Sure, the earth is very slowly getting warmer. 1C over more than 100 years. There is 0 proof that a warming earth will have any negative effects other than a very very tiny and steady rise in sea level with is easily mitigated against. All models talking about big sea level rises are extrapolated out 600+ years.
All other claimed negative effects of "climate change" are outright lies. More, or worse, natural disasters? False and unsupported by scientific evidence. Disasters aren't getting worse, it's just that massively expanded human population and cities mean we experience them more. However, deaths from natural disasters have massively dropped despite this, thanks to human wealth and innovation improving safety measures.
Desertification? Same. We know for a fact that CO2 is plant food, and plants thrive at higher temperatures than the present global average. Cold kills. Heat is perfectly fine for plant life as a rule. Just look at hot jungles and compare them to the arctic tundra. The rise in temperatures and CO2 is proven to cause a "global greening", where MORE, not less, land is opening up to agriculture and farming thanks to the earth being a more hospitable place in general.
Humans literally boiled alive! All fear the "wet bulb" temperature!!! Propagandists love to claim that we are at the cusp of hitting a mythical "wet bulb" temperature (wet bulb means sweat won't save you, this is important because people do just fine in very hot deserts with dry air because they counteract the heat with sweat) that would kill a helpless human sitting around outdoors.
It's true, that for very short periods of time on the hottest hours of the hottest days in the hottest and most humid places on earth, this might happen in the future. So what? Unprepared humans can be killed by cold for huge swaths of the year, over huge geographic regions RIGHT NOW. People don't really fear this because we are "used to" it. But if you don't have heavy clothing outside at night standing in probably 1/3 of the earth, you'll die from the cold. Cold is super dangerous, and deadly. It kills 20x more than heat.
Heat is just as easy to mitigate against as cold. Step one is simply getting into shelter. Most heat deaths are from people stupidly trying to do heavy labor out in the sun and heat and working themselves into heat stroke. Step two is to drink water. While this won't save you in a "wet bulb" event, the simple fact of the matter is that these events will be rare and only last a few hours at most, so people can just shelter from them like they do now anyway on very hot and humid days. It's really not a big deal, it's just "new" and people fear things they're not used to.
And that's really what global warming propaganda is all about: luddite-like fear of change and fear of the "unknown", which is exploited by "green" propagandists in their campaign to attack human progress and development. They hate humanity and they want to undermine it. And left wing politicians exploit this sentiment for votes, and academics exploit this to line their pockets. It's a whole, self-perpetuating cancer on humanity. People ought to have more sense than to buy into it.
And that's really what global warming propaganda is all about: luddite-like fear of change
So close. It's about money, dude. The elites invest into companies that promise "green energy" and other bullshit, try and get everything else banned, and they make 10 000% return on investments. They basically tried doing this with Solyndra and that company ended up pissing billions into stupid shit.
Disagree somewhat. Producing heat is so easy and efficient that we constantly do it as a side-effect to everything. Mitigating heat is moving heat, which is less generally less efficient and more expensive.
You're talking about extremes. For most poor/hot countries people just use shade + ceiling fans and they're fine.
Obviously dealing with heat is harder if you're on the surface of the Moon getting fried or something.
On earth we are talking about heat being too hot from like noon to 2pm on rare days in a few middle east countries or whatever.
the "hot" equivalent would be 170F.
That's the thing, the earth has never been remotely that hot for billions of years. The hottest it's ever been was like 12C average hotter than now, which is still perfectly livable for humans.
Sure, the earth is very slowly getting warmer. 1C over more than 100 years.
No, 4C in 100 years. And yes, it will have some negative effects, as a change in climate will always cause some negative effects to some animals and plants living in those specific climates that will not support them.
More, or worse, natural disasters?
Fair, this is Watermellon bullshit. Those statistics were always too abstract to mean much beyond a simple energy equation. You're not going to feel a difference between a hurricane, and a hurricane that is "15% stronger".
Desertification? Same.
You're way off on this because you're being way to generalizable on this. It is a fact that the deserts have expanded into some regions to make them more arid. That will likely continue in some areas. IT IS ALSO TRUE, that areas of tundra and permafrost are also becoming more green. No, "hot" is not less dangerous to plants than "cold". That's just stupid and unnuanced. Plants handle hot and cold differently, and will absolutely die off in some areas that get too much heat, too much sun, too little humidity, etc. You can't just say that, it doesn't make sense on a generalizable scale. Also, yes, heatwaves absolutely kill people especially if you damage the electrical grid so that your public housing unit ends up suffocating and dehydrating shitloads of people.
But if you don't have heavy clothing outside at night standing in probably 1/3 of the earth, you'll die from the cold. Cold is super dangerous, and deadly. It kills 20x more than heat.
You'll also drown if you stand on 7/10ths of the Earth. Again, this is a conversation of "cold more bad than hot!" is so stupid and irrelevant it's not worth having. Which is why you can say: "Heat is just as easy to mitigate against as cold." There's no point in this entire swathe of an argument.
luddite-like fear of change and fear of the "unknown", which is exploited by "green" propagandists in their campaign to attack human progress and development.
No, it's that the modern Environmentalist movement is emergent from National Socialist ideology. They are inherently anti-human because they believe that civilization can be protected by purifying both the blood and the soil. Turns out purifying the blood is unpopular, so they are taking a Fabain Socialist approach to purify the blood by purifying the soil.
This is a worst-case predicted amount if we continue to increase CO2 at the same rate as recently for 100 years and their models are correct.
But that won't happen. They're projecting from a rapid rise in China's scorched-earth industrial policies and not factoring in that China will clean up it's act eventually just like every other industrialized country or considering advances in technology (USA for example). And their models are biased because of funding and groupthink.
But even a China successor won't become as huge a CO2 source because of solar/wind or even fusion. In some cases solar and wind are cheaper now, and they'll only get better whereas coal hasn't really gotten any better than 35% efficiency for the past 50 years.
You simply can't make any long-term prediction predicated on technology being the same the whole time.
No, that's the expected outcome, not the worst case. The worst case is like up to 6C.
But that won't happen. They're projecting from a rapid rise in China's scorched-earth industrial policies and not factoring in that China will clean up it's act eventually just like every other industrialized country or considering advances in technology (USA for example).
The idea that Communist states are prepared to manage their environments appropriately is laughably absurd. They've never cleaned up their act until after the fall of Communism.
You simply can't make any long-term prediction predicated on technology being the same the whole time.
The technological change just isn't going to be all that relevant in the first place. Forget that China subsidization of pollutive extraction industries is exactly how you're hoping China will "clean up it's act", we don't even need to really consider how technology can hopefully mitigate carbon emissions when carbon is only going to be the primary source of energy from humans this century and if you want nuclear or fusion power you're going to have to wait for it's mass planetary adoption well over 80 years from now.
Instead, what we know is that not only are human populations going to rapidly rise to 10-14 billion and then plateau, not only will those extra billions of humans need energy, but they will need and want more energy than any of their predecessors. The vast and exponential demand for energy means you are going to use vast and exponential supplies of carbon based energy sources, and everything else you can get your hands on. As a result of that increased demand, requiring more carbon based supply, requiring more consumption of those supplies, requiring more carbon emissions, you are only going to get increasing carbon emissions across the planet, basically for the next 100 years until the population finally stabalizes. Alternatively, the only way of reducing carbon emissions is to reduce the demand for energy... by reducing the people. Which they are already doing.
The idea that Communist states are prepared to manage their environments appropriately is laughably absurd. They've never cleaned up their act until after the fall of Communism.
Yeah, but why did they burn so much coal and oil? Because it was cheaper and they didn't care about the environment.
When solar and wind are cheaper they'll use that -- and still not care about the environment. They'll be polluting their land with heavy metals, sure, but not the air with CO2.
You see the change already with islands changing to solar and wind. Hawaii for instance is increasing solar because even with batteries it's cheaper than coal/oil - way higher at 18% electricity from solar than other states (CA is higher only because they're horribly mismanaged). That will propagate to logistically cheaper places as the cost of solar/wind continues to decrease.
carbon is only going to be the primary source of energy from humans this century and if you want nuclear or fusion power you're going to have to wait for it's mass planetary adoption well over 80 years from now.
Energy is not immune to disruptive technology, in fact it's prime for it because electricity is totally fungible. It doesn't matter the source and the speed of change is determined by the price difference.
It's not a case of oil having too much inertia behind it. Once the price of other energy is cheaper than extraction oil use will crater in the span of a decade or less, and when that starts could be 80 years or it could be next year. And this is the point, that you can't predict when it will happen but we know it will.
extra billions of humans need energy, but they will need and want more energy than any of their predecessors.
Irrelevant. What matters is the cost of energy sources. Whatever amount is needed, they won't be getting it from far more expensive oil.
That's not going to happen. Coal is cheaper. Dude, natural gas isn't cheaper than coal, and renewable are way more expensive. We don't even have the battery technology to make renewable cheaper, and all renewable are less efficient than coal & natural gas. Nuclear energy is eye-gougingly expensive, but most of that is mitigated by the fact that it can put out so much energy over such a large area, for such a long time. The economy of scale helps make nuclear energy reasonable. But renewables get even more prohibitively expensive at scale. There's really no situation where green energy overtakes coal in price until all green energy is subsidized at all points in the economy.
Hawaii for instance is increasing solar because even with batteries it's cheaper than coal/oil - way higher at 18% electricity from solar than other states
A wind-swept, sunny, pacific, island is the 2nd best possible place, and it's still being heavily federally subsidized, Hawaiian's themselves are paying increased taxes to make a lower upfront cost, you can bet your ass the progressives on Hawaii have regulated oil/gas almost entirely out of business, and the problem of scale (and worse: maintenance) still remains. There are no better places (excluding the open desert), and even then you need major state manipulation of the marketplace in order to make it lower cost.
This isn't an economic issue, where if you toy with just the right things, you'll make the price go down enough to justify it to yourself. It's a chemistry problem. Hydro-Carbons are some of the most efficient, most storable, longest lasting, most controllable, and cheapest, stores of chemical energy on earth. Even with batteries, renewables aren't even close. Like I said, Uranium works, but only at a large enough scale. Renewables barely work anywhere except on very small scales. Batteries work reliably on small scales, but are catastrophic on large scales, and don't actually last that many uses before they degrade. I'm telling you: you're not even 50 years from the needed materials science to make batteries an easy solution without subsidy and socialism. Fusion has advanced faster than batteries.
Energy is not immune to disruptive technology, in fact it's prime for it because electricity is totally fungible. It doesn't matter the source and the speed of change is determined by the price difference.
You're not getting it. I'm not saying that energy is immune to disruptive technology, I'm saying that every government on earth is dumping horrifically wasteful amounts of money to try and find that disruptive technology because of it's strategic implications. A century ago, that disruptive technology was gasoline refining. Right now, it's Fusion. It's never been renewables because it's a bad investment.
That price difference to the consumer is not where the equation stops. Yes, getting mass adoption can help pay for the new energy source, but it also still requires the governments to pay for it, and if the taxes and subsidies are so burdensome on the economy that mass adoption of a new energy source damages the economy, then it is worth taking up. Nobody is at the point they need to get anywhere near abandoning hydro-carbons, and nobody every will be at the point where they need to mass accept renewables.
What matters is the cost of energy sources. Whatever amount is needed, they won't be getting it from far more expensive oil.
A wind-swept, sunny, pacific, island is the 2nd best possible place, and it's still being heavily federally subsidized ... There are no better places (excluding the open desert), and even then you need major state manipulation of the marketplace in order to make it lower cost.
It's a nice theory, but not supported by the facts. Federal subsidies was only $2.5 billion across all states compared to $66 billion for fossil - that's why each state does it's own thing, with coal in WV and solar in CA from state subsidies, wind in TX because Federal subsidies are tiny.
How do you look at charts like this (source) of unsubsidized cost and continue believing such nonsense? Nat gas is cheaper than coal, wind/nat gas/solar are about tied on mainland.
This isn't an economic issue, where if you toy with just the right things, you'll make the price go down enough to justify it to yourself.
Right, it's an economic issue where the market will pick the best solution and except for things like container ships or long-haul trucks that need energy density that's usually the cheapest solution. You're arguing against the invisible hand, but you don't realize it because you're talking about a 1990s market not today's and certainly not a future energy market.
You can only fight the market so much, like how the left made nuclear a boogie-man and yet it's still happening in China and even here it's just standing by waiting for the pragmatism of hard times.
Read the works of Gunter Schwab (interesting last name). Particularly: "Der Tanz mit dem Teufel". Not only was he a member of the NSDAP, but he was a major player in Post-War Socialism efforts, one of the first people to argue about the effects of carbon emissions on the planet, and he and several other NSDAP members founded the german Green Party.
I still think that he's Klaus Schawb's dad.
Also, you might need to read up on the bizzarities of Aryanism to understand the literal magical powers of blood and soil according to NSDAP leaders like Himmler.
It's been evident for a while that the measures taken allegedly to counteract global warming are based on unfalsifiable computer model projections. The entire issue is yet another religion for the godless left, filling the void created by their murder of God.
It's at least unscientific to rearrange the economies of the entire globe for a guess that may or may not prove correct. Very likely, it's all a colossal fraud to justify sucking all the wealth out of the working class and creating a global population of slaves tethered to social credit scores and "carbon footprint" (same thing) while the rich elites change nothing and continue flitting about the earth in their Lear jets scolding everyone for being gluttons.
Worst part is that the majority of 18-30-year-olds believe the myth. It gives them a purpose, to point fingers at us miserable sinners who are selfishly pursuing economic independence and affluence.
All you need to do is look at where their high priests live. Al Gore has a BEACHFRONT mansion in Santa Monica, Obama has a BEACHFRONT mansion in Martha's Vineyard. These properties are worth millions of dollars (how did politicians become millionaires?). Banks WILL NOT underwrite property they know will be underwater in a decade.
Why should we trust these "people" who lied about the climate since the fucking 1960s? Remember when they warned about a new ice age coming in the 2000s?
And people seriously trust these "people" when it comes the climate effects of what is literally plant food?
What changed since then? Pretty much nothing. Except higher taxes and more government control over the populace.
Our children have been indoctrinated since kindy. Conservative or left we as a society accepted it as normal. How are we surprised the majority of kids grow up supporting green feminist crap?
I'm just more concerned that in the future, it'll be more annoying.
With temperatures slowly climbing, annoying bugs, typically mosquitos, that require some kind of water to spawn will be able to push further north because of the availability of water melting at an earlier time in the year.
Yeah, I don't 'uncritically spout global warming propaganda', but I don't believe stuff like this either. There are lies, terrible lies and statistics.
I think there is climate change, but that the way to deal with it is not to wreck your economy by spending hundreds of billions on 'renewables' and agitating against fossil fuels (which will ironically do nothing for 'climate' and destroy your ability to deal with it), but adaption - which costs peanuts.
(almost) everyone agrees with the obvious statistics that the earth has warmed about 1C over the last 120+ years. Of course there were historical periods of warming and cooling which happened in the absence of the industrial revolution.
However, you're not looking at what this tweet & pic are debunking: they're debunking the idea that temperature is directly related to CO2. It's not.
Read what he wrote: in the last 8 years, humanity pumped out 14% of its total historical CO2 emissions. 450+ BILLION tons. And did temperature go up? NO. It went. fucking. down. This isn't a 1 year fluke or glitch in the data, either. It's 8 years. That's a significant enough time to smooth out the data.
There might be a loose correlation, but it is scientifically unproven and just treated as an accepted fact. Global temperatures are a complicated dance of numerous factors, and human CO2 emissions are only a very small factor. Global warming propagandists treat CO2 as a literal proxy for global temperature and devote all their efforts to attacking CO2.
The real reason they attack CO2 is that it very very strongly correlates to human economic development, far moreso than temperature. The real agenda of the "greens" is to slow, stop, and otherwise undermine human economic development, innovation, and advancement. If a "green" technology was invented tomorrow that unlocked massive human economic growth - like let's say cheap fusion power - they'd find some excuse to oppose it with all their might. They love "nature" and hate humans. That's really all there is to it.
yeah virtually all "liblefts" on reddit are watermelons. very very few of them, maybe 5% are actually libleft. their authoritarianism all came out during COVID.
However, you're not looking at what this tweet & pic are debunking: they're debunking the idea that temperature is directly related to CO2. It's not.
That would suggest that CO2 is the only factor. But it's a factor, right? Obviously, temperatures fluctuated long before human output of CO2 had an effect. The question is: is the temperature higher than it would be in the absence of this CO2 output?
Read what he wrote: in the last 8 years, humanity pumped out 14% of its total historical CO2 emissions. 450+ BILLION tons. And did temperature go up? NO. It went. fucking. down. This isn't a 1 year fluke or glitch in the data, either. It's 8 years. That's a significant enough time to smooth out the data.
I'd like more than anyone for all the elites and politicized scientists to be wrong about this. And while I am confident that they will be wrong about their alarmism, that the earth is warming at all due to human activity, probably not.
Although I will guarantee you one thing: the same people who now say "we are not doing enough to SAVE the planet like we saved the whales and try to save the blacks", even if we don't do anything more, will be claiming credit 15 years from now if the earth does not disappear. See! It's because we banned your gas stoves that the planet didn't disappear.
The real agenda of the "greens" is to slow, stop, and otherwise undermine human economic development, innovation, and advancement. If a "green" technology was invented tomorrow that unlocked massive human economic growth - like let's say cheap fusion power - they'd find some excuse to oppose it with all their might.
Eh... nuclear power is already here, and they oppose it. The world is ending, and we should do anything in our power to stop global warming... but not nuclear power.
They love "nature" and hate humans. That's really all there is to it.
That will be true for the low IQ footsoldiers. Higher up, there's obviously more to it.
That would suggest that CO2 is the only factor. But it's a factor, right? Obviously, temperatures fluctuated long before human output of CO2 had an effect. The question is: is the temperature higher than it would be in the absence of this CO2 output?
Yes CO2 plays some small role, but we don't know how much. It could be very small to the point of irrelevance, and the 1C rise of the past 120 years could just be weakly caused by CO2 and more strongly caused by other factors. This is critical to the debate, because of CO2 is only responsible for 5% or even 50% of the temperature rise, then it means the extremely expensive, herculean, anti-development efforts aimed at reducing CO2 emissions are wasteful and stupid. They aren't addressing the root causes and aren't going to make any helpful impact. We have been given explicit promises of doom if we do not ACT NOW to slash CO2 (which is false, a hotter earth is better, not worse), and we have been given explicit promises that if we ACT NOW and slash our CO2 emissions, there will be a huge net benefit in saving the earth. These are all lies. The truth is, that CO2 essentially doesn't matter. It's importance is being grossly exaggerated for ulterior political motives.
This is why global warming propagandists NEED you to believe that CO2 is an evil pollutant that raises the global temperature in a 1:1 correlation. If they told the truth - which is "well, scientists believe that there is some relationship between CO2 and temperature, but correlation is not causation, and the truth is that we simply don't know. we do know that human CO2 emissions are a small fraction of natural process emissions, and that solar activity makes a big difference on temperature, and that there are confounding factors like increased cloud cover reflecting light. every model we have used which held CO2 as a strong cause have turned out to be completely wrong." - you wouldn't be willing to buy a Tesla and ride a bike to work and eat the bugs and vote Democrat.
The science is on the side of the "deniers". The REAL science. But what gets reported on in the press and spewed by liberal politicians? All bullshit pseudo-science. And this bullshit is backed up fully by institutions like academia and NASA and all the others captured by the left wing. They couldn't do otherwise. Actually telling the truth and going against the "consensus" would be cause for immediate excommunication from the Left and canceling.
The web site wattsupwiththat actually compiles and reviews real, published scientific papers and explains how they show - in a language not intended for consumption by the manipulated public - that the science does not in any way support the claims from the global warming propagandists.
I'd like more than anyone for all the elites and politicized scientists to be wrong about this. And while I am confident that they will be wrong about their alarmism, that the earth is warming at all due to human activity, probably not.
Why is it bad if the earth gets a little warmer? Where is the science that proves that warmer = bad? What if the earth in its present state is too cold, and would benefit from a little warming? In fact, there is 0 science supporting any negative effect from warming other than a very very slow sea level rise which we can easily adapt to. The only other big change is the "global greening" as CO2 levels + higher temperatures boost plant growth and make the earth a much nicer place to live at northern latitudes.
Even if human activity has made some contribution, we do not know how much, and the evidence does not support that humans are even the primary cause. It is arrogant hubris for humans to proclaim that the earth's climate is so firmly under our control when it is not. And this means that just as we didn't drive the warming, we cannot stop it, either.
China, India, and Africa give 0 fucks about white liberals whining about mother earth, and the growth in their CO2 emissions DWARFS the cuts made by the West. So there is literally nothing we can do that matters. You think putting solar panels on your roof matters? You think forgoing that vacation matters? You might as well be trying to empty the ocean with a bucket. The US and EU emissions have ALREADY been going down a while. It's meaningless because the rest of the world gives no fucks. Why are you making sacrifices to save pennies while the rest of the world is spending like a drunken sailor with 0 fucks given? Why are you purposely weakening your own country and leaving an opening for enemy nations to surpass us and subjugate us? It's mental illness. A healthy minds accepts what it cannot change.
Although I will guarantee you one thing: the same people who now say "we are not doing enough to SAVE the planet like we saved the whales and try to save the blacks", even if we don't do anything more, will be claiming credit 15 years from now if the earth does not disappear. See! It's because we banned your gas stoves that the planet didn't disappear.
It's a common trick all libtards use. They used it constantly during COVID: (1) problem happens, (2) DO SOMETHING that doesn't help, and actually harms, (3) problem resolves on its own, (4) take credit.
You defeat this grift by being well-informed and intelligent. For example, we know that lockdowns did not work, masking did not work, and vaccines did not stop or even slow the spread of COVID at all. (they did reduce deaths) We know for a fact that lockdowns caused enormous economic harm, for no benefit. These are facts. Too bad most people are too stupid to learn them and most people are happier just being NPCs and being told what to think.
Eh... nuclear power is already here, and they oppose it. The world is ending, and we should do anything in our power to stop global warming... but not nuclear power.
Yes, it is their anti-nuclear stance that is what caused me to believe that the real goal of environmentalists is to curtail human development. If you believe what they say at face value, you would say "nuclear is not perfect, it has its own problems, but there are no perfect solutions, and nuclear is the least-bad option, so we need to embrace it". This isn't what they do. Instead they push wind and solar exclusively because they know that wind and solar don't work (because grid demand doesn't perfectly line up with sunshine & wind). They know batteries aren't a solution. They hate hydro too, because it WORKS.
The only consistency with the environmentalists is that they always want to choose the option that undermines human economic growth and expansion the most, and they push propaganda to that end. They fundamentally hate humans. They look at cities and think they're ugly. They look at a forest and think it's beautiful. They look at people and see evil. They look at animals and see holy purity. It's really just mental illness.
That will be true for the low IQ footsoldiers. Higher up, there's obviously more to it.
The root of the propaganda is a combination of (1) embittered usually marxist intellectuals who hate industrialists, developers, and capitalism, using environmentalism as a weapon against their hate objects, plus (2) their allies, the capitalist green grifters, who are looking to suck the government taxpayer teat for subsidies to enrich themselves in the "green" economy, plus (3) academics who gets huge government research grants and want to enrich themselves with climate "science" grifting.
vaccines did not stop or even slow the spread of COVID at all. (they did reduce deaths)
We don’t even know this. They were using the “two week” rule to record vaccinated deaths as unvaccinated deaths. Pfizer blew up their own double blind study after three months, which we now know to be the timeframe for the vaccine efficacy going negative. And they barely report deaths anymore because a) most deaths are vaccinated and b) excess deaths track with the introduction of vaccines, not the appearance of covid. They’ve successfully muddied the waters to a point where no one knows anything. That’s not something they would do to harm public perception of the vax. It was a defensive gambit to cover up a disaster.
Yes CO2 plays some small role, but we don't know how much.
I think a lot of people pretend they know, in order to get more grants and push their agenda.
Ironically, just yesterday I was watching a lecture by an eminent professor of political theory who said that climate 'scientists' were no longer communicating by e-mail, because they feared 'government surveillance' - though I think it has more to do with the East Anglia hacks.
This is critical to the debate, because of CO2 is only responsible for 5% or even 50% of the temperature rise, then it means the extremely expensive, herculean, anti-development efforts aimed at reducing CO2 emissions are wasteful and stupid.
I would say that even if CO2 is responsible for 100%, all this nonsense would be very stupid. It would just shift the balance a bit on how cost-effective gas-powered power plants are vs. nuclear power plants.
I'll just add that while I know very little of this subject, I can see that CO2 may be responsible for 150% of the current temperature rise. Suppose other factors resulted in the temperature falling, but CO2 made up for all of that and then some.
If they told the truth - which is "well, scientists believe that there is some relationship between CO2 and temperature, but correlation is not causation, and the truth is that we simply don't know. we do know that human CO2 emissions are a small fraction of natural process emissions, and that solar activity makes a big difference on temperature, and that there are confounding factors like increased cloud cover reflecting light. every model we have used which held CO2 as a strong cause have turned out to be completely wrong." - you wouldn't be willing to buy a Tesla and ride a bike to work and eat the bugs and vote Democrat.
I'm not willing to eat the bugs regardless of anything.
Historically CO2 rises AFTER temperature, not before
As in my original post, I'll have to point out that even as you (rightly) disbelieve the MSM, it doesn't mean that you should automatically believe sources that tell you what you want to believe.
Why is it bad if the earth gets a little warmer? Where is the science that proves that warmer = bad?
It isn't. Historically, it has been pretty good, as in the Medieval Optimum - at least in Europe. That said, when you have 9 billion people adjusted to current temperatures, it wouldn't be great if there was an average temperature increase of 3 degrees C, particularly as it is more extreme on the extremes.
For me, it's great, because my little corner of hell is slightly less cold (though not in the beginning of December).
China, India, and Africa give 0 fucks about white liberals whining about mother earth
Unless they are paid off. And rightly so.
and the growth in their CO2 emissions DWARFS the cuts made by the West. So there is literally nothing we can do that matters. You think putting solar panels on your roof matters? You think forgoing that vacation matters? You might as well be trying to empty the ocean with a bucket.
I've told this to cultists many times. Doesn't work. It's a religion to them. Cutting carbon emissions is like saying 'hail Mary', though I wouldn't want to disrespect a religion that did some actual good in the world.
It's a common trick all libtards use. They used it constantly during COVID: (1) problem happens, (2) DO SOMETHING that doesn't help, and actually harms, (3) problem resolves on its own, (4) take credit.
It's as old as time. Sowell describers how they did the same thing with 'sex education', which created the problem of teenage pregnancies, which then becomes a reason for more 'sex education', because... only a genius does the same thing that hasn't worked while expecting a different result.
Too bad most people are too stupid to learn them and most people are happier just being NPCs and being told what to think.
I don't know what to do about it.
If you believe what they say at face value, you would say "nuclear is not perfect, it has its own problems, but there are no perfect solutions, and nuclear is the least-bad option, so we need to embrace it".
LOL! You make better arguments for envirocultists than they do.
This isn't what they do. Instead they push wind and solar exclusively because they know that wind and solar don't work (because grid demand doesn't perfectly line up with sunshine & wind). They know batteries aren't a solution. They hate hydro too, because it WORKS.
I can guarantee you that when the grid starts failing because of all the wind and solar, they'll blame it on Vladimir Putin or on fossil fuels, and say that this is all the more reason to move more quickly to 'renewables' more quickly. I like to think that people will be smart enough to catch up on this, but looking around, people just believe regime propaganda without question.
They look at cities and think they're ugly. They look at a forest and think it's beautiful.
And so do I. But that is no reason to destroy the city. Well, except if it's Baltimore (pls no bully NSA, it's a joke).
The root of the propaganda is a combination of (1) embittered usually marxist intellectuals who hate industrialists, developers, and capitalism, using environmentalism as a weapon against their hate objects, plus (2) their allies, the capitalist green grifters, who are looking to suck the government taxpayer teat for subsidies to enrich themselves in the "green" economy, plus (3) academics who gets huge government research grants and want to enrich themselves with climate "science" grifting.
I seldom agree with you completely. But here I have to.
This isn't a 1 year fluke or glitch in the data, either. It's 8 years. That's a significant enough time to smooth out the data.
There was a 20 year period between about 1945 and 1970 where surface temperatures didn't rise, yet you admit that it's "obvious" the earth has been warming over the last century.
This what justification looks like, you want 8 years to be enough time to prove you're right yet without realizing it you've already conceded that 20 years isn't enough time.
You have some good points, but your defective reasoning leads you to wrong views like a gas that takes hundreds of years to build up heat should show an effect immediately, plants loving extreme heat, plants being limited by CO2 (they're mostly limited by sun, water, and nutrients like nitrogen and potassium), and so on.
Stop trying to justify your beliefs, stick to the facts, and you'll make much better arguments.
In my view, climate change is real, carbon contributes, but we don't know how much, and either way, the obvious course of action is to move to nuclear power.
Someone was offended by this very reason able take.
I'm not one to whine about downvotes, but how can you downvote something that is someone's view. At least provide some counterargument, like "I'm allergic to uranium".
Seems like all their major policy ideas are written by women.
I should acquire her book somehow and post snippets. There's some interesting theories like how we'll all need to migrate to mitigate the effects of climate, how countries don't need to exist (but God forbid one exists that doesn't listen to women's endless list of psychotic desires) and how women bear less responsibility for climate change than men, which must be some crazy level of pseudoscience because women coat their faces in chemicals every day to hide the ugliness inside trying to escape, and I can't imagine that stuff is good for the environment. Their birth control also poisons the water with estrogen, so that's fun.
Sure, the earth is very slowly getting warmer. 1C over more than 100 years. There is 0 proof that a warming earth will have any negative effects other than a very very tiny and steady rise in sea level with is easily mitigated against. All models talking about big sea level rises are extrapolated out 600+ years.
All other claimed negative effects of "climate change" are outright lies. More, or worse, natural disasters? False and unsupported by scientific evidence. Disasters aren't getting worse, it's just that massively expanded human population and cities mean we experience them more. However, deaths from natural disasters have massively dropped despite this, thanks to human wealth and innovation improving safety measures.
Desertification? Same. We know for a fact that CO2 is plant food, and plants thrive at higher temperatures than the present global average. Cold kills. Heat is perfectly fine for plant life as a rule. Just look at hot jungles and compare them to the arctic tundra. The rise in temperatures and CO2 is proven to cause a "global greening", where MORE, not less, land is opening up to agriculture and farming thanks to the earth being a more hospitable place in general.
Humans literally boiled alive! All fear the "wet bulb" temperature!!! Propagandists love to claim that we are at the cusp of hitting a mythical "wet bulb" temperature (wet bulb means sweat won't save you, this is important because people do just fine in very hot deserts with dry air because they counteract the heat with sweat) that would kill a helpless human sitting around outdoors.
It's true, that for very short periods of time on the hottest hours of the hottest days in the hottest and most humid places on earth, this might happen in the future. So what? Unprepared humans can be killed by cold for huge swaths of the year, over huge geographic regions RIGHT NOW. People don't really fear this because we are "used to" it. But if you don't have heavy clothing outside at night standing in probably 1/3 of the earth, you'll die from the cold. Cold is super dangerous, and deadly. It kills 20x more than heat.
Heat is just as easy to mitigate against as cold. Step one is simply getting into shelter. Most heat deaths are from people stupidly trying to do heavy labor out in the sun and heat and working themselves into heat stroke. Step two is to drink water. While this won't save you in a "wet bulb" event, the simple fact of the matter is that these events will be rare and only last a few hours at most, so people can just shelter from them like they do now anyway on very hot and humid days. It's really not a big deal, it's just "new" and people fear things they're not used to.
And that's really what global warming propaganda is all about: luddite-like fear of change and fear of the "unknown", which is exploited by "green" propagandists in their campaign to attack human progress and development. They hate humanity and they want to undermine it. And left wing politicians exploit this sentiment for votes, and academics exploit this to line their pockets. It's a whole, self-perpetuating cancer on humanity. People ought to have more sense than to buy into it.
So close. It's about money, dude. The elites invest into companies that promise "green energy" and other bullshit, try and get everything else banned, and they make 10 000% return on investments. They basically tried doing this with Solyndra and that company ended up pissing billions into stupid shit.
True, but studies show that we are saving more people from cold deaths than we are killing with heat deaths.
You're talking about extremes. For most poor/hot countries people just use shade + ceiling fans and they're fine.
Obviously dealing with heat is harder if you're on the surface of the Moon getting fried or something.
On earth we are talking about heat being too hot from like noon to 2pm on rare days in a few middle east countries or whatever.
That's the thing, the earth has never been remotely that hot for billions of years. The hottest it's ever been was like 12C average hotter than now, which is still perfectly livable for humans.
No, 4C in 100 years. And yes, it will have some negative effects, as a change in climate will always cause some negative effects to some animals and plants living in those specific climates that will not support them.
Fair, this is Watermellon bullshit. Those statistics were always too abstract to mean much beyond a simple energy equation. You're not going to feel a difference between a hurricane, and a hurricane that is "15% stronger".
You're way off on this because you're being way to generalizable on this. It is a fact that the deserts have expanded into some regions to make them more arid. That will likely continue in some areas. IT IS ALSO TRUE, that areas of tundra and permafrost are also becoming more green. No, "hot" is not less dangerous to plants than "cold". That's just stupid and unnuanced. Plants handle hot and cold differently, and will absolutely die off in some areas that get too much heat, too much sun, too little humidity, etc. You can't just say that, it doesn't make sense on a generalizable scale. Also, yes, heatwaves absolutely kill people especially if you damage the electrical grid so that your public housing unit ends up suffocating and dehydrating shitloads of people.
You'll also drown if you stand on 7/10ths of the Earth. Again, this is a conversation of "cold more bad than hot!" is so stupid and irrelevant it's not worth having. Which is why you can say: "Heat is just as easy to mitigate against as cold." There's no point in this entire swathe of an argument.
No, it's that the modern Environmentalist movement is emergent from National Socialist ideology. They are inherently anti-human because they believe that civilization can be protected by purifying both the blood and the soil. Turns out purifying the blood is unpopular, so they are taking a Fabain Socialist approach to purify the blood by purifying the soil.
This is a worst-case predicted amount if we continue to increase CO2 at the same rate as recently for 100 years and their models are correct.
But that won't happen. They're projecting from a rapid rise in China's scorched-earth industrial policies and not factoring in that China will clean up it's act eventually just like every other industrialized country or considering advances in technology (USA for example). And their models are biased because of funding and groupthink.
But even a China successor won't become as huge a CO2 source because of solar/wind or even fusion. In some cases solar and wind are cheaper now, and they'll only get better whereas coal hasn't really gotten any better than 35% efficiency for the past 50 years.
You simply can't make any long-term prediction predicated on technology being the same the whole time.
No, that's the expected outcome, not the worst case. The worst case is like up to 6C.
The idea that Communist states are prepared to manage their environments appropriately is laughably absurd. They've never cleaned up their act until after the fall of Communism.
The technological change just isn't going to be all that relevant in the first place. Forget that China subsidization of pollutive extraction industries is exactly how you're hoping China will "clean up it's act", we don't even need to really consider how technology can hopefully mitigate carbon emissions when carbon is only going to be the primary source of energy from humans this century and if you want nuclear or fusion power you're going to have to wait for it's mass planetary adoption well over 80 years from now.
Instead, what we know is that not only are human populations going to rapidly rise to 10-14 billion and then plateau, not only will those extra billions of humans need energy, but they will need and want more energy than any of their predecessors. The vast and exponential demand for energy means you are going to use vast and exponential supplies of carbon based energy sources, and everything else you can get your hands on. As a result of that increased demand, requiring more carbon based supply, requiring more consumption of those supplies, requiring more carbon emissions, you are only going to get increasing carbon emissions across the planet, basically for the next 100 years until the population finally stabalizes. Alternatively, the only way of reducing carbon emissions is to reduce the demand for energy... by reducing the people. Which they are already doing.
Yeah, but why did they burn so much coal and oil? Because it was cheaper and they didn't care about the environment.
When solar and wind are cheaper they'll use that -- and still not care about the environment. They'll be polluting their land with heavy metals, sure, but not the air with CO2.
You see the change already with islands changing to solar and wind. Hawaii for instance is increasing solar because even with batteries it's cheaper than coal/oil - way higher at 18% electricity from solar than other states (CA is higher only because they're horribly mismanaged). That will propagate to logistically cheaper places as the cost of solar/wind continues to decrease.
Energy is not immune to disruptive technology, in fact it's prime for it because electricity is totally fungible. It doesn't matter the source and the speed of change is determined by the price difference.
It's not a case of oil having too much inertia behind it. Once the price of other energy is cheaper than extraction oil use will crater in the span of a decade or less, and when that starts could be 80 years or it could be next year. And this is the point, that you can't predict when it will happen but we know it will.
Irrelevant. What matters is the cost of energy sources. Whatever amount is needed, they won't be getting it from far more expensive oil.
That's not going to happen. Coal is cheaper. Dude, natural gas isn't cheaper than coal, and renewable are way more expensive. We don't even have the battery technology to make renewable cheaper, and all renewable are less efficient than coal & natural gas. Nuclear energy is eye-gougingly expensive, but most of that is mitigated by the fact that it can put out so much energy over such a large area, for such a long time. The economy of scale helps make nuclear energy reasonable. But renewables get even more prohibitively expensive at scale. There's really no situation where green energy overtakes coal in price until all green energy is subsidized at all points in the economy.
A wind-swept, sunny, pacific, island is the 2nd best possible place, and it's still being heavily federally subsidized, Hawaiian's themselves are paying increased taxes to make a lower upfront cost, you can bet your ass the progressives on Hawaii have regulated oil/gas almost entirely out of business, and the problem of scale (and worse: maintenance) still remains. There are no better places (excluding the open desert), and even then you need major state manipulation of the marketplace in order to make it lower cost.
This isn't an economic issue, where if you toy with just the right things, you'll make the price go down enough to justify it to yourself. It's a chemistry problem. Hydro-Carbons are some of the most efficient, most storable, longest lasting, most controllable, and cheapest, stores of chemical energy on earth. Even with batteries, renewables aren't even close. Like I said, Uranium works, but only at a large enough scale. Renewables barely work anywhere except on very small scales. Batteries work reliably on small scales, but are catastrophic on large scales, and don't actually last that many uses before they degrade. I'm telling you: you're not even 50 years from the needed materials science to make batteries an easy solution without subsidy and socialism. Fusion has advanced faster than batteries.
You're not getting it. I'm not saying that energy is immune to disruptive technology, I'm saying that every government on earth is dumping horrifically wasteful amounts of money to try and find that disruptive technology because of it's strategic implications. A century ago, that disruptive technology was gasoline refining. Right now, it's Fusion. It's never been renewables because it's a bad investment.
That price difference to the consumer is not where the equation stops. Yes, getting mass adoption can help pay for the new energy source, but it also still requires the governments to pay for it, and if the taxes and subsidies are so burdensome on the economy that mass adoption of a new energy source damages the economy, then it is worth taking up. Nobody is at the point they need to get anywhere near abandoning hydro-carbons, and nobody every will be at the point where they need to mass accept renewables.
That is not going to be true in your lifetime.
It's a nice theory, but not supported by the facts. Federal subsidies was only $2.5 billion across all states compared to $66 billion for fossil - that's why each state does it's own thing, with coal in WV and solar in CA from state subsidies, wind in TX because Federal subsidies are tiny.
How do you look at charts like this (source) of unsubsidized cost and continue believing such nonsense? Nat gas is cheaper than coal, wind/nat gas/solar are about tied on mainland.
Right, it's an economic issue where the market will pick the best solution and except for things like container ships or long-haul trucks that need energy density that's usually the cheapest solution. You're arguing against the invisible hand, but you don't realize it because you're talking about a 1990s market not today's and certainly not a future energy market.
You can only fight the market so much, like how the left made nuclear a boogie-man and yet it's still happening in China and even here it's just standing by waiting for the pragmatism of hard times.
The last part of your comment is one of the most insanely retarded things I’ve ever read lol
Read the works of Gunter Schwab (interesting last name). Particularly: "Der Tanz mit dem Teufel". Not only was he a member of the NSDAP, but he was a major player in Post-War Socialism efforts, one of the first people to argue about the effects of carbon emissions on the planet, and he and several other NSDAP members founded the german Green Party.
I still think that he's Klaus Schawb's dad.
Also, you might need to read up on the bizzarities of Aryanism to understand the literal magical powers of blood and soil according to NSDAP leaders like Himmler.
It's been evident for a while that the measures taken allegedly to counteract global warming are based on unfalsifiable computer model projections. The entire issue is yet another religion for the godless left, filling the void created by their murder of God.
It's at least unscientific to rearrange the economies of the entire globe for a guess that may or may not prove correct. Very likely, it's all a colossal fraud to justify sucking all the wealth out of the working class and creating a global population of slaves tethered to social credit scores and "carbon footprint" (same thing) while the rich elites change nothing and continue flitting about the earth in their Lear jets scolding everyone for being gluttons.
Worst part is that the majority of 18-30-year-olds believe the myth. It gives them a purpose, to point fingers at us miserable sinners who are selfishly pursuing economic independence and affluence.
All you need to do is look at where their high priests live. Al Gore has a BEACHFRONT mansion in Santa Monica, Obama has a BEACHFRONT mansion in Martha's Vineyard. These properties are worth millions of dollars (how did politicians become millionaires?). Banks WILL NOT underwrite property they know will be underwater in a decade.
Dr Willie Soon demolishes the extreme weather panic and other hysterical arguments
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4JJ3yeiNjf4
Expert Destroys Climate Change Hoax in 3 Minutes
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mbcHVrdcujQ
Four Climate Scientists Destroy Climate Change Alarmism
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mqejXs7XgsU
Legendary Climate Change Senate Hearing
https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=desktop&v=ofXQdl1FDGk
Proof That The Sun, Not CO2, Drives Climate & Sea-Level Change
https://principia-scientific.org/proof-that-the-sun-not-co2-drives-climate-sea-level-change/
Good stuff, and I'd add https://wattsupwiththat.com/ as a clearinghouse for science that debunks the global warming propaganda.
Why should we trust these "people" who lied about the climate since the fucking 1960s? Remember when they warned about a new ice age coming in the 2000s?
And people seriously trust these "people" when it comes the climate effects of what is literally plant food?
What changed since then? Pretty much nothing. Except higher taxes and more government control over the populace.
And then they'll move the goalposts and say it's not about CO2 or some other shit, they're in a cult, you can't refute dogma with science.
Our children have been indoctrinated since kindy. Conservative or left we as a society accepted it as normal. How are we surprised the majority of kids grow up supporting green feminist crap?
I'm just more concerned that in the future, it'll be more annoying.
With temperatures slowly climbing, annoying bugs, typically mosquitos, that require some kind of water to spawn will be able to push further north because of the availability of water melting at an earlier time in the year.
So mosquito seasons will last a longer.
Yeah, I don't 'uncritically spout global warming propaganda', but I don't believe stuff like this either. There are lies, terrible lies and statistics.
I think there is climate change, but that the way to deal with it is not to wreck your economy by spending hundreds of billions on 'renewables' and agitating against fossil fuels (which will ironically do nothing for 'climate' and destroy your ability to deal with it), but adaption - which costs peanuts.
(almost) everyone agrees with the obvious statistics that the earth has warmed about 1C over the last 120+ years. Of course there were historical periods of warming and cooling which happened in the absence of the industrial revolution.
However, you're not looking at what this tweet & pic are debunking: they're debunking the idea that temperature is directly related to CO2. It's not.
Read what he wrote: in the last 8 years, humanity pumped out 14% of its total historical CO2 emissions. 450+ BILLION tons. And did temperature go up? NO. It went. fucking. down. This isn't a 1 year fluke or glitch in the data, either. It's 8 years. That's a significant enough time to smooth out the data.
There might be a loose correlation, but it is scientifically unproven and just treated as an accepted fact. Global temperatures are a complicated dance of numerous factors, and human CO2 emissions are only a very small factor. Global warming propagandists treat CO2 as a literal proxy for global temperature and devote all their efforts to attacking CO2.
The real reason they attack CO2 is that it very very strongly correlates to human economic development, far moreso than temperature. The real agenda of the "greens" is to slow, stop, and otherwise undermine human economic development, innovation, and advancement. If a "green" technology was invented tomorrow that unlocked massive human economic growth - like let's say cheap fusion power - they'd find some excuse to oppose it with all their might. They love "nature" and hate humans. That's really all there is to it.
They're watermelons. Green on the outside and red on the inside.
yeah virtually all "liblefts" on reddit are watermelons. very very few of them, maybe 5% are actually libleft. their authoritarianism all came out during COVID.
That would suggest that CO2 is the only factor. But it's a factor, right? Obviously, temperatures fluctuated long before human output of CO2 had an effect. The question is: is the temperature higher than it would be in the absence of this CO2 output?
I'd like more than anyone for all the elites and politicized scientists to be wrong about this. And while I am confident that they will be wrong about their alarmism, that the earth is warming at all due to human activity, probably not.
Although I will guarantee you one thing: the same people who now say "we are not doing enough to SAVE the planet like we saved the whales and try to save the blacks", even if we don't do anything more, will be claiming credit 15 years from now if the earth does not disappear. See! It's because we banned your gas stoves that the planet didn't disappear.
Eh... nuclear power is already here, and they oppose it. The world is ending, and we should do anything in our power to stop global warming... but not nuclear power.
That will be true for the low IQ footsoldiers. Higher up, there's obviously more to it.
Yes CO2 plays some small role, but we don't know how much. It could be very small to the point of irrelevance, and the 1C rise of the past 120 years could just be weakly caused by CO2 and more strongly caused by other factors. This is critical to the debate, because of CO2 is only responsible for 5% or even 50% of the temperature rise, then it means the extremely expensive, herculean, anti-development efforts aimed at reducing CO2 emissions are wasteful and stupid. They aren't addressing the root causes and aren't going to make any helpful impact. We have been given explicit promises of doom if we do not ACT NOW to slash CO2 (which is false, a hotter earth is better, not worse), and we have been given explicit promises that if we ACT NOW and slash our CO2 emissions, there will be a huge net benefit in saving the earth. These are all lies. The truth is, that CO2 essentially doesn't matter. It's importance is being grossly exaggerated for ulterior political motives.
This is why global warming propagandists NEED you to believe that CO2 is an evil pollutant that raises the global temperature in a 1:1 correlation. If they told the truth - which is "well, scientists believe that there is some relationship between CO2 and temperature, but correlation is not causation, and the truth is that we simply don't know. we do know that human CO2 emissions are a small fraction of natural process emissions, and that solar activity makes a big difference on temperature, and that there are confounding factors like increased cloud cover reflecting light. every model we have used which held CO2 as a strong cause have turned out to be completely wrong." - you wouldn't be willing to buy a Tesla and ride a bike to work and eat the bugs and vote Democrat.
Historically CO2 rises AFTER temperature, not before
It is well accepted by science that CO2's impact on temperature drops exponentially as its concentration increases This means CO2 has a big impact at very low levels, but this effect quickly drops. So the truth is that present levels might make little to no difference when you consider the "noise" of many other factors.
Nearly 140 Scientific Papers Detail The Minuscule Effect CO2 Has On Earth’s Temperature
The science is on the side of the "deniers". The REAL science. But what gets reported on in the press and spewed by liberal politicians? All bullshit pseudo-science. And this bullshit is backed up fully by institutions like academia and NASA and all the others captured by the left wing. They couldn't do otherwise. Actually telling the truth and going against the "consensus" would be cause for immediate excommunication from the Left and canceling.
The web site wattsupwiththat actually compiles and reviews real, published scientific papers and explains how they show - in a language not intended for consumption by the manipulated public - that the science does not in any way support the claims from the global warming propagandists.
Why is it bad if the earth gets a little warmer? Where is the science that proves that warmer = bad? What if the earth in its present state is too cold, and would benefit from a little warming? In fact, there is 0 science supporting any negative effect from warming other than a very very slow sea level rise which we can easily adapt to. The only other big change is the "global greening" as CO2 levels + higher temperatures boost plant growth and make the earth a much nicer place to live at northern latitudes.
Even if human activity has made some contribution, we do not know how much, and the evidence does not support that humans are even the primary cause. It is arrogant hubris for humans to proclaim that the earth's climate is so firmly under our control when it is not. And this means that just as we didn't drive the warming, we cannot stop it, either.
China, India, and Africa give 0 fucks about white liberals whining about mother earth, and the growth in their CO2 emissions DWARFS the cuts made by the West. So there is literally nothing we can do that matters. You think putting solar panels on your roof matters? You think forgoing that vacation matters? You might as well be trying to empty the ocean with a bucket. The US and EU emissions have ALREADY been going down a while. It's meaningless because the rest of the world gives no fucks. Why are you making sacrifices to save pennies while the rest of the world is spending like a drunken sailor with 0 fucks given? Why are you purposely weakening your own country and leaving an opening for enemy nations to surpass us and subjugate us? It's mental illness. A healthy minds accepts what it cannot change.
It's a common trick all libtards use. They used it constantly during COVID: (1) problem happens, (2) DO SOMETHING that doesn't help, and actually harms, (3) problem resolves on its own, (4) take credit.
You defeat this grift by being well-informed and intelligent. For example, we know that lockdowns did not work, masking did not work, and vaccines did not stop or even slow the spread of COVID at all. (they did reduce deaths) We know for a fact that lockdowns caused enormous economic harm, for no benefit. These are facts. Too bad most people are too stupid to learn them and most people are happier just being NPCs and being told what to think.
Yes, it is their anti-nuclear stance that is what caused me to believe that the real goal of environmentalists is to curtail human development. If you believe what they say at face value, you would say "nuclear is not perfect, it has its own problems, but there are no perfect solutions, and nuclear is the least-bad option, so we need to embrace it". This isn't what they do. Instead they push wind and solar exclusively because they know that wind and solar don't work (because grid demand doesn't perfectly line up with sunshine & wind). They know batteries aren't a solution. They hate hydro too, because it WORKS.
The only consistency with the environmentalists is that they always want to choose the option that undermines human economic growth and expansion the most, and they push propaganda to that end. They fundamentally hate humans. They look at cities and think they're ugly. They look at a forest and think it's beautiful. They look at people and see evil. They look at animals and see holy purity. It's really just mental illness.
The root of the propaganda is a combination of (1) embittered usually marxist intellectuals who hate industrialists, developers, and capitalism, using environmentalism as a weapon against their hate objects, plus (2) their allies, the capitalist green grifters, who are looking to suck the government taxpayer teat for subsidies to enrich themselves in the "green" economy, plus (3) academics who gets huge government research grants and want to enrich themselves with climate "science" grifting.
We don’t even know this. They were using the “two week” rule to record vaccinated deaths as unvaccinated deaths. Pfizer blew up their own double blind study after three months, which we now know to be the timeframe for the vaccine efficacy going negative. And they barely report deaths anymore because a) most deaths are vaccinated and b) excess deaths track with the introduction of vaccines, not the appearance of covid. They’ve successfully muddied the waters to a point where no one knows anything. That’s not something they would do to harm public perception of the vax. It was a defensive gambit to cover up a disaster.
I think a lot of people pretend they know, in order to get more grants and push their agenda.
Ironically, just yesterday I was watching a lecture by an eminent professor of political theory who said that climate 'scientists' were no longer communicating by e-mail, because they feared 'government surveillance' - though I think it has more to do with the East Anglia hacks.
I would say that even if CO2 is responsible for 100%, all this nonsense would be very stupid. It would just shift the balance a bit on how cost-effective gas-powered power plants are vs. nuclear power plants.
I'll just add that while I know very little of this subject, I can see that CO2 may be responsible for 150% of the current temperature rise. Suppose other factors resulted in the temperature falling, but CO2 made up for all of that and then some.
I'm not willing to eat the bugs regardless of anything.
As in my original post, I'll have to point out that even as you (rightly) disbelieve the MSM, it doesn't mean that you should automatically believe sources that tell you what you want to believe.
It isn't. Historically, it has been pretty good, as in the Medieval Optimum - at least in Europe. That said, when you have 9 billion people adjusted to current temperatures, it wouldn't be great if there was an average temperature increase of 3 degrees C, particularly as it is more extreme on the extremes.
For me, it's great, because my little corner of hell is slightly less cold (though not in the beginning of December).
Unless they are paid off. And rightly so.
I've told this to cultists many times. Doesn't work. It's a religion to them. Cutting carbon emissions is like saying 'hail Mary', though I wouldn't want to disrespect a religion that did some actual good in the world.
It's as old as time. Sowell describers how they did the same thing with 'sex education', which created the problem of teenage pregnancies, which then becomes a reason for more 'sex education', because... only a genius does the same thing that hasn't worked while expecting a different result.
I don't know what to do about it.
LOL! You make better arguments for envirocultists than they do.
I can guarantee you that when the grid starts failing because of all the wind and solar, they'll blame it on Vladimir Putin or on fossil fuels, and say that this is all the more reason to move more quickly to 'renewables' more quickly. I like to think that people will be smart enough to catch up on this, but looking around, people just believe regime propaganda without question.
And so do I. But that is no reason to destroy the city. Well, except if it's Baltimore (pls no bully NSA, it's a joke).
I seldom agree with you completely. But here I have to.
There was a 20 year period between about 1945 and 1970 where surface temperatures didn't rise, yet you admit that it's "obvious" the earth has been warming over the last century.
This what justification looks like, you want 8 years to be enough time to prove you're right yet without realizing it you've already conceded that 20 years isn't enough time.
You have some good points, but your defective reasoning leads you to wrong views like a gas that takes hundreds of years to build up heat should show an effect immediately, plants loving extreme heat, plants being limited by CO2 (they're mostly limited by sun, water, and nutrients like nitrogen and potassium), and so on.
Stop trying to justify your beliefs, stick to the facts, and you'll make much better arguments.
In my view, climate change is real, carbon contributes, but we don't know how much, and either way, the obvious course of action is to move to nuclear power.
Someone was offended by this very reason able take.
I'm not one to whine about downvotes, but how can you downvote something that is someone's view. At least provide some counterargument, like "I'm allergic to uranium".
Did you know that the WEF's climate advisor is a woman that used to write for the Guardian?
The WEF is basically a meme, it's not surprising.
Seems like all their major policy ideas are written by women.
I should acquire her book somehow and post snippets. There's some interesting theories like how we'll all need to migrate to mitigate the effects of climate, how countries don't need to exist (but God forbid one exists that doesn't listen to women's endless list of psychotic desires) and how women bear less responsibility for climate change than men, which must be some crazy level of pseudoscience because women coat their faces in chemicals every day to hide the ugliness inside trying to escape, and I can't imagine that stuff is good for the environment. Their birth control also poisons the water with estrogen, so that's fun.
That all sounds like the normal kind of crazy I'd expect from the WEF. May be why they brought her on.
I didn't, but I'm not at all surprised. All the evil shit seems to be pumped out of the same hole, with rags like The Guardian being one of the hoses.