to you again concerning the rebuttal I offered to you, which you appeared to misunderstand (apologies for suggesting such a possibility).
Here it is again in the form of its particulars.
If you can find an error in any of these particulars then I would be pleased to desist if your explanation is sound.
The only evidence for the thermal potency of the Greenhouse Effect (GE) is the Atmospheric Thermal Enhancement (ATE), which; according to the Anthropogenic Theory of Global Warming (AGW): can only be explained by the GE
If gravity was weaker atmospheric pressure would be lower and compression less, therefore the atmosphere would be larger.
The atmosphere would contain the same amount of Thermal Energy conducted into it from the surface of the planet as before
Being larger, the atmosphere would contain more volume units
By simple long division we know that the thermal energy per unit volume would then be less and the temperature lower, so gravity enhances atmospheric temperature according to its strength..
The AGW requiring, as it does, that the ATE is the result of the GE, is false accordingly.
If I am wrong then one or more of these particulars is false, in which case please advise which and your argument that shows it to be so.
That the weight of the atmosphere is conferred by mass and gravity is precisely the reason that the temperature is enhanced since it determines the extent of compression as I hope you agree on reflection.
Kind Regards
Pete Rogers
PR – changing the initial conditions can’t by itself invalidate the theorised greenhouse effect? It’s supposed to somehow increase whatever surface temperature the ‘non-greenhouse’ components of the atmosphere produce.
We then get drawn into interminable arguments about whether it does or doesn’t, and how, that go nowhere.
Well you just can NOT win with these muppets: doing too much…, or NOT ENOUGH … “Complete due diligence before buying carbon credits” aye for sure so I am not going to pass ANY Comment on this article: https://www.newpowerprogress.com/news/complete-due-diligence-before-buying-carbon-credits/8029310.article and while you’re there, take a look at the sidebar titles too. Keep informed and go nuts! No Medication needed.
Dear Oldbrew,
Please excuse my temerity for saying such a thing, but you have overlooked something here.
[mod] snip – off topic