AH CENSORSHIP 😅

Were they the usual Fossil-Fuelled Bots and Trolls? If so - thank god for that!! We've all read their non-points too often before. Cheers.

@@summess5567 its true, we run on fossil fuels

@@radscorpion8 INdeed so. The 'Leave' scam distracted the British Public's attention from the Tory Policies declining standard of living and the mass selloff of our public utillities (water, NHS, Education, Trtansport, the Tax office itself) and redirecting it to a fear and hatred of refugees. Instead of voting to save the NHS and everything else in this country, the 'Leave' vote (and the offshore billionaires that funded it) ensured this country becomes a tax-free stop for cheap labour and dodgy deals for any corrupt organisation... and an end to the Natives (that's us) having any say in anything. The 'Phillipines of the North' in fact. Look! Blue Passports and a flag... but no laws to stop offshore finance using this place as a toilet and no rights to proterst about it. TGHis country was biught and sold - just as it was when the SAME thing happened in Canada and they ended up electing the 'Reform' party ... funded by the same offshore finance as MAGA and UKIP ... oh... and as ReformUK. Basically, we're heading to having a McParty in charge - an offshore franchise run by offshore finance, which has absolute control over the union-less workforce who work for survival rates to keep their offshore bosses rich. Bravo, People Of Britain informed by the papers owned by the people who fund this 'Worker-hating Nationalism' stuff.

It is exciting, isn't it. I can not wait 😅

Yeah but those year over year profits 📈 . ... ooooh man

Misinformation. The particles you're talking about are NOT GHGs. Those radiation blocking particles (specifically ones with short durations and relatively innocuous greenhouse effect) we could use to produce such effects are different than what's being emitted. We could curtail pollution to net negative levels while engaging the dispersion of much more appropriate radiation blocking particles. Which would be vastly preferable to what's occurring.

​@@valoriethechemist He knows they're not GHGs. He has a PhD you know lol (its in the name). "Those radiation blocking particles are different than what's being emitted" this is wrong, the radiation blocking particles ARE being emitted along with the CO2. Coal, oil and gas plants emit both soot and dirt as well as sulphur dioxide into the atmosphere which reflect sunlight. You even admit that in your own comment when you say "while engaging the dispersion of much more appropriate radiation blocking particles" tacitly admitting this! In other words Russ is right...and he's not the only one to say what he did, but world reknowned climatologist James Hansen as well who led one of the studies that discovered this effect on cargo ships crossing the ocean. So its not "misinformation". We are trapped in a situation where cutting down the use of coal plants will exacerbate warming because of the effect of reduced aerosols and other particulates. Now we COULD counter this with geoengineering, but the problem is many climate scientists are either too scared or too irresponsible and claim that it is too dangerous, in spite of the fact it is literally our only remaining option at this point - we can't reduce CO2 without reducing particulates. We HAVE to engage in geoengineering and geoengineering research. That is our only option. Dim the sun by 1% and you have roughly 1 degree less of warming. It is even better if they do it in space because they don't have to worry about respraying the atmosphere with more aerosols.

@@radscorpion8 My comments were about the claim "we need this pollution." And yes, it is a misinforming claim. The exact particles produced and spread in pollution and are not the only particles capable of causing the effect. We are absolutely caught in a situation where trade offs toward progress cause short term increases in various manners. But we probably want to rip the bandaid off the bullet wound and fix the bullet wound even if we're causing a bit more harm now before we're amputating. An increase at 1.5 is going to be much easier to handle than one at 2.6. And that's the trade off. The problem is really that in terms of total energy added to the system. We're doing nothing toward reducing our impact or the energy rise. Quite the opposite. And while impacts due to scaling down our energy and pollution problems will have a variety of effects. To claim we need pollution is not a claim that, especially in a public forum, would be understood in the manner intended or even what would "need" to occur. There simply isn't extraordinary evidence to suggest we should continue polluting so we don't have to ramp down our emissions and environmental damage purely because it would increase the warming. Quite the contrary in fact. The only issue here is that as we continue to add energy... we do want a mitigating factor... but this mitigating factor isn't "needed" or even the only manner in which we can produce such a mitigating factor. Even if we could or should use some of them.

You are a crisis made manifest. If the human race goes extinct, I will make an effort to ensure that as people die out due to lack of resources, you will be the first person to go without stuff like food.

😂😅 oh you poor thing. 😅😮

Thanks for that the checks in the post

... and bananas are orange coloured With all due respect, you're an idiot