Here are TEN questions that I have for any climate alarmists reading, and I hope I can get some honest answers down in the comments:
1️⃣ You have asserted that the planet is dangerously overheating. So, what exactly is the correct globally averaged surface air temperature supposed to be and why? I want an exact value to the nearest tenth of a degree Celsius.
2️⃣ What is the correct atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO₂) level to optimize life on Earth? Give me your answer as an exact value in mole fraction or volume percentage, then explain why in detail. A range would suffice too, but you still need to explain.
3️⃣ What makes CO₂ “air pollution”?
The pre-Trump 2.0 EPA considered CO₂ as an air pollutant under the legal framework of the Clean Air Act, and their justification was that it “contributes to greenhouse gas pollution that threatens public health and welfare.”
But that seems pretty ambiguous if you ask me.
By that arbitrary standard, water vapor (H₂O) should also be classified as harmful “air pollution” because it also is a GHG and is a byproduct of combustion. But we don't classify it as pollution because, well, H₂O is necessary for life on Earth. But so is CO₂. Without it, we would all die.
4️⃣ Why are global average temperatures measured in reference to the 1850–1900 baseline? While many of our modern instrumental weather records begin within that timeframe, we know that climate conditions pre-1900 were much harsher than they are today as we were coming out of the Little Ice Age. Winters were harsher. Summers could be harsher. Droughts, floods, and famine were just as, if not more common relative to today. So, why should the end of the Little Ice Age be seen as the ideal baseline for human welfare?
5️⃣ The estimated cost of net zero in the U.S. by the year 2050 is ~$6 trillion (though estimates I have seen widely vary). And with ~165 million taxpayers in the nation, using that $6T figure, it would cost each of us a little more than $36,000 to achieve. That's a lot of money per individual. How many of you activists are willing to shell out that kind of money just to see what happens?
6️⃣ If we spent that $6T to decarbonize the economy by 2050, by how much will such measures reduce the global mean surface temperature by the year 2100? Please provide your answer to the nearest tenth of a degree Celsius and show your math (I actually know the answer to this theoretically, but I want to see you do the math).
7️⃣ What does the perfect climate look like? Just how much extreme weather should there be? How many floods? Tornadoes? Category two hurricane landfalls in Florida? What should temperatures be? How many droughts should occur per century in Cambodia? How will we get there and how do we know when / if we get there? By what scientific measure will we know?
8️⃣ If “combating climate change” is really a global concerted effort, then why do you always give China and India a free pass to continue emitting without bound? Why are they never criticized? And don't tell me it's because they are “the world's factory.” The U.S. is the second largest industrial manufacturer in the world. Don't give me the “per capita emissions” BS either; the atmosphere does not care about that. So, why is it that the U.S. is always dunked on?
9️⃣ Why do most of (not all) you vehemently oppose nuclear power? It's the best alternative to coal and natural gas, and statistically it is the cleanest and one of the safest forms of “carbon-free” energy.
🔟 Lastly, if you truly believe climate change is an urgent problem, why do you continue to use social media? After all, it has a large carbon footprint because it is powered by those data centers you hate. Also, why do demonize fossil fuels, but use them to keep the lights on in your home or apartment? Why use running water and indoor plumbing, which often require fossil fuels? Why not give up modern luxuries and live off grid to lead by example? I really want to know why you are still here.
If given enough time, the rules will always be gamed in order to subvert the game itself and defeat the purpose of the contest in the first place.
This is inevitable because the rewards are too great. The point is never to have a good time or even to entertain the audience. The point is to win. So the rules will be maliciously “followed”, even as the animating spirit behind them dies.
This tweet isn’t about basketball.
Hi Congressman.
You have opinions. But I have data.
Let's look at it.
1⃣ Wildfires occur every year all over the world. That's true this year, just like it was last year and 5,000 years ago. But as it turns out, worldwide fire burn area is at a record low year-to-date.
🔗https://t.co/vSoivt7c80
2⃣ Globally, there has been no statistically significant increase in the amount of land area in droughts across all Drought Monitor categories since reliable satellite monitoring began in 1980. These include severe and exceptional droughts.
🔗https://t.co/9dNRQEItaH
3⃣ Heatwaves have increased in many regions around the globe since 1950, sure, but in areas that have good data coverage before then, long-term trends are more nuanced. For example, here in the U.S., the number of heatwaves (defined as three or more consecutive days with daily maximum temperatures ≥90th percentile relative to 1991−2020 climatology) have decreased by 20.2% since the start of the 20th century (1994−2025 average minus 1901−30 average).
🔗https://t.co/SA3xRrMzje
Will you correct the record, Congressman, or will you continue to espouse misinformation?
cc: @RepJasonCrow
Hi Ryan. Let me explain somethin' to you.
Glaciers are always going to grow or recede.
Sea levels are always going to rise or fall.
Temperatures are always going to go up or down.
We live on a planet in a universe where the only thing constant is change.
Contrary to what you believe, things aren't supposed to stay static over time.
When climate changes, that does not mean that we are responsible. And even if we are, that does not mean that it's a crisis.
Thanks for coming to my science lesson.
When someone tells you that “97% of climate scientists agree,” a good follow-up question to that is, “What exactly do 97% agree on?” That mankind contributes to climate change in some capacity? Or that we are facing a climate crisis? Those are two very different positions. Now, we know that the “97% consensus” was a botched statistic, but you can nonetheless play ball. I don't think 97% of scientists agree on anything except that they do not want to lose government (taxpayer) funding.
George Orwell worried that a shrinking vocabulary would eventually produce a shrinking range of thought.
It is difficult to think a nuanced thought with a blunt language.
I hate to sound like a stuffy British headmaster, but learning norms against cheating in low stakes games like board games or school sports is how we teach people not to cheat in life