thank god I was a boy scout... I was carrying my own TP in a zip lock bag in 1985Pork patty or beef patty needed hot water. No hot water. Ate it anyway. That cheese had to be kneaded or would dump out oil and dried shit was left. Filled with preservatives…nasty smell…can still smell it.. that mre peanut butter was same. Ever notice the MRE bags - first ones you could not rip open…had use a knife. Later they put tear tabs to help open. I reckon you know how to wipe your butt with single sheet mre toilet paper?
dude... these "conclusions" are your distorted dream level conclusions. the only thing that makes any sense on the above paragraph is nuclear power and not via some company thats a new startup... the rest are pipe dreams... as in too many tokes on the cheech and chong bong.Thread Recap
This thread has been a journey. I started off as a skeptic/denier, but bad science is usually debunked after a decade and the whole topic of climate change had been around far too long not to give it a second look with an open mind. So I open Bill Gate’s book How to Avoid a Climate Disaster and saw problems. Bill's book was not the type of book I was looking for, but it did raise questions. Along the way, I looked hard at the science, and saw that Global Warming really was a significant issue.
Conclusion to Date
A cost-effective ESS isn't enough, there seems to be a ~10% shortfall. Fortunately, folks are working on new technologies that will help that last 28%:
A
- Biofuels can replace fuel for long-haul trucks & air travel
- Green Steel
- Concrete Replacements (e.g., Mycelium, ashCrete, ferroRock, glasscrete)
- New Concrete processes (e.g., CarbonCure)
- Beano for Cows, synthetic meats (also allows more agricultural land to shift to food for humans ref)
- Small/safe cost-efficient nuclear reactors (e.g., Terrapower)
- CCPI reports
Opinion: Pretty scathing for a 65 page government report summary. But, don't worry deniers! See the next headline! It's already being billed as "democrat" attack as Trump is in the "it's a hoax" camp. Given all the direct quotes from their email it's pretty obvious they've been gaming the public. The document also points out the culpability of prestigious organizations like the American Petroleum Industries with some pretty scathing quotes from their documents about bamboozling Americans in order to delay change and maximize profits. Out and out lies on how much they say spending on new clean technologies vs. what they're actually spending. There's even evidence of "Obstruction of the Congressional Investigation". Tracking activists and people that speak out on social media and targeting them. Tsk Tsk. You think they would have shredded those emails. What's missing is the culpability of politicians and how much money switched hands. I bet any seized hard drives will never see the light of day again.... culmination of a nearly three year-long investigation by the ...House Committee on Oversight and Accountability (House Oversight)...
fossil fuel companies internally do not dispute that they have understood since at least the 1960s that burning fossil fuels causes climate change and then worked for decades to undermine public understanding of this fact and to deny the underlying science
Flashback 2023: Washington Post: A ‘climate solution’ that spies worry could trigger war –No, humans most definitely don't need to "re-engineer" the climate.
This WashPo editorial is yet another trial balloon for megalomaniac billionaires who want to play God. pic.twitter.com/XbzoezfsHa
— Ryan Maue (@RyanMaue) April 28, 2024
Here’s the full story on cloud seeding — let’s just say it’s not your mother’s weather modification! https://t.co/qXbxOtPQi3
— Ginger Zee (@Ginger_Zee) April 18, 2023
Book excerpt on geoengineering the climate from “Green Fraud: Why the Green New Deal Is Even Worse than You Think”Blast from the past – Al Gore on Ellen Show about blocking the sun: The sky won't be blue anymore
Source: https://t.co/RkMQ8YTlUC pic.twitter.com/yPIsaWfKQr
— Camus (@newstart_2024) November 11, 2023
End excerptWe’re in luck! Geoengineering solves both global cooling AND global warming.
Newsweek noted that one of the “more spectacular solutions proposed” for the coming ice age was “melting the Arctic ice cap by covering it with black soot or diverting arctic rivers.” A similar “solution” was also suggested by Leonard Nimoy in a 1978 episode of In Search Of…. The man who played Spock presented other such “solutions” for global cooling, including using nuclear energy to “loosen polar ice caps” or blanketing the ice caps in soot to help melt them.
Fast forward to the modern climate change debate, and the same type of ideas are being offered. In 2018, the idea of geoengineering the Earth or its atmosphere was proposed to fight “global warming.” A 2018 headline in the UK Independent blared: “First Ever Sun-Dimming Experiment Will Mimic Volcanic Eruption in Attempt to Reverse Global Warming.”
The article explained, “Plans to geoengineer the atmosphere by blocking out sunlight have been floated before, but an experiment launched next year by Harvard researchers will be the first to test the theory in the stratosphere.” Research team member David Keith boasted, “If solar geoengineering is as good as what is shown in these models, it would be crazy not to take it seriously.” The experiment “has been partly funded by Bill Gates of Microsoft.”
In 2009, Obama White House science advisor John Holdren suggested that we inject pollutants into the atmosphere to cool the planet and cancel out the warming impacts of pollution. As Keith reported, “Holdren told the Associated Press in his first interview since being confirmed last month that the idea of geoengineering the climate is being discussed. One such extreme option includes shooting pollution particles into the upper atmosphere to reflect the sun’s rays….‘It’s got to be looked at,’ Holdren said. ‘We don’t have the luxury of taking any approach off the table.’”
aenyc, the mask is so yesterday, but there are a few more just soaking up the information svetzat this point you are like the sole guy in car with closed windows wearing a mask in 2024!
In the wake of Inside Climate News’ 2015 stories on ExxonMobil’s research confirming fossil fuels’ role in global warming, the oil giant hit back with a #GetTheFacts social media campaign calling the reporting “misleading,” “baseless,” and “politically motivated.”
But in internal discussions, Exxon’s communications team grappled with how to respond when “we actually don’t dispute much of what these stories report,” according to one of 4,500 documents newly released by Congressional Democrats after a two-and-a-half-year investigation of industry disinformation on climate change.
Opinion: Don't be sipping coffee as you open the article, the graphic in the article might cause spontaneous laughter.Beijing’s control of the technology behind batteries and solar panels is complicating Washington’s efforts to make a swift transition from fossil fuels.
The decision maker’s lament: If I only had some science!Opinion: Naive. In Florida the politicians usually vote the way they are told to by the party. They probably do where you live too, the graphic to the right is from the Washington Post. The problem isn't the politicians... it's the parties The question is, why isn't the Republican party on board with accepted science on climate change? I think we all know the answer to that one. |
Sulfur dioxide does cause acid rain.Doesn't sulfur in the atmosphere cause acid rain? Or is that only when the sulfur comes from burning coal?
Black notes, shedding light on the initially obscured financial burdens that later became unbearable for the taxpayers.“As long as the heavy costs of displacing fossil fuels by so-called renewable energy were carefully disguised and diffused, everybody could wallow in collective self-praise for doing the healthy and environmentally responsible thing,”
https://nationalpost.com/opinion/conrad-black-5
Judicial Overreach and the Misinterpretation of Climate Science“Once they had fully committed themselves to the boondoggle of electric vehicles (EV’s), and forced the powerful automobile industries of Germany, France, and Italy into conversion of gas powered vehicles to EV’s, sales of EV’s plummeted after the customary faddish start, just as much cheaper Chinese EV’s flooded into Europe,”
https://nationalpost.com/opinion/conrad-black-5
Highlighting the problematic encroachment of judicial bodies on national sovereignty and democratic decision-making.“The European Court of Human Rights crossed the jurisdictional Rubicon by overruling the voters of a democratic country,”
https://nationalpost.com/opinion/conrad-black-5
Thus presenting a contrarian view that challenges the prevailing narrative on CO2 emissions.“CO2 as essential to food, and thus to life on earth, and that the more there is of CO2, the more food there will be, especially in drought-stricken areas,”
https://nationalpost.com/opinion/conrad-black-5
Hulme warns that by promoting fatalism, the risk is that climatism will encourage people to give up on the grounds that it’s pointless. It also generates cynicism – because the world manifestly isn’t ending, and as one deadline after another passes without the promised catastrophe, people stop listening. Hulme emerges as a pragmatist, and while you may disagree with his view that “carbon-emitting energy sources” need to be phased out, his overall pragmatism is certainly refreshing, particularly from a Cambridge academic:In his most recent book, Climate Change Isn’t Everything (2023), Hulme argued that belief in the urgent fight against climate change has shot far past the territory of science and become an ideology.
Hulme… dubs this ideology “climatism”, and he argues that it can distort the way society approaches the world’s ills, placing too much focus on slowing Earth from warming.
The problem, he said, is this narrow focus takes attention away from other important moral, ethical, and political objectives – like helping people in the developing world rise out of poverty.
As with other ‘isms’ – like cubism or romanticism – ideologies provide a way of thinking about things, explained Hulme.
“They’re like spectacles that help us to make sense of the world, according to a predefined framework or structure,” he said.
To be clear, Hulme does not claim that all ideologies are wrong.
“We all need ideologies, and we all have them – whether you’re a Marxist or a nationalist, you’re likely to hold an ideology of some form or other,” he added.
As Hulme sees it, many journalists, advocates and casual observers of climate change have become devotees of climatism, inaccurately attributing many events that happen in the world as being caused by climate change.
“No matter how complex a particular causal chain might be, it’s a very convenient shorthand to say, ‘Oh, well, this was caused by climate change’,” Hulme said.
“It’s a very shallow and simplistic way, I would argue, to try to describe events that are happening in the world.”
Hulme doesn’t argue that the effects of climate change are not happening, though, just that stopping climate change won’t stop disasters from happening altogether.
“Fundamentally, we’re going to have to deal with hurricanes, and we’re not going to deal with them just by cutting our carbon emissions,” he said.
The danger of climatism, he pointed out, is that it leads people down a false chain of events: if all of these things happening in the world are caused by climate change, then all we have to do is stop climate change, and all the other things will stop themselves. …
“The danger is if we obsess about just climate change, if we think that climate change holds the key to wellbeing and a better future, we take attention away from interventions that will make progress on the sustainable development goals,” he said.
Beyond these mixed up priorities, Hulme also takes issue with what he sees as an obsession with deadlines: “There’s this idea of the ticking clock counting down to Ground Zero – we’ve only got five years, 10 years, two years – however long different commentators put the deadline.”
He calls this line of thinking “deadline-ism”, a sort of sub-ideology of climatism, and he says he finds it unhelpful.
“It’s like holding a gun to your head and saying, ‘You’ve only got three seconds to make a decision’.”
Worth reading in full.“We do need smart climate policies, whether it’s mitigation or adaptation,” he said.
“We need energy transitions away from carbon-emitting energy sources, and that energy transition is going to come through innovation. It’s going to come through smart people doing smart things more efficiently, with the human ingenuity and creativity that we’ve been granted, making use of the material resources that the planet offers.”