Climate change prevention plans 'way off track', says UN The world quickly undid emissions reductions that were an unintended perk of the COVID-19 pandemic, leading a multi-organizational UN group to issue a bleak warning: we need to be working seven times harder to meet climate change goals. The United In Science 2022 report from the UN World Meteorological Organization (WMO) said …
When "they" (the climate ALARMISTS) disprove everything that I've said about CO2 (with science) _AND_ stop private-jetting around the world while SMUGLY telling the REST of US how to live OUR lives, and stop legislating and regulating fuel and electricity prices and availability to the point where we are ALL (except for THEM) living like we are in a third world country...
THEN *MAYBE* I WOULD LISTEN TO THEM.
In the mean time, they should stop venting their hot air into OUR atmosphere, get out of OUR way, and leave US alone from their CLIMATE ALARMIST HYSTERIA!
(I seriously question their "science", their motives, and their elitist 'smuggery')
I've no idea what you've "said about CO2 (with science)", anomymous person on the internet, but when even the producers of the products causing CO2 levels to rise have admitted that they have caused global heating, I'd say that it's up to you to prove otherwise. However, anyone who goes down the rabbit hole of climate change denial will struggle to get themselves out of it, so I'm sure you'll carry on being a useful idiot for the fossil fuel corporations, even as a third of Pakistan is flooded!.
It is unfortunate about Pakistan, it appears they were caught unaware of the predictions that climate change could cause extreme weather events. Not knowing this meant they did not try to put policies and engineering in place to mitigate the effects.
Clearly CC needs some better publicity so that when events occur as predicted countries have plans and systems in place to cope rather than it coming as a complete surprise to all concerned. News reports might change to ones about flooding causing quite a mess that will need to be cleaned up, but no loss of life or destruction of critical infrastructure, rather than going on about unexpected events which turn out to be this thing called climate change that has been recently discovered.
Yes, by all means lets reduce the amount of stuff we burn, that may help long term, but that will not stop the climate changing and put things back to 'normal'.
when even the producers of the products causing CO2 levels to rise have admitted that they have caused global heating, I'd say that it's up to you to prove otherwise
I regularly post a graphic on #ClimateChangeHoax that uses bullet points and a really nice chart to do EXACTLY THAT. it is not hard. It just requires applying common sense to observable facts to show that man-made CO2 basically can NOT be causing ANY kind of "climate change". [Yes, you CAN believe your own "lying eyes" and NOT that double-speak and double-think and outright lying propaganda that Big Brother is constantly shoving at you to convince you otherwise]. And for WEEKS (probably MONTHS) I have been DARING anyone to DISprove it. So far, NO takers. (I have gotten MANY responses on other things I have posted in the same venues, including from some "scientist" who loves to use the term "layman" as a pejorative, but NEVER on this particular one)
And those who 'admit' to 'causing' the 'heating' are (most likely) just caving under pressure because market research and/or gummints and/or cancel culture bullies make it the path of least resistance...
You keep shouting about your material, Bob,
but if you don't provide a link for reference, then you're just shouting at an unreceptive audience,
and not helping the debate.
Can you pls provide your links,
and then the Alarmists can provide theirs,
and the rest of us can break out the popcorn and watch the argument develop properly :-)
Using something called google I did a search for the following
#climatechangehoax bob
Turns out bob uses the same name on twitter and the reg.
https://twitter.com/bombastic_bob
I assume he’s writing about the pic in the tweet that he retweeted on sep 3rd from ted Cruz.
Very stereo typical account, but like all on both sides of the debate I doubt bob understands the science.
You're aware that all the while Lee Raymond was saying anthropogenic climate change was "not proven", his own scientists (the ones he actually employed) were all telling him he was pronouncing nonsense, right..? (actually, Exxon's scientists have been saying this since the 1970's)
Here's a great article from today, which explains why and has some lovely maths and physics to boot.
https://boriquagato.substack.com/p/eu-physics-denial-has-come-home-to
It's hard to fault it, but if anyone can then please point out the errors because I've missed them all.
This post has been deleted by its author
Dinorwig is an engineering marvel, but it is only designed to even out relatively small and short time variations in supply and demand. The higher the reliance on variable renewables, the bigger those fluctuations will become. A full fill of Dinorwig stores energy equivalents to 15 minutes of average UK electricity demand. It gets worse. UK households currently use about 4 times as much energy from gas as they use from electricity. So one full fill of Dinorwig is equivalent to 3 minutes of gas and electricity power demand.
That article has enough snark that it cannot convince anyone who isn't convinced already. Also, I can't help noticing a whiff of conspiracy theory, and its comments well reflect that.
All of that said, it isn't wrong. We should have gone nuclear twenty years ago, and, having failed at that, we should go nuclear right now. All politicians in the big parties know this; most of them are not stupid.
Unfortunately, not only public opinion doesn't like nuclear much, but there are small-but-significant numbers of people who hate it beyond any reason, and who would happily vote against all their other interests in order to stop anyone who intends to build nukes. This makes being openly pro-nuke extremely difficult, if you want to actually get elected to anything, because as soon as you bring it up, your opponent can attack you on it with a decent profit, and most really important elections are played on razor-thin margins.
Even just making a media campaign about it would be tough. And, of course, the reluctance of politicians to speak up in favor of nuclear just makes the anti-nuclear message that much stronger, making the nukebad meme essentially self-sustaining.
I honestly don't see any way to get out of this situation. Eventually, the sheer amount of suffering caused by this policy will be enough to force reality down everybody's throat. But it's sad that it would all be entirely avoidable.
Personally, I'm going to build a PV+battery system on my roof, as big as I can afford it. It's fucking stupid that I have to do this, but I need to at least be able to run a PC in order to work, and I don't know what else I can do to protect myself. The ROI only barely makes sense because of the government incentives and the high cost of energy - but once I factor in the loss of work I'd have to eat from regular blackouts, it's a no brainer. Any hour I can run my PC off the battery is money. My only regret is that I should have built it sooner, but I honestly didn't think that we'd actually get to the point where blackouts are a thing.
"I'm going to build a PV+battery system on my roof, as big as I can afford it. It's fucking stupid that I have to do this, but I need to at least be able to run a PC in order to work..."
I'm in a similar situation. I need to keep the lights on in my home office despite extended blackouts. I rent my home however and PV doesn't make sense for the landlord. That's just as well because I've found a cheaper and easier solution: a 1000W power inverter permanently installed in my car. For $350 I have enough power for the home office (and the kitchen refrigerator) that lasts as long as the fuel in the tank does.
I concede that it's not green. But as a renter it's far and away the most cost effective solution I found.
If I were to invent a safe and successful fusion power system tomorrow, there would be an ENDLESS PARADE of anti-science WACKOS trying to STOP me from building a power plant, with a constantly growing list of B.S. "concerns" to justify it. It's how the "grievance industry" does things.
I honestly believe that the goals of the protesters and lawsuers and obstructionists with respect to nuclear power have NOTHING to do with the environment, safety concernes, or waste disposal. It has to do with POWER, and not the electrical kind.
Nuclear power plants are *scary* to people who are easily whipped up into a frenzy. That is pretty much why we do not have enough of them.
/me operated nuclear reactors for the U.S. Navy, pushing a sub around the world for close to 4 years.
Yes. We need more nuclear power plants, and NO dependency on Vladimir Putin's pipeline.
(if nuclear electricity were charging electric cars, I would consider getting one, but most likely it is coal or oil since they would get charged at night when the rates are lower)
"/me operated nuclear reactors for the U.S. Navy, pushing a sub around the world for close to 4 years."
You took that job? Man, I was getting all kinds of postcards from the Navy my last two years of high-school ('86 and '87) wanting me to do that, but...eh, being in a metal tube under hundreds of meters of seawater with a nuclear reactor that I have intimate access to? Nah, thanks - the Marines say they'll keep me out in the sun and fun all the time.
Living in a country where around 75% of electricity is produced by nuclear power stations and where emission of CO2 per capita is among the lowest in the EU, I do agree with this article.
The failure is one of leadership. 40 years ago, we had a President who was thinking for the long term, not just till the next election. He engaged the country in a vast nuclear program not to depend from oil and gas. Sadly, such a visionary man was an exception.
However, let's not forget something: EU emits around 7% of the CO2 emitted worldwide. Even if the EU disappeared, it would be offset in a few years by the rise of CO2 emission by other countries. Most of the solution to reduce CO2 emissions isn't in Europe but in Asia and North America
I do however think that the only solution to avoid a climate crisis is not only reducing emissions but more than this extracting CO2 from the atmosphere.
== Bring us Dabbsy back ==
> However, let's not forget something: EU emits around 7% of the CO2 emitted worldwide. Even if the EU disappeared, it would be offset in a few years by the rise of CO2 emission by other countries.
True, but if we got really serious about nuclear in the EU, the resulting industry and R&D boom in the field (not to mention putting a break to the nuclear fear cycle) would also make it far more attractive worldwide.
In theory it does make sense. A quick growing crop like pollarded willow sucks the C02 in rapidly and after a few years it's harvested and burnt so is back to zero net CO2. The energy cost of transporting it is not substantially worse than any other fuel. Where it fails horribly is the stuff needs to be harvested at the end of the year if you are not going to kill it so have to replant and wait years for the next crop. At that time in the year the ground is wet and soft making mechanized extraction of large quantities of the wood really difficult and hence prohibitively expensive. So instead they go for the easier and hence profitable option of harvesting mature wood that has taken many decades to grow which is why the greens don't like it, and for once I agree with them.
Just a small point of order: if the willow is Pollarded, it won't need re-planting. The stumps will just grow new whips. That's the whole point of pollarding: the tree stores a lot of goodies in its roots and surrounding mycelium partners, which the pollarding doesn't affect & so regrowth is fast and vigorous.
Precisely. As I said, to avoid accidently killing it so needing to replant, you pollard it in the winter months when there is less stress to the tree with minimal loss of sap. Insect and fungal infection is also reduced during cold months, so these possible sources of infection are not active.
"extracting CO2 from the atmosphere..."
And luckily we have an excellent way of doing this... It's not quick, but massive reforestation effort now will already start giving results in 10-20 years time.
Heck, as has been shown in many places around Europe, Brazil, probably many others I haven't heard of*, you don't even need reforestation, just prohibit human activities in an area, forests will grow back on their own.
What is stopping this is greed - land with no human activity allowed has no notional economic value. Just like land in central London is basically worthless - what gives it value is apiece of paper saying you're allowed to build there.
* and one at Chernobyl that most people HAVE heard of
If the goals are so hard to reach, abandon them.
As with everything in life, you have to balance costs and benefits. The costs of having children are HORRENDOUS, yet, in the face of such evidence people keep on making them, so the benefits must outweight the costs.
If the cost of spending seven times as much effort abolishing modern civilisation is worse than the cost of not doing so, then don't do it.
Which is the greater benefit? Not shivering in medival hovels, or preventing Norfolk from flooding?
We could build nuclear plants, and then we could both not shiver in medieval hovels, and also prevent Norfolk from flooding. Even with very pessimistic estimates on costs, waste and accidents, it's still the least-bad alternative. As I said elsewhere, I can't live on irradiated ground, but I also can't live underwater (and/or with no heating in winter).
At some point Chernobyl will become habitable.
It's probably habitable now, especially if some basic precautions are taken. The IAEA's recent inspection report visited the area and has some interesting data regarding potential exposure levels for the troops that were digging trenches there.
Then again, the Zone also has a lot of scientific value given we generally try to avoid large radiation leaks. So probably worth keeping it as an SSSI.
Most of the radiation is confined in the topmost layer of soil, so removing that and replacing it would probably make it quite habitable.
Though as you say it is probably habitable now if you don't dig around and you are over say 60 years old so any slightly elevated radiation you get won't affect you during your remaining life.
Coming soon: 'The Villages' in Chernobyl!
Most of the radiation is confined in the topmost layer of soil, so removing that and replacing it would probably make it quite habitable.
One of the neat things I saw when I visited was experiments with grasses. Simple sounding idea, let fast growing grasses absorb contaminants, mow, collect the clippings, burn them and store the ash. There's been a few experiments into biological remediation like that.
If the goals are so hard to reach, abandon them.
The part the global warming tends to gloss over is the important part of the Paris Agreement. One being it's basically meaningless, with lots of wriggle room to make endeavors to keep the tides from coming in, temperatures below 2C etc.
The most important part is the UN's demand for $100bn a year in climate funding. Obviously that's a target worth achieving, especially for all the NGOs that already have their snouts buried deep in the Green trough. It's perhaps all this was unsuprising given a) the UN loves wasting money and b) it developed off the back of one Maurice Strong, who famously took large personal cheques whilst being part of the UN's oil for food programme. He avoided prosecution and is now dead, but there are plenty more like him who have their eyes on that prize.
Also strange the way that CO2 levels didn't drop in line with the Covid-induced industrial and economic shutdown. It's almost like there's something.. natural that dominates the carbon cycle.
>Two big countries building coal plants and buying or digging up more coal. Hint. Such countries are not western.
Would one of those be China - who have 57 nuclear power stations in production and have more renewables capacity than the next six countries combined (nearly 4x the USA).
It is interesting that China:
1) is the biggest user of EVs in the world
2) has some of the largest renewable energy projects in the world
3) is busy building nuclear power stations like mad
and
4) is STILL building coal power stations.
Maybe 1 and 2 are the cause of 3 and 4?
It is interesting that China:
Is big. It's also one of the reasons why the Global Warming scam got rolling in the first place. China's been steadily transitioning from cheap labor making cuddly toys & stocking fillers to manufacturing most of our highest tech stuff. Obviously that's a competitive threat to the West, so slowing down it's economy by energy policy was seen as a GoodThing(tm).
But it hasn't exactly worked out that way, and nor has it with India and other developing nations. So we're busily virtue signalling and crippling our own economies instead. Net Zero will make zero difference to 'global' or even local weather conditions. Well, maybe EVs will increase pm2.5 pollution, but Green policies aren't meant to make sense.
So China's been busily building cheap, reliable power to try and keep up with it's demand. It's really just a simple numbers game. Figure on the usual bell curve for population distribution, and China will produce more smart people. It's been investing in it's education and high tech industries, and it's been converting from simply manufacturing Western stuff to designing it's own products. Initially, some of those designs were.. quirky, but it's quickly learning how to manufacture products to meet Western tastes.. as well as price points.
"Obviously that's a competitive threat to the West"
We pretty much handed it to them! Most western nations have busied themselves with destroying their own industries through various combinations of stupid regulations, government corruption, union corruption, general stupidity and outright malice from 'intellectuals'.
If you mention any form of Independence (financial, energy, food) you get a vocal group screeching about isolationism and how its really bad. But then these are probably the people who demand handouts from big govt.... Make everything expensive by regulations then subsidise everything. The big money-go-round.
I think it was Michael Shellenberger who said the quickest way to green energy was to initially build lots of cheap but dirty energy. Once you have abundant energy you can then transition to green(er) technologies without destroying yourself in the process.
We pretty much handed it to them! Most western nations have busied themselves with destroying their own industries through various combinations of stupid regulations, government corruption, union corruption, general stupidity and outright malice from 'intellectuals'.
Yup. We did the same with post-WW2 Japan. Lots of technology transfer involved to modernise and industrialise Japan. They learned, we forgot, hello Sony!
Couple of stand-out moments for me were reading an article about an optics course at MIT or Caltech. No US students enrolled, almost entirely Asian. With potentially +1 Brit, but I got headhunted instead. The other has been the fate of this place-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mountain_Pass_mine
Production expanded greatly in the 1960s, to supply demand for europium used in color television screens. Between 1965 and 1995, the mine supplied most of the worldwide rare-earth metals consumption.
So technology moved on, making it's phosphors less saleable, but mostly regulated into oblivion. Then our glorious leaders noticed 'rare' earths are kinda important to our technology ambitions, and sanctioning China had a bit of blowback. But such is politics, and loony activists objecting to mining to produce their EVs and iPhones. Or conveniently overlooking that that stuff is simply mined elsewhere. But there's a huge amount of useful 'rare' earths that have been left laying around in spoil heaps, because they weren't useful at the time minerals were extracted. So stuff like Thorium, which could be providing low cost, ultra low carbon energy so that EVs wouldn't be costing more to fill up than ICEs.
Nations will continue on their current paths until climate change is so extreme they can't ignore it any longer, by which time it will be too late to act. We will be past several key tipping points. Tens of millions or even hundreds of millions will die as a result of famine, heat, drought or flooding, take your pick. I don't think the average person realises just how bad things are likely to become, wherever you live in the world. The planet doesn't owe us an existence.
It's equally possible the world will get only slightly warmer and significantly greener, to our net benefit. It's already doing the latter, and the water vapour cycle has a very strong negative feedback effect on global temperatures. As Bjorn Lomborg said a decade or two ago, we should have been working to adjust rather than trying to push the tide back.
The more likely thing is that "science" will notice that temperatures are going back DOWN (it's what the long cycles do) and predict an ICE AGE and blame human activity and find some OTHER way to separate the 'haves' from the 'have-nots' through some economic and tyrannical means... to "solve" it. And make themselves even MORE powerful. Human nature.
Yet, worthy of mention:
the water vapour cycle has a very strong negative feedback effect on global temperatures
Yes! People forget too easily about how important WATER is, as the ACTUAL GH GAS that controls world temperatures. CO2 is a *blip*. The hydro cycle keeps earth temperatures reasonably stable.
Look at the graphs that have been published showing the divergence of all the various model predictions of temperature rise in the future. The actual outturn is right along the bottom of that divergence. The models are pretty much GIGO so far, and essentially all the doom & gloom is based on them.
I don't recall any universities or atmospheric research centre sating that the world will get slightly warmer and it will be a net benefit. Funny, that.
Actually... If you read the IPCC's Annual Reports beyond their carefully crafted exec summaries (SPM), they say exactly that. WG1 tends to get the most attention because that's 'teh science', which is where most of the doom-ongers lurk. Then the Green lobby spin that as hard as they can, and clueless fskwits like the Bbc dutifully 'report the facts'., Because none of their own climate experts have any science or engineering training, so can't think through what they're being told.
So we get the dire predictions based on 'teh science', which are basically a lot of sim-science that diverges rapidly from reality. So the ice caps have long ago melted, kids don't know what snow is and Thermageddon is already here.
Or not.
But there's also-
Working Group II: Assesses vulnerability of socioeconomic and natural systems to climate change, consequences, and adaptation options.
Working Group III: Assesses options for limiting greenhouse gas emissions and otherwise mitigating climate change.
Which is where the good news tends to get buried. Which is also based on the science. So plants are made from CO2, H2O, sunlight and some soil nutrients. Increased CO2 is good for the biosphere, which is why it's pumped into real greenhouses to increase yields. Not heat them. There has been a noticeable, measurable 'greening of the Earth', which is a good thing for humanity. Same with any changes to rainfall. There will be winners, and losers. One loser is currently California's rice paddies, but that's due to exceptionally poor water management rather than 'clmate change'. Or you could just look at other potential wins. If the UK's on average 2C warmer, that's potentially 2C less off our heating bills. Ok, some of that might be offset by summer temps, but it's cold that kills, not heat.
"Tens of millions or even hundreds of millions will die as a result of famine, heat, drought or flooding, take your pick."
Eh. maybe that's the way it's supposed to be? We are a bunch of fleas on a big dog. Too many bites, and the dog starts itching and scratching, and some fleas die.
What's really going to suck is once humanity has run through the free fossil fuels we've been leveraging for the past 100+ years. How many furrows can a lithium-battery powered tractor put in a 300 acre corn field before it needs a recharge? Doesn't matter if the tractor charges from nuclear or coal or hydro or wind or solar power at that point, it still has to sit idle, or go through a battery swap. Either way, slower than the old way of pumping 50 gallons of diesel into the tank and going back to plowing. Not to mention the fertilizer they use to get the plants to grow and produce enough to feed billions of hungry mouths every day of the year.
Famine, heat, drought, flooding won't matter for shit if this whole infrastructure we've gotten our society addicted to can't continue to provide that society with food. How many of the millions and millions and millions of soft city folks and urbanites know how to take care of themselfs with no no grocery stores, no gas stations, no food handouts, nothing but homestead living on 5 acres of land with two mules? Those folks will start dying en masse once we run out of diesel for our tractors, trains, and trucks.
And think about it this way - how many barrels of fuel do UPS, Fedex, Amazon, etc burn every day delivering essentially useless crap to all the homes in America? In 100 years, are those future folks going to curse us for so frivolously wasting our petroleum resources while they watch their children starve because the farmers and freight companies have no fuel?
THAT will be the population cliff that humanity has to jump off of at some point. There are just too many of us to survive post-petroleum, no matter what the itchy dog does in the near future.
Look at all the deniers posting here.
Nothing is going to change until the catastrophes are massive. History shows this over and over.
We'll be lucky if ONLY a billion people die. I work in world wide logistics for the world's top corporations. From raw materials to finished products, both business and retail.
People have no idea just how fragile, yet intactably connected modern civilization is. Thanks to JIT and "lean", the domino effect will be horrifying. The supply problem from the pandemic will be nothing in comparison.
The deniers are going to wish they never FAFO'd.
Covid, the corrupt policies of the Beijing Biden admin and the equally corrupt global energy market have shown us that lean and JIT are very fragile. They didn't get as much power as expected with covid so now we have another power grab.
Kirkland heavy duty foil is great!
It runs on water was the title of a documentary some 20 years ago made by equinox. This focuses on the on instance production of hydrogen. This was instantly attacked by scientists as Heresy. Well I say this, the law of conversation of energy is flawed (Over unity to you and me) and they know this. If it was perfect we would be using DC instead of AC as power. Tesla was seen as loopy inverter not as a scientist and did have a brilliant mind. You can what this episode on YouTube.
All credit to Jim Griggs and Stanly Meyers in their pioneering work in this field.
I have nothing to say for fence sitters in the science community who now have taken the place of the church persecuting the inverters.
Okay, so, let's take a careful look here.
To start with, note that no actual scientist has ever called anyone else's theories "heresy". Someone who proposes a theory that goes against scientific consensus can and does get called a whole bunch of names, but never "heretic". The only times you hear that term in use, in the context of scientific debate, is when someone is claiming that others have called his own theories "heresy" (as in this case).
The reason is fairly straightforward: the term is loaded with religious connotations, and scientists just don't want science to get in the same context as religion. The two don't really mix; bringing science into religion just breaks faith, and bringing religion into science breaks the scientific method.
You know who does want science to be thought of as religion? That's right - people who actually do want to be allowed to ignore the scientific method. So, do you have a cool theory that has been tested as false multiple times? Or that you've never even attempted to test? Do you have a neat experiment that nobody else can reproduce? Or that only works if you fudge the results?
Not a problem! Just start posting stuff about your work, and sprinkle it with loaded terms such as "heretic", "dogma", "persecution" and whatnot! Presto, the discourse is now framed as a religious debate, and your problems with the scientific method just fade into the background.
So: if you see someone pulling out the "heretic" card, chances are they have a theory that doesn't work, has never worked, cannot work, and they just want people not to pay too much attention to that.
FFS! There is no bloody "evill guvrmint concpirassy", or bribes/lobbying to preserve oil and gas.
It's purely because no transition of this magnitude has ever even been attempted before and it needs toi be a gradual process. The alternative (touted by the fuckwit loons of "stop oil" and the like), is economic collapse, mass starvation and a really, really big shooting war, probably with lots of nukes.
i.e. the same end result as doing absolutely nothing, only faster, more messy and the fucked up ecosystem also glows at night.
Utter nonsense here in Canada. The oil companies have the government by the short and curlies both in the oil producing provinces and in the federal government. How else do you explain over a billion dollars Canadian in tax breaks and "investment incentives" every year despite the massive profitability of the industry and the clear indication that they do not need government assistance (i.e TAXPAYER assistance) to survive.
Yet within the past 12 months, our provincial government gave them over $300 million dollars to clean up wells - wells that they were supposed to have already cleaned up on their own under the terms of the agreements signed.
O&G has this world so tightly tied up I'll be absolutely amazed if the world is still livable by the time I'd be dying naturally...
Solar activity is a constant, and always has been. The IPCC sayeth so, and devotes around 1 page to this subject. See also-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proxy_(climate)#Water_isotopes_and_temperature_reconstruction
...where the moisture evaporated and the place where the final precipitation occurred; since ocean temperatures are relatively stable the δ value mostly reflects the temperature where precipitation occurs. Taking into account that the precipitation forms above the inversion layer, we are left with a linear relation
Which is typical for climate 'science', especially when it then goes on to wibble about calibration. But sure, there's a linear relation, if you exclude any factors that may affect O-18 to O-16 ratios, ie assuming they are, and always have been a constant in our environment. Which may be true, ie assumption that the stable isotopes were formed during stellar evolution and our planet's formation.
are not an insignificant part of the population. People like Marjorie Taylor Green, Donald 33,000 lies Trump continue to spout rubbish about Solar and Wind Power. Their rants are heard both inside and outside the USA.
While they are spreading their version of bovine excrement the USA as a whole will find it hard to move forward with greening their economy.
That's ignoring the threats of the GQP to decimate the EPA and other agencies should they regain any two of the house/the Senate and the Presidency.
While they are spreading their version of bovine excrement the USA as a whole will find it hard to move forward with greening their economy.
Green is the colour of decay. But why not cut out the middle man, and get Detroit making sail powered cars! Skip all those production, distribution & storage costs, just sail on down the road.
I see this site has a good number of climate change deniers. Sad... really sad.
Indeed. But it's an IT site, so theoretically inhabited by folks with technical training & experience rather than PPEs. The kinds of people that can look at stuff produced by marketing or sales and think "sure, we can do that, if we can just break physics a bit".
So the kinds of people that used to be called "sceptics", until the marketing types (check who is/was behind DeSmog Blog) realised scientists were supposed to be sceptical. So we got rebranded as "deniers" instead, because it's easy to connect that to the N-thing. But they've always been better at corrupting language than understanding science. So they've declared a 'Climate Emergency'. Curious phrase, unsupported by science, but creates a sense of urgency. Act Now! Give the UN $100bn a year or the planet gets it! They even took a Swedish school drop-out and paraded her as their new messiah.
Then again-
https://dailysceptic.org/2022/08/18/1200-scientists-and-professionals-declare-there-is-no-climate-emergency/
There is no climate emergency, say the authors, who are drawn from across the world and led by the Norwegian physics Nobel Prize laureate Professor Ivar Giaever. Climate science is said to have degenerated into a discussion based on beliefs, not on sound self-critical science.
What does a Nobel Prize winning physicist know about 'the science'? Hasn't he listened to Al Gore? Can't he hear the trees screaming? Why hasn't he joined that other Nobel Prize winner, Obama in running for the hills to escape the rising sea levels?
Alternatively, the real deniers could be those who think the climate has never changed in the past. The mythical 'equilibrium' we've peturbed really exists, and we'll be doomed by the kinds of CO2 levels that spawned pretty much all life in the past. Well, ok, they were a whole lot higher then, but it's kinda weird the way ocean critters evolved shells and skeletons in 'acid' oceans.. isn't it? In the old days, scientists could have explained all that using chalk boards. Now communicating science relies on petrochemical products that the loony Greens and neo-Luddites are trying to ban.
If I say "first get rid of your private jets" that makes me a denier right there.
Perhaps because that makes it sound like you are saying, unless that comes first, you won't accept anything else being done.
Making it a precondition doesn't help solve the climate change issues you say you recognise. Instead it goes against doing anything.
I want those private jets gone as well but accept that's merely a part of all that needs to be done. I am not going to let one obstacle become an obstacle to everything.
"Climate change issues need solving, and getting rid of private jets needs to be high up there in my view" will provoke less accusations of being a denier in disguise. Perhaps that's what you actually meant?
Well said. Sad about all the downvotes.
WHATABOUTISM is very common with climate deniers.
What have YOU done to reduce your CO2 and Fossil fuel use?
I've gone 100% off-grid. Solar and Water power plus 80kWh of battery enabled me to cut my grid connection.
That also allows me to charge my EV from my own generated power. No gas, no petrol or diesel.
I've not flown since 2016.
What about you then deniers? Traded up to and even bigger Truck then?
What have YOU done to reduce your CO2 and Fossil fuel use?
Well, I'm lobbying and encouraging all global warmists to sterilise themselves. They each emit around 250kg of CO2 a year, so the simplest thing they can do to help save the planet is..
Yet more fear to rally the troops.
The taboo part of this whole idea is something that has worked before, and will continue to work, because people are stupid and are driven by emotion and fear!
The west needs to have a closed shop economy to ensure that it is always the one with the most money. To do this, it creates moral panic to force society to change, which, gives it an economic boost, while crippling anyone who doesn't go along with the agenda.
This time they are going for a change in power source, because if you don't, the planet will die! Bit over the top, but say it often enough,and people will believe you.
Eventually, we have a society that isn't buying energy from other sources other than the home market, and anything created outside the home market, can be taxed to death because its helping kill the planet. - The outcome is a higher GDP for the countries that in on the plan, and less GDP for the rest of the world!
And yes, this was done in the past, and it worked.
Ever heard of the slave trade? - Worked wonderfully for 1000 years, and was only found to be a bad idea when the industrial revolution came around. The problem was, machines cost lots of money, while slave labour was still very cheap, so you needed a moral panic to force them to invest in machines, and let their slaves go.
The winners were the countries that had invested in industrialisation, because not only did they find their investment had paid off, the countries who carried on using slaves couldn't discount their goods enough to make their goods palatable to the newly moralistic public.
I don't expect anyone grasp this concept, but we will be living in a carbon free economy within 50 years, and you'll like it, even if the science that forced it to happen, makes no sense!
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
