It’s more that the owning family is incredibly wealthy, and believes in regularly presenting their viewers with right-wing views.

They actually brought in somebody who isn’t a regular columnist to make this claim; even Dowd isn’t this bonkers.

Yes, but it’s a system that is designed to sync with the frequency of whatever other electricity is out there, and it shuts of if the main shuts off. Almost all rooftop systems without a battery in the US are set up the same way.

Still, it’s important to check that things you think are disconnected do not have current flowing through them. And this makes it more important.

They cut the size, but not the price. Then they increase the price six months later.

Bloomberg (the news outlet) has a bunch of rather competent reporters who regularly cover climate, and Michael Bloomberg (who owns a controlling interest in it) was one of the major funders of the Sierra Club’s campaign to phase out coal use in the US.

The NYT is also very clear that it’s not cloud seeding:

Although some have speculated that recent cloud seeding efforts by the U.A.E. — using chemicals to increase the chances of clouds producing rain — could have contributed to the extreme weather, scientists said this was very unlikely.

“Rainfall enhancement could not cause that kind of increase in rainfall,” said Steven Siems, an expert in cloud seeding at Monash University in Australia, adding that any effects from cloud seeding would have been “marginal” at most.

It’s not impossible; it just requires building a whole lot of expensive infrastructure which is used very infrequently. People usually don’t choose to do that.

The messaging needs to come from somebody they trust.

There was an international treaty to cut the amount of sulfur in the bunker oil that the big ships burn. This is because the particulates it produces when burned kill people. They also reflected a bunch of sunlight, preventing it from warming the water.

None of that is a greenhouse gas.

It’s a little more complicated than that — El Niño, plus climate change, plus a cut in the amount of sulfur in the fuel burned by ships, plus something that’s not fully understood.

Indeed you are.

And now you pretend to have had evidence. You didn’t

So let’s summarize:

• You make a dubious claim
• I ask for evidence
• You claim that I’m the one responsible for evidence
• I point out how you’re trolling
• You say again that I’m the one who is supposed to give evidence
• I point out that this makes it clear you have none
• You tell me that I’m a troll

If you had evidence, you’d have shown it by now. But you don’t.

So you have no evidence for your position.

In short, you’re sealioning.

Sorry, but you’ll need to bring evidence for that kind of statement

Kinda sorta; they’re responsible for more than 80% of scope 3 emissions, which counts what happens when fossil fuels they extract and sell are subsequently burned. Individually, what you do is tiny, but as you show people around you that it’s possible to live without fossil fuels, it changes behavior in the aggregate.

That’s up to us. Get involved. Join an activist group, or a political campaign. Change policy. Show your neighbors how it’s possible to cut fossil fuels out of your life.