Who is right? The climate alarmists? Or the Climate deniers?

How will that do a damned thing, especially when China emits over twice the CO2 than the US does?

How are you going to legislate the end of clearcutting rainforests?

 

I don't know why they didn't do that.

In the USA, the problem is that there is a major backlog of wind projects that take significant time to put on the grid, because of grid design. Coal in Germany is centralized in the west and east, thus that's where coal power stations are. Maybe that makes things easier.

Your comment about low income Germans is the issue being solved, as nuclear power increases the cost of electricity.

 

China has 4X our population - NOT 2X.

There is no justification for the US to ignore the problem on the grounds of what others are doing. This is where valid objectives need US leadership.

 

This argument doesn't make sense.

CO2 BECAME a problem. Almost anything can become a problem if there is far to much of it.

 

CO2 became an issue due to humans creating huge amounts as the industrial age sprang up.

Geology, ice cores, etc., have informed science of past cycles. Climatologists are very aware of that contribution.

But, humans don't live a million years. The time frames that are more important are in the range of 100 years (and less), not 1,000,000 years.

 

I personally don't think they'll ever get the ever get the votes to get even close to doing it.

But I wouldn't be at all surprised if they tried should Massachusetts v. EPA get overturned.

But logic like you're suggesting is not really their strong suit.

 

So why did your side cheat to get it done if it's that obvious?

 

?

 

I do. It would have made electricity even more expensive and less reliable in Germany. The Chinese Communist Party came out with a very true statement that eliminating fossil fuels was not feasible because adding solar and wind power to their power grid would make it more unstable and unreliable and expensive. So much for Red China going “green”.

Nuclear energy does not increase the cost of electrical energy. Heard of France?

 

Why didn't your side amend the Clean Air Act? The proper way to have the government regulate CO2.

 

Coal is getting prohibitively expensive in Germany because of carbon tax. It’s increasing 10 euros per ton annually. Just the carbon tax on coal in Germany is about the total cost of coal in the US.

This is with the government having spent 300 billion euros subsidizing the coal mining industry and also the importation of coal. Most coal is imported from Russia, the US, Australia, etc.

Tax is the reason Germany will eventually have to give up coal. It will simply cost more than the consumer can pay for electricity.

 

It's called "leading by example". You can't expect anyone else to act if you don't act.

 

Your opinion was interesting up until the last line. Legislatures pass laws, and not all laws please everyone, so what that means is that you can levy that allegation against any law you personally don't like, that would mean all lawmakers are fascists, which, of course, is absurd, and thus, so is your allegation. You see, it's not fascism, it's democracy, the opposite.

 

But they haven't passed any law in this case. Haven't even really tried. Go ahead, try to find where they did. I can wait.

The climate zealots are fascists trying to enact destructive policies without normal political mechanics that would ensure at a minimum that every voice had a chance to be heard.

The legislature of this country moved to avoid having to legislate in favor of long careers back in the 60s. Instead they created agencies to do their dirty work for them. That doesn't make them fascists, that makes them cowards that enable fascists.

Either way you look at it, it's bad for the common folk.

 

The Chinese Communist Party will only act in their own interest which is to continue to build coal fired power plants which produce inexpensive electric power available 24/7 and sell the gullible western democracies solar and wind power equipment which increases the price of electricity, weakens the western economies whilst strengthening the economy of Red China, and makes the power grids in the west more unstable and less reliable.

 

Checked my source which is the book "The Fourth Great Awakening" by Robert Fogel - 2000. Were are both "correct" but more so you. Global population as a proxy for the standard of living or human prosperity took of in the year 1600 which was the beginning of the second agricultural revolution. When widespread electrification began around 100 years ago or so the slope of the hockey stick handle steepened.

 

I never said you were "wrong", I simply see more in play than the simple answer is all.

And for that, I blame absolutely loving the old BBC series "Connections", with James Burke. Where he helped teach a generation of people to not just look at the obvious and accepted answer, but to look deeper into something and see the other "connections" from one development to another.



It was a fascinating series from 1978, that took what seemed like relatively simple inventions, and would then follow them through refinements and other inventions based off of them until you had something completely different. In 10 episodes going through many of them, then at the end tying each of them together and culminating in all of them combined creating the Enola Gay and the atomic bomb.

Myself, I place the current levels of CO2 as you said much more on the level of human population ultimately more than anything else. If we were to suddenly drop to a population of 1 billion, I can almost guarantee that our CO2 production would drop to roughly the numbers seen in 1800. The more people on the planet, the more transportation is needed, the more large scale agriculture is needed, the more breeding and raising of animals for consumption is needed, the more of our natural environment is destroyed and paved over in order to house, feed, and employ all of them.

But most people want a simple solution to the problem, they do not want to hear "cull out 7 out of 8 people and the problem will go away".

 

Oh, and I will make one prediction that I do believe will eventually happen that relates to that.

In the past two centuries, we have become damned good at ending the diseases that ravaged mankind. But only those that are parasitic or bacteriological in origin. And for tens of thousands of years, those were the largest killers of people there was next to humans themselves.

But we still have no "cure" for viral diseases. Ebola, COVID, SARS-MARS, Avian Flu, HIV, the list just goes on and on. And so far, humans have been lucky. Either the viral outbreaks we see are so deadly it burns out before spreading very far (Ebola), they are highly deadly but so hard to contract they are not able to spread to the general population (HIV), or they can spread far and fast, but are not particularly deadly (COVID).

But it literally is only a matter of time with our population numbers that a disease will break out that is fast moving, deadly, but not so deadly as to kill before spreading to a large number of people.

Most have no idea how lucky we were a few years ago with COVID. We saw death rates of under 4% globally for that. That is nothing, especially compared to a century earlier when the Spanish Flu had a death rate of over 33% and a death total of over 50 million people. If COVID was as bad as Spanish Flu, global death totals would have been closer to around 200 million people. Not the roughly 6 million that we ultimately had.

But it is only a matter of time, we will eventually get a "super Spanish Flu" that will decimate our population. It may be a century or more, but it will happen. Because that always happens when a species population grows to large.

I was actually predicting something like COVID 20 years ago, and my friends all thought I was crazy. We had beat disease, such an outbreak would never happen again. And I just chuckled when it did happen, and even predicted much of the last three years. Entirely based on studying the Spanish Flu outbreak. And we are damned lucky COVID was so weak, as our response if it was a Spanish Flu II it would have decimated the population. With probably death rates closer to 40% or more of the population as very few governments took the threat seriously.

 

I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of what fascism is.

A group organized to influence or promote legislation, just because you disagree with them, does not equal fascism.

Fascism exists in the absence of law, where men rule and have no allegiance to law and the constitution, and I do not see where your allegation has any merit on your use of the term as it appears to be hyperbolic (It's true I'm using the term in a simplistic color of what fascism, which is, in truth, a far more complex thing, but that is how you used it).

Perhaps you can give me a clear path of reasoning, with examples, to illustrate why you feel that way.

And you must do that, because I can't have any kind of rational discussion with you until you do, which is to say, I can't get past it because I take umbrage with what appears to be a cavalier use of a very weighty term.

So, please make an effort to support your contention and I will be happy to engage with you on this very important subject.

I'll reiterate the above with more precision:

Your statement seems to be quite strong and could potentially be seen as an oversimplification of a complex issue. Here are a few points to consider:

1. Labeling: Referring to individuals concerned about climate change as “climate zealots” might not be constructive. It’s important to remember that people can have passionate beliefs about the environment without being zealots. The term “zealot” often has negative connotations and might not foster open dialogue.
   
   
2. Fascism: The term “fascists” is a strong word often associated with authoritarian and dictatorial power. Using it to describe those advocating for climate change policies could be seen as hyperbolic and might detract from the validity of your argument.
   
   
3. Destructive Policies: It’s crucial to specify which policies you’re referring to when you mention “destructive policies”. Climate change policies vary widely, and while some may have negative effects, others could have positive impacts.
   
   
4. Political Mechanics: The assertion that these policies are being enacted without normal political mechanics is a serious one. It would be helpful to provide specific examples of this happening.
   
   
5. Every Voice: The phrase “every voice had a chance to be heard” is fundamental in democratic societies. If you feel this isn’t happening, it might be more productive to advocate for greater inclusivity in the decision-making process rather than labeling those you disagree with.
   

Remember, it’s always beneficial to promote respectful and open dialogue when discussing such significant issues.

 

Yeah, that was a great series.

That is why I paid so much attention to:

After the Warming (1989)



The show he did about global warming and the first coherent explanation I ever saw.

 

I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of what the subject matter is. I said explicitly that there has never been any attempt to legislate EPA's authority to regulate CO2. It simply did not happen. Period.

It is all about fascism as you have defined it. Remember, "Fascism exists in the absence of law, where men rule and have no allegiance to law and the constitution,..."? You should. You said it.

And that's exactly what happened. Climate change fascists, knowing they couldn't regulate CO2 through proper legislative channels, concocted a way to ignore the established legislative processes and cheat by going through the courts instead. That's how the political mechanics work. Can't get what you want because normal people would never voluntarily allow this kind of insane garbage to happen to them? Cheat.

And those perfectly normal, intelligent folks never see it coming.

And that's really the problem. The science people argue about how temperature is measured or historic sea level changes going back 10,000 years. But the political manipulators bury their intentions under a pile of arcane legal manuvering and nobody really has any idea what's happening.

Until well after the damage is done anyways.

But in truth, I do have to thank you. I was working in DC between 2007 and 2010 on these very issues when they really got established. I've seen it coming ever since and have really been bothered by the fact that the truth has never been able to gain any traction amid all the talk of ppm's and summer heat waves and perfectly normal Florida hurricanes.

We're simply focusing on the wrong things. We're occupied with sorting fly shiite from the pepper and ignoring the civilization consuming werewolf holding the bowl that the pepper's in.

And your post helped me see that. Thank you.

Now I'll see if I can figure out some creative ways to promote that viewpoint.

 

I'll be happy to address the salient points, but you must refrain from your cavalier and hyperbolic characterization that believers in AGW are 'fascist', first.

You see, because of it, I cannot take you seriously.

Others might, but not I.

Please rethink your characterization.

For me to ignore it, from my vantage point, I would be rewarding that kind of behavior and I cannot do it.

But please understand, if you accused me of same in some past post I wouldn't doubt that I'm guilty of similar hyperbole, it's just that of late, I've resolved, or at least strive to refrain from hyperbole, and calling someone (who is in essence merely passionate) as a fascist, a weighty term with clear historical connotation, isn't acceptable and I won't do it anymore and I ask that those who want my replies to do the same. The mods have chided me on this and they are right. I'm not saying that I'm so important that you should care, but if you do want a reply by me, I ask that you refrain. That's all.

 

OK, fair enough.

I'll ponder a less offensive term that conveys the same point of working around the system of checks and balances.

 

In my opinion the supporters of a Carbon Tax are ignoring an elephant in the room......

we could be looking at much a much more rapid rise in ocean levels than scientists are predicting partly due to the West Antarctic Ice Sheet being below sea level.


Dr. James Hansen has stated that the last time that worldwide atmospheric temperatures rose by three degrees.....

ocean levels rose by about twenty meters over about four centuries.

Deliberately investing in turning deserts green through mega-scale desalination of sea water will directly address this problem......

and.....
if the theory is true that the bulk of the HEAT going into the atmosphere is coming form the Sahara Desert and other large deserts then......

turning significant portions of deserts green would both take water out of the oceans and refill the underground aquifers AND....

could well also have the massive benefit of stabilizing the climate through the actions that trees have on the circulation of water and the stabilization of
atmospheric heat.

Chaim Henry Tejman M. D. worded this brilliantly......


https://www.grandunifiedtheory.org.il/globalW2.htm

A related question is the evidence that indicates that the ADDITION OF H2O to Antarctica has been the factor that has kept ocean levels relatively stable so far.


Does the growth of ice on Antarctica explain why sea level have been stable?

....

 

Uh, physics 101 here. The ice shelves can have absolutely no effect on the ocean levels. Just like the entire Arctic Ice Cap can melt tomorrow and the oceans will not raise a single millimeter.

It's known as "displacement". The ice on those ice shelves is displacing the exact same amount of water that they possess for all practical purposes. Now in reality it is even a tiny fraction less, as it is of course fresh water and it is displacing salt water. But even that is a miniscule difference that it is almost unmeasurable but in reality it is actually displacing more volume than it would contain when melted.

That is why whenever some "doom and gloom" type starts to talking frantically about some new massive chunk that had broken off of the Antarctic Ice Shelf and how that is going to impact ocean levels I just laugh. It already did that tens of thousands of years ago simply by existing and resting on the ocean. Just as the Arctic Ice Cap can grow or shrink, it will have absolutely no effect at all on ocean levels because any growth or shrinkage is covered by the displacement so is a net effect of absolutely zero.

The ocean levels only rise or fall in relationship to the amount of ice sequestered or melted from the ground.

Want to see how this works for yourself? Fill a glass with ice, then add water until it is to the very rim. Then set it down and let it melt. And like magic, the water in the glass will be at the exact same level once the ice melts as it was when it was frozen.

And this is not anything "new", this has been understood for over 2,260 years.