Clean electricity overtaking fossil fuels in Britain (2025 Update)

Yah, the muslims got you living in tents and driving a camel.

We're not doing so bad, about 37% here. But the problem is Trump wants to reverse that and return to the 1800s, with big smoke stacks spewing black smoke and guys like Trump smoking big cigars, riding around in a horseless carriages, women and children running for their lives in the streets before them. Ahh, the good old days.

FWIW, California also gets more power from zero-carbon sources than fossil fuels, and has for a few years.

Pity about the stupid cost of going that route.

Only fools would do that.

Bullshit he is.

None of that has actually happened, its just more Trump bullshit.

Just more Trump bullshit like his lies about US steel production.

Just another of Murdoch's s*it rags.

WA, OR, ID, VT, and MA all fit in that category.

You clowns keep saying that, but it still is clearly not true.

The evidence of the effects of CO2 keeps surpassing even the worst predictions.

That’s a lie with sea level rise alone.

So you don't care about the massive warming and weather extremes, all clearly predicted as a result of rapidly increasing CO2.

It's the same old nonsense. Sure, you can say CO2 is not a pollutant because it occurs naturally. But that doesn't mean that too much CO2 generated by man can't warm the planet. CO2 in the atmosphere has gone up by a third in the last 100 years, as we've greatly increased the fossil fuels burned. IT's now higher than it's been in 2.6 mil years and the change this time is in just 100 years, previous up cycles in CO2 took tens or hundreds of thousands of years.

Sigh.... Been dead a decade, died at 88, how involved he was at that point in even following the issue, isn't clear. And you just choose to look at his last position on global warming, when prior he had a very different opinion:

"In 1973, Bryson testified to Congress that global warming from fossil-fuel combustion was politically unstoppable.

There is no way right now that we can control the climate to make it more benign. Even if we were to say "let us stop using fossil fuels so that we do not add carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, because that impacts the world climate," how on earth could you stop using fossil fuels? Even those countries that are most heavily impacted by the climatic change are the ones who say it is our turn to be affluent and it is in the use of fossil fuels that one gains affluence.[

as well as others such as Freeman Dyson,

A theoretical physicist. Would you take opinions on quantum mechanics from a climate scientist?

John Christy,

"In a 2003 interview with National Public Radio about the 2003 American Geophysical Union (AGU) statement, he said he is "a strong critic of scientists who make catastrophic predictions of huge increases in global temperatures and tremendous rises in sea levels". He added, though, that "it is scientifically inconceivable that after changing forests into cities, turning millions of acres into irrigated farmland, putting massive quantities of soot and dust into the air, and putting extra greenhouse gases into the air, that the natural course of climate has not changed in some way."[8]

So obviously he doesn't disagree with anthropogenic climate warming, he just has issues with the most dire forecasts.

"Judith Curry has argued that climatologists should be more accommodating of those skeptical of the scientific consensus on climate change.[17] Curry has stated she is troubled by what she calls the "tribal nature" of parts of the climate-science community, and what she sees as stonewalling over the release of data and its analysis for independent review."

I don't see her arguing that anthropogenic climate warming isn't real.

Bjorn Lomborg,

ROFL on that one. He has a degree in political science! And even he doesn't deny anthropogenic warming:

"His issue is not with the reality of climate change, but rather with the economic and political approaches being taken (or not taken) to meet the challenges of that climate change. He is a strong advocate for focusing attention and resources on what he perceives as far more pressing world problems, such as AIDS, malaria and malnutrition."

to name a few. The so-called "scientific

Who exactly are you claiming documented this and show us where the consensus of the climate scientists agree. The temp has already risen .8C in the last century and CO2 is only at 30% higher levels.

But of course everything else is not equal. The

And so? Because we can't be 100% certain, we should just go one whistling past the graveyard? Instead of taking reasonable steps to limit future CO2 increases?

Well, it kind of is similar in some ways. For example you just cited a physicist and a political scientist as credible authorities on climate science. That's similar to what holocaust deniers do.

Yes, and your credentials for making that statement are? Kind of like what holocaust denier do, deny, deny, deny.

That’s a lie. What warming we have seen has been seen before, most obviously when the vikings chose to farm Greenland and when the Romans were actually stupid enough to grab england.

All of which have been seen before.

Another lie with the recent stalling of measured temperatures.

Arsenic isn't a poison because it occurs naturally.

Cindy Hamilton

Climate is a nonlinear system. Why would you ever expect temperatures to monotonically increase?

Cindy Hamilton

Common? Perhaps in 2007. But _never_ since.

the worst part of global warming is that it has us fighting among ourselves, I wonder sometimes if that is by design. It is because the proposed solution is another TAX.

A regressive tax that will hurt especially the poor.

Which makes it ironic the liberals are all in-favor of it.

Do you always dismiss proven facts this easily?

You never could bullshit your way out of a wet paper bag.

None of that is proven facts.