Tesla is fast

That seems to be slowly occurring to the Europeans.

Inability to complete the CO2 cycle so that the atmosphere stays 'a lot like the recent past' is a major issue. John Larkin is in denial, spinning absurd 'good times ahead' predictions.

Greenhouse gas problems are not soluble with denial; that takes some engineering changes on a global scale. John Larkin is just a denial-cult member spouting dogma.

Not true; where did that idea come from? John Larkin cannot imagine an engineering solution, so is assuming a reversion to some fantasy based on poorly understood histories, and complete engineering failure to deal with 'a bit of gas'. He can comprehend complete engineering failure, at least. Commander Kinsey cannot comprehend his dependence on air qualities; climate change is no fiction.

The 'end of the world' because of gas has happened before; we, the oxygen-tolerant, evolved while other species died out, or hid underground.

That's not the way Pentti Linkola saw it. If rbowman bothered to tell us about the part of the story the Greta Thunberg hasn't got, he might be worth taking seriously - as it is he sounds like John Doe and Flyguy, making yet another fatuous claim about stuff they doesn't understand, which they've persuaded themselves they do understand well enough to get away with pontificating about it.

Yor ARE Bill Sloman.

And I went for the apple galette.

You'd like to think so. Like John Doe and Flyguy you assert your absurd theories, then get huffy when we point out how absurd they are.

The idea of defending your silly ideas, and pulling the together the kind of evidence that might support them is quite beyond you. If you tried it it you might get realise quite how silly some of your ideas actually, bu then again you probably don't know where to start.

Something within your competence - just.

India is amping up coal production and imports to generate power, and buying Russian oil to refine and export to countries that won't drill or refine themselves.

The market works.

F*ck the planet at the same time.

As a planet wrecking device. There's not a lot of foresight or insight involved, but if you haven't got any of your own, it doesn't worry you. You haven't got enough sense to be worried.

You're showing classic signs of a religious nut. What you spout is similar to the responses you get from religious nuts when you try to explain god doesn't exist. You're believing things without any sense or proof whatsoever.

Doesn't gas go in tanks? Like this sorta thing?

So politics prefers the gas to be burnt off than used? That's idiocy no matter what side of the green line you're on.

I found this by mistake, apparently gas stations (that's petrol, not the gas we were discussing) don't notice a van parked for hours stealing huge amounts of it!

I was thinking of one on the surface, burning methane over a large circular hole.

The one you mention is odd, why hasn't it run out of fuel yet?

When I said -181, I meant C. If the ships are currently -160C, then a bit colder and they could freeze it into blocks.

Isn't high pressure easier than low temperature?

Your belief we're killing the world with a bit of gas.

No, he's just not concerned about something that will never happen.

We're tolerant in a very wide range. Look up how much CO2 you can tolerate. Look up how little oxygen you can tolerate. Now think how much lack of food you could tolerate if there isn't enough CO2 for the plants to breathe.

"According to the Department of Environmental Protection, there isn’t one entity held liable for the fire."

F****ng bullshit. Who lit it? Who didn't put in adequate fire protection. Make them pay.

... in real news, India is a signatory to the Paris accords, which commits them to:

"substantially reduce global greenhouse gas emissions to limit the global temperature increase in this century ..."

because India isn't doing denialism like John Larkin.

I've looked up most of those things, but YOU need to know that 'plants' includes weeds and inedible parts, and crop plant growth is not assured by a CO2 level, there's a whole bunch of other climate factors that can ruin a crop. Unpredictable climate futures aren't a friend of the farmer whose seed was planned a year or more ago.

Grazing for cattle doesn't have a rosy trend, and some forests are dying of heat-related infestations and fires. More to come. Denial doesn't do the next generation any good at all, old guy.

India, China, Russia, just three of the countries that don't do the global agreement s*it.

Don't shout, I'm not f****ng deaf.

So?

Double the CO2, double the growth. I have a farmer friend who pumps CO2 into polytunnels.

If it's the prediction we need, we should concentrate on predicting the weather instead of going all doom and gloom about it. With or without your so called global warming, we have unpredictable weather.

Then eat real food instead of meat, which uses 16 times more land.

And some forests are getting the heat they need. Swings and roundabouts.

Oh do grow up. This is you this is.... "You're a denier! Ner ner ner ner ner! You can't handle the truth! I know better! I believe any old s**te, and I'm right because everyone else says so! The majority is always right!"

...don't whine, I'm not your mother

So, plant growth doesn't imply/equate to food increase. Why did you need to ask?

Extreme weather comes with climate change, and extremes aren't as predictable as averages, certainly not in year-by-year time scales.

Don't be obtuse; the real food that cattle eat hasn't increased with CO2, which is a genuinely interesting bit of food-value data that refutes the 'benefit' of an increase in food due to CO2 and climate change.