I stopped taking this seriously after China made so many brand new coal powerplants that will remain in service for 60 - 90 years that several countries would have to implode and turn into 99% forest to offset that.
When the biggest polluter in the world just decided to comit to a century of increased GHG emissions, don't try to tell me my already low pollution nation ( 99% renewable electricity generation ) has to accept greenwashing policies, extra taxes and manoeuvres to indirectly or directly ban cars.
More energy-efficient techs is nice. Lower heating/cooling costs because of better houses, lower energy consumption on appliances, yay. Dystopian bans or restrictions on personal cars towards your bullshit forceful turn to public transports? Fuck off.
The elites virtue-signaling from their private jets and frequent plane rides, and overall consumption 1000X that of the average person can also fuck-off.
Wasn't the recent decision by Washington to not renew licenses for Florida's reactors based on activism by a group that ended up being linked to the Oil industry ?
Anti-Nuclear groups are probably 99% oil tycoons masquerading as activist with a few useful purple haired idiots that drank the kool-aid managing their twitter account.
Dunno about the USA, but in western Europe, anti-nuclear activism rose from the communist movements in the 1960s and were heavily sponsored by the Soviet Union with the goal of weakening the west. The Soviets were building nuke plants as far as they could to secure stable sources of energy while spending shitloads of money campaigning against their enemies doing the same.
So yes, in a sense, it was an oil tycoon nation campaigning against nuclear power back then.
And nowadays the children and grandchildren of those western communist revolutionnaires scream that everything they don't like is Russian propaganda.
I much prefer the "It's too late, climate change is here and there's nothing we can do to stop it." cultists over the perennial "WE HAVE TO STOP CLIMATE CHANGE OR NEW YORK WILL BE FLOODED IN 10 YEARS" cultists.
If you believe the GIEC (or whatever they call themselves in English) report, then there is no "reversing global warming" in any scenario that isn't an apocalypse with humans culled to a fraction of current numbers.
Only slowing the rate of warming then reaching an equilibrum because GHG rising has diminishing returns ( estimates betweem 1.5C and 3C per every time you double again concentration ).
And rising sea levels will continue for decades and centuries beyond reaching equilibrum because thermal expansion and ice packs have a relatively slow reaction and aren't going to reach equilibrum in a mere century.
So given China is basically trolling everyone with their new coal powerplants, government ineptitude and incapability to forecast unintended consequences that could negate some or all of the reductions they try to get, how about mitigation instead?
Why are governments still building infrastructures in places they claim will be periodically flooded in a few years or decades? Are they stupid or lying?
There's also another site that has all of these in a big table and lists whether the predictions came true or not. None have so far. I can't find it now though.
For example, up to now, warming resulted in a bigger decrease in deaths from freezing than the increase in deaths from overheating.
They can't even use this as proof that temperatures increased, because they are obsessed with manipulating people by selectively witholding information so nobody could come to a conclusion they don't want them to. And they want you to believe warming temperatures never have a positive impact anywhere.
Hopefully this coof shit has shown some people how fake and gay science is. Take raw data that doesn't show what the regime wants it to show, run it through a model until it does, and if it still doesn't that doesn't matter just say it does in the conclusion.
Nothing makes it clearer than Trudeau preaching Climate Virtuousness while agressively pushing to build a new, massive oil pipeline that will be in operation for a century, and running his political campaings with two private planes.
I stopped taking this seriously after China made so many brand new coal powerplants that will remain in service for 60 - 90 years that several countries would have to implode and turn into 99% forest to offset that.
When the biggest polluter in the world just decided to comit to a century of increased GHG emissions, don't try to tell me my already low pollution nation ( 99% renewable electricity generation ) has to accept greenwashing policies, extra taxes and manoeuvres to indirectly or directly ban cars.
More energy-efficient techs is nice. Lower heating/cooling costs because of better houses, lower energy consumption on appliances, yay. Dystopian bans or restrictions on personal cars towards your bullshit forceful turn to public transports? Fuck off.
The elites virtue-signaling from their private jets and frequent plane rides, and overall consumption 1000X that of the average person can also fuck-off.
Nuclear reactors would solve all their complaints without requiring the masses to sacrifice their freedoms and their wealth.
Convenient that they've convinced everyone that Nuclear is to dangerous to use and completely overregulated the nuclear industry.
Wasn't the recent decision by Washington to not renew licenses for Florida's reactors based on activism by a group that ended up being linked to the Oil industry ?
Anti-Nuclear groups are probably 99% oil tycoons masquerading as activist with a few useful purple haired idiots that drank the kool-aid managing their twitter account.
Dunno about the USA, but in western Europe, anti-nuclear activism rose from the communist movements in the 1960s and were heavily sponsored by the Soviet Union with the goal of weakening the west. The Soviets were building nuke plants as far as they could to secure stable sources of energy while spending shitloads of money campaigning against their enemies doing the same.
So yes, in a sense, it was an oil tycoon nation campaigning against nuclear power back then.
And nowadays the children and grandchildren of those western communist revolutionnaires scream that everything they don't like is Russian propaganda.
I keep having this fear that climate change hysteria will be the basis for draconian laws one day.
The green new deal was very draconian
Yes it was, but thankfully it fizzled out. But I know that isn't the last we will hear of that type of bill.
Wait till you hear the SotU tonight. You won't use the words "fizzled out" about the Green New Deal.
Crap I forgot about that. It amazes me that these people have no problems taking away jobs from many people
Hello from Canada.
We already have Carbon taxes.
How do they work?
https://www.canada.ca/en/environment-climate-change/services/climate-change/pricing-pollution-how-it-will-work.html
It already is.
That is my thought as well, they definitely look to be pushing towards that.
I was 20 in late 80's when Bono and his faggots preached that we had only 10 years before climate change becomes irreversible.
The whole point is to buy expensive US LNG and not use the fossil fuel reserves of your country.
I much prefer the "It's too late, climate change is here and there's nothing we can do to stop it." cultists over the perennial "WE HAVE TO STOP CLIMATE CHANGE OR NEW YORK WILL BE FLOODED IN 10 YEARS" cultists.
If you believe the GIEC (or whatever they call themselves in English) report, then there is no "reversing global warming" in any scenario that isn't an apocalypse with humans culled to a fraction of current numbers.
Only slowing the rate of warming then reaching an equilibrum because GHG rising has diminishing returns ( estimates betweem 1.5C and 3C per every time you double again concentration ).
And rising sea levels will continue for decades and centuries beyond reaching equilibrum because thermal expansion and ice packs have a relatively slow reaction and aren't going to reach equilibrum in a mere century.
So given China is basically trolling everyone with their new coal powerplants, government ineptitude and incapability to forecast unintended consequences that could negate some or all of the reductions they try to get, how about mitigation instead?
Why are governments still building infrastructures in places they claim will be periodically flooded in a few years or decades? Are they stupid or lying?
https://realclimatescience.com/fifty-years-of-failed-apocalyptic-forecasts/
https://cei.org/blog/wrong-again-50-years-of-failed-eco-pocalyptic-predictions/
There's also another site that has all of these in a big table and lists whether the predictions came true or not. None have so far. I can't find it now though.
I started saving parts of the article to comment on but the whole thing is one big lie.
This is very first sentence.
Billions of people are suffering right now because of climate change? How are they suffering? Are they frying like eggs on hot concrete?
We all better buckle up because this is not going away. This is the elites number one tool for controlling the masses.
These lies are so infuriating.
For example, up to now, warming resulted in a bigger decrease in deaths from freezing than the increase in deaths from overheating.
They can't even use this as proof that temperatures increased, because they are obsessed with manipulating people by selectively witholding information so nobody could come to a conclusion they don't want them to. And they want you to believe warming temperatures never have a positive impact anywhere.
Hopefully this coof shit has shown some people how fake and gay science is. Take raw data that doesn't show what the regime wants it to show, run it through a model until it does, and if it still doesn't that doesn't matter just say it does in the conclusion.
Lies, damn lies, and statistics.
Nothing makes it clearer than Trudeau preaching Climate Virtuousness while agressively pushing to build a new, massive oil pipeline that will be in operation for a century, and running his political campaings with two private planes.
They don't believe their own bullshit.
To say that there is not enough time would defeat the purpose of the propaganda.