We could ask you that re your reading for comprehension?
What I wrote and what you commented on didnt quite fit together
“All for” often refers to being completely in favor of, supporting, or desiring something (“I’m all for it”) [Merriam-Webster]
(ALL FOR Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster).
A comment on Quara:
https://qr.ae/pC0UGT
Yes but in English you need to read the full sentence to understand the meaning.
Common Asian problem of chopping up a sentence to understand it but doesn’t work.
Not only new ships and engines can be low emission:
Diplomacy, compromise and scientific, evidence-based decision making have all been thrown out of the window as the US seeks to permanently derail international shipping’s climate ambitions
US hubris risks shipping’s regulatory consensus and stability
… all industries must play their part in fighting the greatest threat to humanity ever seen.
From the article.
I wonder what could be that greatest threat to humanity ever seen?
I’m going for full-on alien invasion of earth by hostile ETs who eat people and enslave the rest … to eat later.
Best we don’t decarbonise any more. What say ye?
Wrightstone elaborates in A Very Convenient
Warming:
Rather than being at unprecedented high
levels, CO₂ is at one of its lowest
concentrations in the long history of the
Earth. Recent increases of this miracle
molecule are greening the Earth with an
astonishing boost in the productivity of
plants worldwide—an increase so dramatic
that it can been seen by satellites from
space. As usual, this good news is just the
opposite of what we are being told by those
who call themselves “green.”
To demonize CO₂ as dangerously high is an
attempt to instill fear so that people will
docilely accept drastic and economically
destructive policies. Governments now have
in place regressive regimes of taxation and
regulation to curtail the use of fossil fuels.
The policies are scientifically baseless and
economically senseless. Their cost in lives
and treasure is heavy.
Perhaps the scales of the graphs might need to be camparable? I contend more CO2 is good for humanity, all life on earth needing the stuff. Lefties think differently.
Comment?
Or here’s some calculations.
Net Zero Averted Temperature Increase
Using feedback-free estimates of the warming by increased atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) and observed rates of increase, we estimate that if the United States (U.S.) eliminated net CO2 emissions by the year 2050, this would avert a warming of 0.0084 C (0.015 F), which is below our ability to accurately measure. If the entire world forced net zero CO2 emissions by the year 2050, a warming of only 0.070 C (0.13 F) would be averted. If one assumes that the warming is a factor of 4 larger because of positive feedbacks, as asserted by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the warming averted by a net zero U.S. policy would still be very small, 0.034 C (0.061 F). For worldwide net zero emissions by 2050 and the 4-times larger IPCC climate sensitivity, the averted warming would be 0.28 C (0.50 F).
How Much Warming Would Net Zero By 2050 Prevent?
And Christopher Monckton points out the cost to benefit ratio for this $2 Quadrillion dollar project is every billion dollars we spend cools the world by 20 millionths of a degree.
So let’s keep all the national science institutions that pointed out what a terrible deal this is for all our nations, and shut down the rest — NOAA, NASA, Hadley, CSIRO, NIWA, BoM, Potsdam, NRC, ARC, and while we’re at it — the ABC, BBC, the CBC because they should have asked better questions, like “how many degrees will that cool us?”
UPDATE: And a long time ago Dr David Evans calculated that if Australia got to Net Zero and the IPCC were right, we would “cool” the world by 0.0154°C.
Monckton and his crowd are todays cigarette smoking and second hand smoke is harmless group of the 50’s and 60’s. But they are entertaining in their ignorance and ability to fool the gullible.
I knew Monckton would trigger the Lefties … who can’t debate the mathematics.
A great number of former IPCC scientists don’t think CO2 has any significant effect on temperatures. So decarbonising shipping is nugatory.
A new study by EY Greece has warned that shipping’s transition to net zero will be uneven and capital intensive, constrained by factors including alternative fuel availability, infrastructure, shipyard capacity, access to finance and fragmented commercial incentives. Responding to the report, BAR Technologies — inventor of the WindWings wind propulsion system — said that while the industry is right to plan for long-term fuel pathways, too much of the decarbonization debate remains focused on what may become available in the future rather than what can be deployed now.
At least some are waking up to the massive fraud … and have the balls to admit they were conned.
Climate change is real, but Britain can do almost nothing about it. The war against global warming has been lost, with only grievous collateral damage to show for it. We have crippled British industry, hammered consumers and pushed the grid to the brink of blackouts, all with no discernible impact on global emissions and the climate.
Net zero represents the pinnacle of arrogance, a case study in the illusion of control, a landmark in human vanity and, in Britain’s case, exposes a ludicrously exaggerated view of our own importance given the UK’s negligible economic and environmental footprint in 2026.
It’s time to accept this sobering reality, cut our losses, cease tilting at (and building) windmills, ditch the despicable con that is net zero, and learn to cope with, and whenever possible, even enjoy, a warmer, drier, more volatile Mediterranean climate, if that is indeed to be our fate.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/2026/07/29/britain-cant-stop-climate-change-scrap-net-zero/
For all these expensive, wasteful regulations that you hope will save the planet, by how much (in degrees of temperature) will the global temperature fall?
My guess, zero. Net zero, in fact.
My guess is still zero climate benefit from all this extra expense.
I note you evaded my actual question as does every global warming zealot.
I assume that you refer to this question? (there have been other)
It is not a question of falling, but of limiting how much increase there will be in the next few decades.
It is also not a question of “in degrees of temperature”, but of fractions of degrees.
As you may know, it is a question of the increase in average global temperature since the Industrial Revolution (1850):
Source: Global Temperature Report for 2025 - Berkeley Earth