(apologies, one more on the topic as Aus is twisting my...

(apologies, one more on the topic as Aus is twisting my arm..)

You are getting into CJ territory now.

Firstly, I didn't refute the satellite data (i.e. not the data, the interpretation of it) - all I did was illustrate the whole graph that Moore (and YOU, and Roy) chose to show only a part of, illustrating your bias - by posting the whole graph one can clearly see the trend. From the same satellite source, updated non-selective data:



Roy's (and Moore's) graph is in that same data set. Illustrated less selectively, are you really going to say you don't see a trend?

And Roy is NOT at NASA, he is at the University of Alabama Huntsville (ranked >500). While he did some work at NASA, it was not a 'position' (FYI many researchers use major facilities around the world, and even have an affiliation with them, it doesn't mean we have a position there). But most importantly (from a credibility pov), several of the very few papers he did publish has gone through major corrections (=death sentence in science).

'While there remains a considerable body of conflicting opinion "climate change"'

Really? I mean, believe what you want, but is 3% considerable to you?


------

In terms of the grid, certainly some form of revolution will have to happen to keep all economies happy, perhaps fusion power (although it seems decades away). But to wait for that and not take drastic action is, IMO, not just regional but global economic suicide..

I guess time will tell, but I prefer action over inaction, and if action brings people into cars with NdFeb quicker then all the better (conflicting articles, but seems even on a full coal grid, BEV is equal to a ICE CO2 emission over it's lifetime). I guess my hope is that the grid keeps getting cleaner, and battery/fuel cell development keeps pushing the boundaries.