Klimarealisterne slår til igen mod GISS/GHCN

During deglaciation since the Last Glacial Maximum, between about 20,000 to 7,000 years ago (20–7 ka), the sea level rose by a total of about 100 m, at times at extremely high rates, due to the rapid melting of the British-Irish Sea, Fennoscandian, Laurentide, Barents-Kara, Patagonian, Innuitian and parts of the Antarctic ice sheets. At the onset of deglaciation about 19,000 years ago, a brief, at most 500-year long, glacio-eustatic event may have contributed as much as 10 m to sea level with an average rate of about 20 mm/yr. During the rest of the early Holocene, the rate of sea level rise varied from a low of about 6.0–9.9 mm/yr to as high as 30–60 mm/yr during brief periods of accelerated sea level rise

During deglaciation since the Last Glacial Maximum, between about 20,000 to 7,000 years ago (20–7 ka), the sea level rose by a total of about 100 m, at times at extremely high rates, due to the rapid melting of the British-Irish Sea, Fennoscandian, Laurentide, Barents-Kara, Patagonian, Innuitian and parts of the Antarctic ice sheets. At the onset of deglaciation about 19,000 years ago, a brief, at most 500-year long, glacio-eustatic event may have contributed as much as 10 m to sea level with an average rate of about 20 mm/yr. During the rest of the early Holocene, the rate of sea level rise varied from a low of about 6.0–9.9 mm/yr to as high as 30–60 mm/yr during brief periods of accelerated sea level rise

Ja det vi ser nu er jo i småtingsafdelingen i forhold til hvad naturen, bevisligt uden menneskelig co2 i atmosfæren, selv kan.

Jørgen Petersen skrev:
Når man blander det kolde og det varme vand, så kan det ikke adskilles igen. Det samme er når der bliver lavet overdrivelse, fordrejninger og manipulation i kombination med seriøs forskning. Så bliver det hele useriøst og utroværdigt. Så er det umuligt at sige hvad der er seriøst og hvad der er useriøst.

Jørgen Petersen skrev:
Afgiftsnedsættelser kan aldrig blive ikke subsidier. Det er en reduktion i beskatningen.

Jørgen Petersen skrev:
Jeg ved godt at USA har haft et eksportforbud på olie for at sikre den hjemlige forsyning, men det er ikke det, som vi taler om her.

Subsidier er det modsatte af en afgift. En negativ afgift kan man kalde det.

Jørgen Petersen skrev:
Det er der ingen lande her hos os, som gør. Tværtimod er der i vores del af verden masser af skat og afgift på olie..

kulden-varmen skrev:

Jørgen Petersen skrev:
Jeg ved godt at USA har haft et eksportforbud på olie for at sikre den hjemlige forsyning, men det er ikke det, som vi taler om her.

Subsidier er det modsatte af en afgift. En negativ afgift kan man kalde det.

Og hvad vil du kalde dette at et land holder olieprisen kunstig lav, kun i deres eget land?

Robert Wagner skrev:
Nå, ingen subsidier til kul industrien, vel?

Congress authorized $1.5 billion in credits for integrated gasification combined cycle properties, with $800 million of this amount reserved specifically for coal projects.

https://www.eesi.org/papers/view/fact-sheet-fossil-fuel-subsidies-a-closer-look-at-tax-breaks-and-societal-costs