Which, for a scientist, I find hard to believe.

..."alternate facts."

8+8 is still not greater than 30 when comparing the 8 EJ from solar and the 8 EJ from wind to the 30 EJ from nuclear produced in 2023 worldwide nor are the laws of physics determined by taking a poll.

In order to judge whether another person is responsive to facts, one should appreciate what a fact is. If one cannot do that, one is incompetent to comment on how another person responds to information.

In general, if one is mindlessly parroting journalist tripe - I often joke that one cannot get a degree in journalism if one has passed a college level science course with a grade of C or better (and maybe it's not entirely a joke) - one generally is not, in my opinion, generally equipped to judge what a fact might be.

Since I am a scientist who was once a dumb shit antinuke, and who has changed his mind based on the data from the consequences of Chernobyl compared to the routine operations of dangerous fossil fuel plants, I feel quite secure in judging what is and is not a fact, particularly when hearing from credulous rubes still whining after 46 years and change about Three Mile Island.

There is nothing quite as appalling as the abuse of the word "peak" by antinukes in any case. If in "percent talk" China produces 75% as much carbon dioxide waste in 2030 as it produced in 2024, it is still going to impact the planet in a huge way. I note that China is one of the main users of coal to make hydrogen that all of the hydrogen idiots around here like to pretend is "green."

The laws of physics, in particular the laws of thermodynamics, are not changed by wishful thinking or by branding, anymore than they are changed by polling.

Have a nice Thankgiving holiday. Hopefully the Turkey will come out nice in the solar powered oven assuming there is no snow or rain.

Don’t feel too bad. Most humans do.

However, try to accept new facts that do not fit your preconceived notions.

...here the facts, as represented by something called "numbers" what the concentrations of the dangerous fossil fuel waste carbon dioxide are and how fast they are rising, by an unprecedented amount in 2024, which, if one can read, is um, NOW.

For example, I have posted several times the numbers recorded at the Mauna Loa Carbon Dioxide observatory, something I do fairly regularly.

Update on the Disastrous 2024 CO2 Data Recorded at Mauna Loa

I feel entirely confident that in contrast to credulous rubes spouting happy talk about hydrogen and batteries and so called "renewable energy," the numbers tell a story - at least to anyone who can think and read - about how realistic this happy talk actually is.

The link in that post to the Mauna Loa CO₂ Observatory is available to anyone who gives a shit, and since I give a shit, I have been monitoring for decades. Even credulous rubes can access it. The data pages are still freely available and assuming that one has not joined Greenpeace and knows how to do simple mathematical operations at a 7th grade level, one can find out how rapidly the deterioration of the atmosphere is accelerating.

Of the top 20 highest increases in CO2 over ten years previous measured at Mauna, all but two took place in 2024. The two that didn't occurred in 2021. So much for the "energy transition" all of our credulous cheerleaders here hype.

Let me guess, "new facts" invalidate this data, no?

It seems likely that the Observatory will be shut with the NOAA, under the nutcases about to take positions in the Government, so it is likely that credulous rubes will be in the happy situation (for them, not humanity) of continuing to issue disingenuous tripe about how everything is just peachy keen because of um, let me see, oh I know, "new facts."

The spirit of Kelly Ann Conway is alive and well here at DU, this in the time of the celebration of the lie.

The fucking planet's on fire, despite all the happy hydrogen/battery talk that satisfies those people who have never, clearly, taken even a high school level course involving the laws of thermodynamics.

Have a wonderful Thanksgiving.

On one hand, you cite EIA as authoritative (believing the facts you draw from them support your conclusion) and then you denigrate their facts, when they don’t. You don’t get to have it both ways.

At least not in science my friend.

It doesn't go over all that well with people who can't think clearly, no matter how much effort one puts into the effort; all such effort being as much of a waste of time as, say, spending trillions of dollars on a reactionary effort to return the world's energy supplies to dependence on the weather, at precisely the time these reactionaries have worked to destabilize the weather by their studied indifference to fossil fuels.

Still we persist.

Still, it's amusing on some level, if one can be amused by the destruction of the planet, as clearly indicated by the numbers in my previous post.

A credulous rube looks at soothsaying and considers them to be "facts."

For example, I frequently post this graphic, which is a nice summary of the 2024 EIA WEO, similar to the tables in all of the IEA WEO's of the 21st century, all of which I have in my files:



IEA World Energy Outlook 2024
Table A.1a: World energy supply Page 296.

Now, as an educated and well read person, as someone who has lived a long time, through lots of “by 1990,” “by 2000,” “by 2010,” “by 2020,” and now “by 2030,” “by 2040,” “by 2050,” or as the ethically withered morons at Greenpeace would have it, “by 2100,” soothsaying about the outbreak of a so called "renewable energy" nirvana.

It's not like I didn't suffer through the senile rhetoric of the extremely ignorant antinuke Harvey Wasserman, who predicted a Solartopia "by 2030," just six years from now in the early part of this century. (2006).

All of these airheads, this celebrants of wishful thinking, confuse soothsaying with reality.

Now, if one is literate, one is capable of making a distinction between reality and soothsaying (with healthy dollops of wishful thinking), something which is clearly troublesome for some people. All of the entries to the right of the column headed "2023" in the tables above are soothsaying, a la Harvey Wasserman, dumb shit antinuke. They should not be confused with facts. Incredibly, however, we see people, disingenuous poorly read credulous rubes who do actively embrace such confusion.

We can prevent the outcome posited by soothsaying by acting. If in 2050, as predicted in the soothsaying column of the table above, nuclear energy is only producing 49 Exajoules, and dangerous coal is still producing 94 Exajoules, dangerous natural gas 152 Exajoules, and Oil, 176 Exajoules, the planet is fucked. To me, but apparently not to the withered brains who think tearing the shit out of the Earth's remaining wilderness to get to 84 Exajoules of Solar Energy "by 2050" might be a good idea, it's pretty clear it won't happen, not because we will overcome antinuke ignorance, superstition and irrational "Robert F. Kennedy Jr." type fear, but because civilization will collapse from extreme global heating.

Have a wonderful Thanksgiving day, perhaps, with a solar powered oven. It wouldn't do to well here in NJ, where after an intense drought induced by global heating, I'm sure, we finally have some rain, and the clouds will make solar dependent ovens - should there actually be some - pretty ineffective.

https://www.reuters.com/world/china/china-off-track-emissions-goals-energy-demand-offsets-renewables-push-2024-11-27/The CREA report is also the source of the information included in the Guardian Article linked to in the OP.

https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/chinas-cut-coal-power-share-is-rare-key-climate-win-maguire-2024-11-27/