Can Solar & Wind Fix Everything (e.g., Climate Change) with a battery break-through?

[aenyc]

Environmentalism In America Is Dead​

It has been replaced by climatism and renewable energy fetishism.​

Environmentalism In America Is Dead

America needs a new generation of activists who want to spare nature, wildlife, and marine mammals by utilizing high-density, low-emission energy sources like natural gas and nuclear energy.

wattsupwiththat.com

The punchline here is obvious: it’s time to discard the shopworn label of “environmentalism.” The NGOs discussed above, and others like them, are not environmental groups. Their response to the specter of catastrophic climate change will require wrecking our rural landscapes, the killing of untold numbers of bats, birds, and insects, and industrializing our oceans with large-scale alt-energy projects.

America needs a new generation of activists who want to spare nature, wildlife, and marine mammals by utilizing high-density, low-emission energy sources like natural gas and nuclear energy. We need advocates and academics who will push for a weather-resilient electric grid, not a weather-dependent one. Above all, we need true conservationists who promote a realistic view of our energy and power systems. That view will include a positive view of our place on this planet, a view that seeks to conserve natural places, not to pave them.

 

[TommySr]

Environmentalism In America Is Dead

aenyc, climatism and renewable energy issues effect the weakest among us, our Environment.
while we can dream up and make ways to offset it's effect on us, they can't.

they are the same thing
Environmentalism=climatism=renewable energy

 

[svetz]

svetz, I'm still looking for one that says we absorbed Neanderthals. that would explain my little brother. That's not hard to find, in modern humans it's thought to be 1 to 2% of their DNA (ref). Of course, the DNA difference between humans and apes is about 4% (ref), and men vs women is 1.8% (ref). Ran across the map to the right. But honestly, no clue about this stuff. You could probably give him a DNA scan certificate for his birthday.

Ask an AI Saturday:​

How does the theory of mind relate to climate change denial?

How does the theory of mind apply to climate change belief?

Motivated Denial: Some people may have access to the facts about climate change but choose to deny them. This is often because accepting the reality of climate change can challenge self-worth, threaten financial institutions, and bring about a sense of overwhelming responsibility1. Psychological Barriers: There are several psychological barriers that can facilitate climate change denial. These include cognition, ideological worldviews, comparisons to key people, costs and momentum, disbelief in experts and authorities, perceived risks of change, and inadequate behavioral changes2. Soft Climate Change Denial: This refers to a state of mind where individuals acknowledge the existence of global warming in the abstract while remaining in partial psychological or intellectual denial about its reality or impact2. Socially Organized Denial: This is the active resistance to information on a collective level. It occurs when societies fail to respond to climate change despite having access to the necessary information3. Interventions: There are various interventions aimed at counteracting climate change denial, including education, message framing, and inoculation. The effectiveness of these interventions can vary, and they often need to be tailored to the specific form of climate denial being addressed4. In summary, the theory of mind can help us understand why some individuals and groups deny the reality of climate change, despite the overwhelming scientific consensus. It highlights the role of psychological and social factors in shaping our beliefs and attitudes towards climate change. Understanding these factors is crucial for developing effective strategies to counteract climate change denial and promote environmental stewardship.

Understanding of Facts: The theory of mind can help explain why some people understand and accept the facts about climate change while others do not. This can be influenced by various factors such as education, personal experiences, and exposure to information12. Emotional Responses: People’s emotional responses to climate change, including fear, anxiety, and hope, can also be understood through the theory of mind. These emotions can influence how people perceive the risks associated with climate change and their willingness to take action3. Social Influence: The theory of mind can help explain how social influences shape our beliefs about climate change. For example, people are more likely to believe in climate change if they perceive that others in their social network also believe in it4. Cognitive Biases: The theory of mind can also shed light on the role of cognitive biases in shaping our beliefs about climate change. For instance, people tend to give more weight to immediate threats than to future ones, a bias known as hyperbolic discounting5. Belief in Action: The theory of mind can help us understand why some people believe that their actions can make a difference in addressing climate change, while others feel helpless or fatalistic12. In summary, the theory of mind provides a framework for understanding the complex interplay of cognitive, emotional, and social factors that shape our beliefs about climate change. It highlights the importance of addressing these factors in efforts to increase public understanding of climate change and motivate action to address it.

 

[svetz]

Q: The senate recently had fossil fuel companies testifying about their misleading the public with campaigns of misinformation. Based on that, is it likely the department of justice will take action and if so what would the charges be?

AI:
Based on recent events, it appears that there is a growing call for the Department of Justice (DOJ) to investigate fossil fuel companies. Senate Budget Chairman Sheldon Whitehouse and House Oversight and Accountability Ranking Member Jamie Raskin have urged Attorney General Merrick Garland to investigate Big Oil for its decades-long disinformation campaign to mislead the public about the climate effects of fossil fuels and obstruct climate action1. This call follows multiple House Oversight Committee hearings and memoranda, as well as the release of a joint staff report and a Senate Budget hearing1.
The investigation into ExxonMobil Corporation, Chevron Corporation, Shell Oil Company, BP America (BP), the American Petroleum Institute (API), and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, uncovered new evidence of the fossil fuel industry’s pattern of deceptive claims regarding its products, their effects on the climate, and its plans to reduce emissions and combat climate change1.
If the DOJ decides to take action, the charges could potentially be related to deceptive and misleading practices, similar to cases involving the tobacco and pharmaceutical industries1.

 

[D71]

aenyc, climatism and renewable energy issues effect the weakest among us, our Environment.
while we can dream up and make ways to offset it's effect on us, they can't.

they are the same thing
Environmentalism=climatism=renewable energy

Who are the weakest among us? Why are they weak? How are you making them not weak?

 

[TommySr]

Who are the weakest among us?

D71, IMO plants and animals. they are weak because they are not insane like us(we connect dots that don't connect)
while that can give us color TVs and jet planes it can also destroy their home also(earth). IMO we need them more then they need us.

if I could write like some here I'd tell the story of how the last magnetic poll reversal caused the genic insanity in modern man.

MEME for insanity

 

[Bob B]

Too hot for howlers

AGs ask Supreme Court to block climate change lawsuits
Opinion: Considering the oil companies can afford OJ quality lawyers the only way they can lose is if the evidence is solidly against them. If the evidence is that solidly against them and they lose the cost gets passed to the consumer, which makes alternatives look every better. LCOEs are already on par with the cheapest form of fossil fuel, so is this move just to keep oil companies in power?


That article seems to point back to the same paper, doesn't look like a confirmation of a second paper.


My personal pet theory is we killed them. But, I think your point is if you look hard enough you can find a paper on anything and that's why consensus is better than one offs. Let's test that... Yup... New theory for Neanderthal extinction that confirms my pet theory! ; -)

While the basis of Bob's paper points to a mass extinction, the general consensus (much to my surprise) seems to be that field changes don't cause mass die offs.


Well, the ice core samples mentioned in that paper were from Greenland and disproved their theory. The paper you cited was proposing an alternate to the accepted theory. Computer simulations, well...as so many are fond of saying about the IPCC, Garbage in, garbage out. They did have a lot of caveats listed to make the events match (although in geological terms the numbers are all bound to come snake eyes eventually). Data from caves... you mean the cave paintings? What exactly did the cave paintings prove?


UV does indeed depleted Ozone, but the magnetic field doesn't block UV; so a weakening of the field wouldn't increase the UV. only charged particles like electrons or protons are bent/deflected when travelling through magnetic fields. Even the paper you provided had a more complicated chain of events regarding it.


Theories to explain events get published all the time. Not that most care what why the Neanderthals' went extinct 42 thousand years ago.


Interesting. Why do you think that? Is it true cows emit methane? Yes it is. Is anyone anywhere in the world currently managing cow farts? Why no, they're not. Is anyone talking to countries about their GHG emissions? Why yes, they are.

You're a logical guy. So the question becomes, how did that emotional claptrap argument get into your mindset?

It is true people are looking at ways to mitigate methane from Agriculture. It is true that some countries are showing us the middle finger given we've created a rich country by polluting the atmosphere and are now telling them they shouldn't do it. But it is not hypocrisy to state facts nor is it hypocrisy to work on multiple things at once.


Actually, we would be doing something. Every little bit of reduction slows it down. Ditto EVs, heat pumps, better insulation, heat reflective paint, working on reducing emissions from products like concrete and steel, and even (grumble grumble ; -) removing GHGs from the atmosphere.

But is the magnetic field switch causing climate change?
NASA: Why Variations in Earth’s Magnetic Field Aren’t Causing Today’s Climate Change
The results in Bob's paper says their modeling shows climate change would have been in the mid latitudes. That's the opposite of what we observe with global warming today.

But, if the theory is correct in Bob's linked paper, then we might see additional warming on top of the existing man-made warming from GHGs as the magnetic fields are indeed fluctuating and may (or not) flip polarity as it has countless times in the past.

Sounds like you might be an "Adams Event" denier.

 

[aenyc]

Biden Games Gasoline Prices (election ahead?)​

“The hypocrisy of the Biden administration taking credit for lower gasoline prices as the summer driving season begins by fulfilling a Congressional mandate is unsurprising.”
“We now have the amazing scenario where days before the start of the hurricane season, Democrats in Congress and Biden are willing to empty the gasoline reserve.”

The Department of Energy announced Tuesday that it would begin selling the one million barrels of gasoline in the Northeast Gasoline Supply Reserve. Bids for the supply are due May 28th with delivery expected by June 30th. Bids will be accepted for lots of 100,000 barrels. The supply represents 42 million gallons of gasoline and is held in commercial storage tanks in Maine and New Jersey.

The sale was mandated by the omnibus Congressional spending bill (HR 2882) approved in late March with procedural hijinks by Senate Leader Chuck Schumer. If you remember, it was during the final hours of the Friday before the week-long Congress’ Easter Recess that the House passed the legislation 286-134 providing funding to keep the government operating through its September 30 fiscal year-end. The bill was passed over to the Senate which passed it in the early morning hours of Saturday and forwarded it to the White House for President Joe Biden’s signature that evening. Importantly, more Democrats than Republicans in the House voted for the bill as more than 100 Republicans voted against it.

We now have the amazing scenario where days before the start of the hurricane season, Democrats in Congress and Biden are willing to empty the gasoline reserve. Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm said in a statement, “By strategically releasing this reserve in between Memorial Day and July 4th, we are ensuring sufficient supply flows to the tri-state and northeast at a time hardworking Americans need it the most.” How funny that the Biden administration is taking credit for helping consumers by following through on a Congressionally mandated action.

I recently wrote about our drive from Houston to Rhode Island. My article discussed gasoline prices and how they became more expensive as we headed north, primarily due to higher state taxes in the Northeast states. I commented on Biden’s election problem with high gasoline prices and our expectation that he would repeat his 2022 move to tap the Strategic Petroleum Reserve to lower pump prices in the run-up to the November election. He was successful, but as shown in a chart, gasoline pump prices have increased 53% since Biden entered office.

Biden successfully pushed down gasoline prices by tapping the SPR in 2022.​

The gasoline reserve was established in 2014, two years after Super Storm Sandy slammed the Northeast region and disrupted fuel supply availability sending gasoline prices soaring. Some gasoline stations were without fuel for 30 days. Having gasoline supplies pre-positioned in the region reduces the risk for consumers from future storm disruptions.

East Coast states depend on Colonial Pipeline for 55% of their gasoline, diesel, and jet fuel supply.​

The vulnerability of the Northeast and Middle Atlantic states to fuel supply disruptions emerged on May 7, 2021, when the Colonial Pipeline was hit in a ransomware attack. The pipeline, which originates in Houston and runs to New York, supplies the East Coast states with 55% of its petroleum fuels – gasoline, diesel, and jet fuel. The pipeline was shut down to protect its operations and billing system. Operations were slowly restarted after the ransom was paid.

Fuel shortages occurred at gasoline stations amid panic buying as the pipeline shutdown extended for days. By the fourth day, Alabama, Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, and South Carolina reported shortages. Areas from northern South Carolina to southern Virginia were hardest hit, with 71% of gasoline stations running out of fuel in Charlotte on May 11th and 87% of stations out in Washington, D.C., on May 14th. Average fuel prices rose to their highest point since 2014, reaching more than $3 a gallon. Jet fuel availability caused several airlines operating from Charlotte to alter refueling arrangements including forced refueling stops for long-haul flights.

Estimates are that the gasoline reserve sale will raise $125 million but, importantly, cut storage costs. The Energy Department’s 2022 report on the SPR said it costs about $13 per barrel annually for operations and maintenance of the gasoline reserve compared with about 30 cents per barrel for crude oil in the SPR.

The hypocrisy of the Biden administration taking credit for lower gasoline prices as the summer driving season begins by fulfilling a Congressional mandate is unsurprising. We are also struck by how shortsighted Democrats are, especially those in the Northeast states who voted for the spending bill. Their shortsightedness is laughable given the region’s energy risk from supply disruptions on the eve of the start of the hurricane season, which is predicted to be extremely active

 

[aenyc]

The Conversation: Using Your Air Conditioner is a Form of Climate Denial​

“… If we use technologies like aircon to avoid dealing with the root causes of climate change, we are in denial. …”

The new climate denial? Using wealth to insulate yourself from discomfort and change
Published: February 7, 2023 3.48pm AEDT
Hannah Della Bosca
PhD Candidate and Research Assistant at Sydney Environment Institute, University of Sydney
While the days of overt climate denial are mostly over, there’s a distinct form of denial emerging in its stead. You may have experienced it and not even realised. It’s called implicatory denial, and it happens when you consciously recognise climate change as a serious threat without making significant changes to your everyday behaviour in response.
Much research has focused on how we intellectually distance ourselves from the unpleasant realities happening around us. What requires greater attention is how we may engage in climate denial by seeking out spaces of sensory comfort and using them to shield ourselves as the world unravels outside our window.
Denial, thought of in this way, is entirely sensible. My colleagues and I asked residents around the Western Sydney suburb of Penrith – famously the hottest place on Earth during the Black Summer of 2019-20 – about their experiences during heatwave conditions. Unsurprisingly, sensory denial is central to how they cope with extremes – primarily by using air conditioning.
…
Why does this matter?
If we use technologies like aircon to avoid dealing with the root causes of climate change, we are in denial.
As the world heats up, demand for air conditioning has skyrocketed. The International Energy Agency has estimated that by 2050, up to two-thirds of the world’s households will have installed aircon, particularly in China, India and Indonesia.
…
Read more: https://theconversation.com/the-new...te-yourself-from-discomfort-and-change-199101

Is wearing clothes or lighting a fire to stay warm in winter also a form of sensory climate denial?

If we were all truly exposed to our local climates, without clothes or blankets or any other form of personal climate modification, I suspect most of us would rapidly conclude the planet is way too cold for humans.

 

[aenyc]

Claim: Questioning Attribution Studies is the “Gateway Drug” to Climate Denial​

Apparently “… denialism is standing up for industrial capitalism. … poorly educated men (and to the regional communities built around them) …” are the drivers of modern climate denial.

Never mind the science, News Corp has strengthened its climate denialism machine
Climate crisis denial can come in many forms — and Murdoch’s empire has all bases covered.
CHRISTOPHER WARREN
APR 02, 2024
The News Corp climate denial machine — all those cogs in its opinion pages finely tuned to reverse Aesop’s fable and repeatedly croak out: “No wolf here!” — has a problem. Extreme weather events have made it all but impossible to ignore the climate wolf threatening to blow our houses down.
…
They’ve reengineered the underlying denialism, too. Sure, they say now, the climate may be changing, but it’s not our fault. It’s not, as the cloistered academics would say, “anthropogenic”.
If global heating is not caused by humans burning fossil fuels, why would humans be able to do anything about it? (And, just in case, why not go, umm, nukular?)
…
“Attribution” has always been the weakest form of denialism, raising doubts rather than definitively rejecting. But as a recent US study found, its danger lies in being the gateway drug to a more full-blown repudiation of the science itself.
…
Why did climate denial suddenly become a touchstone for the global right? …
… It’s been tagged “the anti-reflexivity thesis“, which is the argument that denialism is standing up for industrial capitalism.
It appeals to a certain old-style machismo — the good ol’ days of physical, manual jobs that matter for poorly educated men (and to the regional communities built around them).
…
Read more: https://www.crikey.com.au/2024/04/02/news-corp-climate-change-denial-machine/

The person who wrote this vile outpouring of ignorance and contempt for rural people and people who work with their hands is a former president of the International Federation of Journalists – which in my opinion goes a long way towards explaining why large sectors of society don’t trust establishment media.

Climate attribution studies are far from beyond question. They purport to explain how much climate change contributes to weather, but doubts have been raised about the methodology, including concerns about serious mathematical biases in the method used to tease the alleged climate impact from the data.

Christopher Warren implies advocacy of nuclear energy is an expression of industrial capitalist supporter ignorance, but real ignorance is denying that nuclear energy is a serious option. Nuclear works in france, which still generates around 70% of their electricity from affordable zero carbon nuclear. Are the French much smarter than everyone else on the planet? Or is copying the French nuclear success something any advanced nation could reasonably attempt to do?

But the idea that climate denial is motivated by irrational support for industrial capitalism is the crowning absurdity of Christopher’s article. From a study referenced by the article;

Anti-Reflexivity and Climate Change Skepticism in the US General Public
Aaron M. McCright Lyman Briggs College and Department of Sociology Michigan State University, Michigan, United States
Abstract
The leading theoretical explanation for the mobilization of organized climate change denial is the Anti-Reflexivity Thesis, which characterizes the climate change denial countermovement as a collective force defending the industrial capitalist system. In this study, I demonstrate that the Anti-Reflexivity Thesis also provides theoretical purchase for explaining patterns of climate change skepticism among regular citizens. Analyzing nationally representative survey data from multiple waves of the University of Texas Energy Poll, I examine key predictors of climate change skepticism within the US general public. Identification with or trust in groups representing the industrial capitalist system increases the likelihood of climate change skepticism. Also, identification with or trust in groups representing forces of reflexivity (e.g., the environmental movement and scientific community) decreases the likelihood of such skepticism. Further, this study finds that climate change skeptics report policy preferences, voting intentions, and behavioral intentions generally supportive of the existing fossil fuels–based industrial capitalist system.
Read more: https://search.informit.org/doi/epdf/10.3316/informit.324791340628136

The study above defines anti-reflexivity as “… Reflexive Modernization Theory (e.g., Beck, 1992; Giddens, 1990; see also Rosa, Renn, & McCright, 2014) characterizes the current era of late modernity as a distinct stage of advanced industrial society where institutions suffer from legitimacy crises brought on by their inability to effectively solve the ecological and technological problems of modernization. …”

The idea, the “anti-reflexity thesis“, that opposition to climate policies comes from people who miss “the good old days”, who have lost their jobs and way of life because of social and technological progress, this fiction runs deep in liberal circles. The idea has even made it into television series. The following is character Tom Kirkman from the series “Designated Survivor” explaining why industrial jobs are disappearing from the USA and will never return.
But industrial employment didn’t disappear, it was lost to China.

If the reason for job losses in the USA was automation and technological progress, manufacturing would all still all be happening in the USA. The real reason lots of industrial activity moved to China and other parts of Asia, is because China prioritises affordable energy over green fantasies – even their solar panel manufacturing industry is powered by coal.

Green policies are the real job killers, not technology and progress – and people who are most affected by green policies, farmers and industry workers whose profitability utterly depends on affordable energy, are naturally opponents of policies which are wrecking their livelihoods.

Perhaps none of this matters to comfortable establishment media journalists who have no hesitation heaping contempt and scorn on anyone who gets their hands dirty, or anyone who objects to whatever latest green lunacy they champion. Because who cares what happens to farmers and factory workers right? Everyone knows food comes from supermarkets, and most of the stuff they care about is imported.

 

[aenyc]

We, the Arbiters of Truth, are Working Really Really Hard to Understand Those Stupid Lying Climate Denier Liars​

We, the Arbiters of Truth, are Working Really Really Hard to Understand Those Stupid Lying Climate Denier Liars

I don’t have much to say about this ugliness, but I’ll let their writing speak for itself.

wattsupwiththat.com

 

[svetz]

Sounds like you might be an "Adams Event" denier.

Nah, for 42,000 years ago it could be possible based on their sample size of one tree. Not like there are a bunch of 42,000 year old trees you can just pick another one to confirm or deny it. I don't know enough either way to have a solid opinion. But, does it affect us in our current crisis?

• Their modeling of how warming occurs doesn't match up with today's actual observations of global warming, so didn't seem like it.
• NASA says that's not what is happening now (see NASA: Why Variations in Earth’s Magnetic Field Aren’t Causing Today’s Climate Change)
• Recent information on cosmic rays don't align with their model:
  • What's the link between cosmic rays and climate change?
  • Cosmic Rays vs Climate
  • Cosmic rays fall cosmically behind humans in explaining global warming
  • Cosmic ray contribution to global warming negligible
  • Cosmic Rays Not Causing Climate Change

I understand you don't want global warming to be true, and especially don't want the looming disaster to be at our hands. I don't like the concept either. But ignoring theories that better fit the observable data and facts isn't logical behavior.

Accelerated global warming is causing climate change and is due to GHGs that are man-made. It's is an urgent crisis because to fix it without wrecking the economy we need to start now.

• How we know Climate Change is not a hoax or wrong
• How we know Climate Change is Man-Made
• How The Greenhouse Gas Effect Works (with atmospheric layers)
• How Climate Change Became Politicized
• 200 climate myths With Explanations as to why they're wrong

Even the oil company CEOs say it is real:

• Ken Cohen, Exxon CEO: ... Climate change is real and appropriate steps should be taken..." ref
• Mike Wirth, Chevron CEO" “Climate change is real. There’s no doubt about it,” ref
• Gretchen Watkins, Shell CEO: "...urgent need for action on climate change" ref

 

[aenyc]

John Kerry: Climate Deniers “lash out at the truth tellers, and label indisputable evidence as hysteria”​

John Kerry: Climate Deniers “lash out at the truth tellers, and label indisputable evidence as hysteria”

h/t J Boles, PJ Media; “… humanity is inexorably threatened by humanity itself …”. John Kerry speech 24th August, with fun annotations to hilight his ridiculous mistakes.

wattsupwiththat.com

You’ve got to admit, it’s difficult to be so consistently wrong in such a long speech – but Kerry has proven equal to the challenge. There is no evidence of a climate crisis. As for Kerry’s green revolution, the reality is green energy investment is a government funded chimera, which will dry up and blow away as soon as politicians stop paying for it. Otherwise, why would investors be sitting on the sidelines, why would green entrepreneurs have so much trouble accessing finance?

(PS. He flies private jets and has several megamansions heated and cooled by traditional fuels.)

 

[aenyc]

Global Warming theory has failed all tests, so alarmists return to the ‘97% consensus’ hoax

Guest essay by Joseph D’Aleo, CCM, Weatherbell Analytics National Academies of Science defines a scientific theory as “a well-substantiated explanation of the natural world that can incorporate fa…

wattsupwiththat.com

How To Push a Climate Hoax 10: Turning Boring Statistics into a Hollywood Horror Show

Hopefully all critically thinking people will ask “why are these politicians and internet influencers trying to manipulate us with such a fearful Hollywood representation of climate?”

wattsupwiththat.com

 

[aenyc]

 

[aenyc]

Climate Hypocrisy Wednesday Part Three: Nature Magazine Calls Out the IPPC for Climate Hypocrisy​

It doesn’t get any better than this.

At least the author has the guts to say that the IPCC should practice what it preaches.

The IPCC should aggressively limit its own emissions instead of requiring in-person sessions and the attendant long-haul flights. Although meetings contribute only a tiny fraction of total global emissions, improving accountability would have an outsized impact on the IPCC’s effectiveness, and would be a case study for robust, internationally coordinated mitigation.
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-023-01707-5

He notes that people such as myself will use the hypocrisy to ridicule and criticize those activists who don’t walk the walk.

This irony does not go unnoticed across the political spectrum. Conservatives point to individual researchers’ emissions to justify lack of urgency or to validate their view that institutional decarbonization is impossible; progressives see a lack of effective action and a growing philosophical barrier between science and activism.
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-023-01707-5

While I disagree with this guy’s point of view, his wokeness, and silly equity framing, his writing is logical and not the least bit rationalizing.

The emissions associated with the IPCC process are not trivial, but they are manageable. The challenges mirror those of the wider mitigation problem: assessment of direct and indirect emissions, the need for fairness in the face of robust targets, the reliability of removal methods and the need for international agreement on how to verify them.
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-023-01707-5

Even failure to achieve targets would be useful, by highlighting real-world limitations in net-zero policy assumptions, which could then inform wider societal strategy.
As the July elections for the next assessment cycle approach, IPCC members should remember that nobody is better placed to demonstrate how to eliminate emissions. The IPCC’s actions matter, not just its words. Although it might make climate scientists uncomfortable, what the IPCC does about its own carbon emissions might be as crucial to its effectiveness as advancing cogent and robust science.
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-023-01707-5

 

[TommySr]

Take a normal sized creature and magnify it into a gigantic threat suggesting we’re all going to die. Just consider King Kong, Godzilla, Alien, Jaws, Alligators, Frankenfish

aenyc, some catchy lines, but the beast we are talking about here has gained 14 billion tons in weight
this year so far alone, all of the demons listed have a fixed weight and would seem like child play for any one
of our modern armed services, to find a comparable threat your going to have to go to a different genre, horror
isn't go to cut it.

Climate Hypocrisy​

I find this concept laughable, the climate issue was not created by any one person, state, or even country
and because by the time the problem made itself known it has grown beyond even any one country's ability to
even stall it, no one wants to recognize their own inadequacies or their complicity in the unfolding events so of
course it's a hoax.

recognize their own inadequacies or their complicity
that does make this a hurtful topic for me, it showcases my impotence and complicity.
when I was young all my waste oil and gas I just dumped in the burn barrel out back.

 

[Bob B]

Nah, for 42,000 years ago it could be possible based on their sample size of one tree. Not like there are a bunch of 42,000 year old trees you can just pick another one to confirm or deny it. I don't know enough either way to have a solid opinion. But, does it affect us in our current crisis?

• Their modeling of how warming occurs doesn't match up with today's actual observations of global warming, so didn't seem like it.
• NASA says that's not what is happening now (see NASA: Why Variations in Earth’s Magnetic Field Aren’t Causing Today’s Climate Change)
• Recent information on cosmic rays don't align with their model:
  • What's the link between cosmic rays and climate change?
  • Cosmic Rays vs Climate
  • Cosmic rays fall cosmically behind humans in explaining global warming
  • Cosmic ray contribution to global warming negligible
  • Cosmic Rays Not Causing Climate Change

I understand you don't want global warming to be true, and especially don't want the looming disaster to be at our hands. I don't like the concept either. But ignoring theories that better fit the observable data and facts isn't logical behavior.

Accelerated global warming is causing climate change and is due to GHGs that are man-made. It's is an urgent crisis because to fix it without wrecking the economy we need to start now.

• How we know Climate Change is not a hoax or wrong
• How we know Climate Change is Man-Made
• How The Greenhouse Gas Effect Works (with atmospheric layers)
• How Climate Change Became Politicized
• 200 climate myths With Explanations as to why they're wrong

Even the oil company CEOs say it is real:

• Ken Cohen, Exxon CEO: ... Climate change is real and appropriate steps should be taken..." ref
• Mike Wirth, Chevron CEO" “Climate change is real. There’s no doubt about it,” ref
• Gretchen Watkins, Shell CEO: "...urgent need for action on climate change" ref

First, I'm not trying to prove this phenomena is what's causing the current "rise in temperature" ...... I'm not even sure there is any significant rise in temperature. If heat island data is excluded, there is little to no increase.

I just like pointing out natural phenomena that can cause increases in temperature that are totally ignored by climate scientists. Things like the Tonga eruption that blew huge amounts of water vapor into the upper atmosphere.
Science HAS shown that a reduction in the earth's magnetic field can have a catastrophic effect on climate ..... You want to instantly dismiss it because it is inconvenient and not part of the IPCC propaganda.
This science is NOT bases solely on a single tree. Examination of a tree WAS what lit the idea .... In science there is always something that kicks the idea off.
It's like saying the whole idea of electricity is ridiculous because it's based on 1 guy flying a kite.

Even if a person assumes CO2 is the enemy ....... Without having control of what China and India do ..... every other effort to control GHG is miniscule and futile.
Everyone says ... IT MUST HAPPEN NOW. Well ..... It's not going to happen now ........ no matter how much the rest of the world tortures themselves to try and make it happen.
Trying to control what is impossible to control is only going to result in chaos and insanity.

The only sane thing is to get on with life and do what is best for you and yours.

 

[TommySr]

The only sane thing is to get on with life and do what is best for you and yours.

Bob, perfect last line for this topic.

 

[D71]

D71, IMO plants and animals. they are weak because they are not insane like us(we connect dots that don't connect)
while that can give us color TVs and jet planes it can also destroy their home also(earth). IMO we need them more then they need us.

if I could write like some here I'd tell the story of how the last magnetic poll reversal caused the genic insanity in modern man.

MEME for insanity
View attachment 217568

What do plants need to grow. Animals eat plants.
Our govt has declared war on ppl having backyard chickens …a food source. Declared water shortages no gardens Electric black outs. Ppl like Gates have bought up farms. Illegal open borders are being allowed and illegal immigration is being ASSISTED.

Just remember the groups of ppl like Bill Gates signed onto depopulation as the final solution to climate change aka population reduction. Agenda 2021 and such was very clear they never hid their goals. They were very open about it. Ppl like Stephen Hawking were very open about.
it. Ppl jumped in and let these kind of ppl treat them with covid vaccine.

I’d say you still trust ppl like Bill Gates. I know, Svetz and others like him think Bill Gate’s are great.

Even Svetz has said they have now declared population reduction is no longer a goal. I call BS….

Most ppl trying to take over the World and create Globalism have done a good job at fooling ppl In most cases ppl want to be fooled.
They made Covid and released it. O blood type should be next target group. It was spared by Covid.







Oh well…. You either can figure it out or not. Carl Sagan and those around him like Steven Hawkings and Bill Gates were all signed on for DePopulation. Of course not their own depopulation That would be crazy. They were onboard with killing billions of other ppl. Just conspiracy to commit murder. Snicker. Most ppl are fucking retarded.

Ppl looking around and still can’t figure things out DESERVE TO GET WHAT THEY GET. …..