rigorousintuition.ca

These people, who are not music-video producers turned politicians, probably have some idea what they're talking about:
https://www.drovers.com/news/beef-produ ... atest-look

It could of course have been something else (but what? I notice he doesn't supply any plausible alternative, or any alternative at all. Probably communists), but it really doesn't sound that far-fetched. Drought, then rain that creates humidity, followed by a heat wave. Cattle have more trouble dumping excess heat than humans, and they can't go inside and sleep with the AC blasting.

Anecdotally, I've worked in similar conditions with extreme heat and humidity, and I'm pretty sure if I'd just sat down outside with no shade for a few hours in the middle of the day I would have ended up in the hospital or worse. Nighttime temps hovered around 90F. My co-workers working outside were practically taking turns getting sick from the heat. It's absolutely brutal.

.
Are you comparing yourself to cattle as a way to explain a way this development? If confirmed, 10,000+ cattle. DEAD.




Right until the very end, they will keep maintaining the illusion.

A few thousand out of 6.3 million. In a heatwave. If heatwaves can kill people, why not cattle?

Who are they, and what illusion?

Belligerent Savant » 17 Jun 2022 00:45 wrote:.

and further, that 'climate change' is not the imminent threat they proclaim it to be. Indeed, the 'imminent threat' narrative serves in part to further agendas principally to benefit the very few at the expense of the many.

Where I live it is. In Australia Climate Change has been causing the worst and most extreme weather on record for over a decade. It has interfered with crop production and droughts, floods, heat and humidity have caused the national stock herd numbers to drop.

This has been happening since the late 00s.

20 years ago the city of Lismore built a levee that would have coped with the worst historical floods on record. Its been breached twice in five years.

Three times cos it was breached twice in under a month early this year.

Don't bother. I've been banging this drum for over a decade here already, and it's still not penetrating. Never mind that we're breaking heat records left and right all over the world with new records every year, that both poles are tens of degrees warmer than usual, that once in a century fires, droughts and floods now happen every few years, etc. People who are still in denial will never admit to being wrong, it's too big a part of their identity as professional skeptics who, unlike everyone else, see through all the bs, except for the decades of oil industry propaganda and disinfo, which they dutifully lap up like the good little soldiers that they are. If they personally can't see or feel it it isn't real, and on the rare occasion they notice, it's something else causing it. Probably "them", for "reasons".

That's why it couldn't possibly be the heat that killed all that cattle. The cognitive dissonance would be too great.

Joe Hillshoist » Sat Jun 18, 2022 6:56 pm wrote:

Belligerent Savant » 17 Jun 2022 00:45 wrote:.

and further, that 'climate change' is not the imminent threat they proclaim it to be. Indeed, the 'imminent threat' narrative serves in part to further agendas principally to benefit the very few at the expense of the many.

Where I live it is. In Australia Climate Change has been causing the worst and most extreme weather on record for over a decade. It has interfered with crop production and droughts, floods, heat and humidity have caused the national stock herd numbers to drop.

This has been happening since the late 00s.

20 years ago the city of Lismore built a levee that would have coped with the worst historical floods on record. Its been breached twice in five years.

Based on what data can these weather patterns be attributed directly to "climate change" as currently presented to the public, versus a number of factors not attributable directly to consumption/energy usage by regular/average human beings (vs. large-scale corporate and/or wealthy-class usage) as the primary/sole factor?

You saying it's because of "da climate change" doesn't make it so.

Once more: I'm not arguing that climate change isn't real. My primary issues are that the reasons for it are myriad and I'm skeptical that lockdowns and other hard restrictions/measures inflicted on populations at large -- while the uber-wealthy and large corporations largely get by via loopholes or other escape routes -- will have any real positive impact on current trends.

I also have minimal confidence current "green" tech offers sustainable solutions, or that managed/resourceful usage of traditional energy sources would create 'imminent' harms.

.
Related:

Yellen argued that the best way to address the energy crisis in the "medium-term" is to transition the country off of fossil fuels.

That's a thermodynamic impossibility within the current realm of knowledge. In short: You can't.

To make an EV battery you must dig up 500,000 lbs. of earth. For one battery. Which has a service life, after which it must be replaced. Which has no current means of economically recycling the components either, so unless you'd like the price of the pack to wildly exceed the crazy levels it is at now you will throw the old away and buy another one with another half-million pounds of earth dug up. All of which are dug up, transported and processed using fossil fuels because there is no other rational way to do so.

Renewables in the form of wind and solar require these fossil fuel inputs, as do storage batteries. Because the energy they produce is uncertain, that is the sun does not always shine and the wind does not always blow, you can never guarantee how much output you will have from them even if you could somehow resolve the fossil fuel requirement for creating the panels, concrete and blades for the windmills, and rare earth materials you must dig out of the ground and refine to make them. For this reason the energy they produce will always fluctuate wildly in price simply due to fluctuations in supply.

If you build "enough" that you're comfortable you will not be short there will be times there is so much supply the price is zero and the economic incentive to build them will likewise be zero. At any build-out less than this there will be times when you demand it but can't have it. Of course the time when you demand it and can't have it will be at the most inconvenient time of all, typically when its freezing-butt cold or broiling hot.

Look at the price of these things and the fossil alternatives over long periods of time. Natural gas has seen wild spikes in both directions in price. So has wind power, solar and similar. There are only two that do not over our history of use: Coal and fission-based nuclear.

It doesn't matter one bit whether you like any of this or not. These are facts and unless you want a power bill that varies by 400% or more (natural gas has seen price variations of ten times or more in reasonably recent history) you are out of your mind to not build the base demand capacity out of things that do not have that fluctuation and aren't dependent on those that do.

This isn't complicated. Yellen famously said that inflation was "transitory" not all that long ago -- about a year back -- when she was arguing for, and implementing, the next round of wild money-printing after Trump did it too and I remind you that she has now been proved to be completely full of crap.

Now she's doing it again and if you let her and this Administration get away with it I hope you are ok with the wild price spikes and shortages, up to and including black-outs, that these policies will lead to.

https://market-ticker.org/

Belligerent Savant » Tue Jun 21, 2022 1:59 pm wrote: Once more: I'm not arguing that climate change isn't real. My primary issues are that the reasons for it are myriad and I'm skeptical that lockdowns and other hard restrictions/measures inflicted on populations at large -- while the uber-wealthy and large corporations largely get by via loopholes or other escape routes -- will have any real positive impact on current trends.

I also have minimal confidence current "green" tech offers sustainable solutions, or that managed/resourceful usage of traditional energy sources would create 'imminent' harms.

To expand on this further, though I've already touched on this via prior comments here: I strongly suspect we're being led towards solutions that will be a net detriment to the average human, and will include limitations on movement, commerce, and other related customs previously taken for granted, all under the ostensible guise of (imminent) climate change mitigation. I believe many in the environmental fields, and many average consumers, will sign on to this believing these measures to be for the benefit of the majority (ring any bells? "let's work together to combat [climate change]/[covid]/[racism]", etc.), when it will largely succeed only in curtailing essential liberties -- you know, "freedumbs", haha! -- to the great benefit of the very few.

And many of you -- self-described critical thinkers -- are swiftly moving right along with the programming without even blinking.

Based on what data can these weather patterns be attributed directly to "climate change" as currently presented to the public

This right here highlights your fundamental lack of understanding. The scientists aren't saying that this and that extreme weather was a direct consequence of climate change, but that the odds of those events happening are higher today because of climate change.

My primary issues are that the reasons for it are myriad and I'm skeptical that lockdowns and other hard restrictions/measures inflicted on populations at large -- while the uber-wealthy and large corporations largely get by via loopholes or other escape routes -- will have any real positive impact on current trends.

You would be wrong. Humans are responsible for close to 100% of the warming (more than 100% by some measures, if you count the cooling that should be happening). And who is talking about lockdowns and hard restrictions? You wouldn't be referring to the paper that popped up about how we will need to reduce our emissions as much as covid-lockdown reduced them every year? Because they weren't saying we should continue the lockdowns for the environment, but that we need an equivalent reduction. It was meant as a stark reminder of just how much we need to cut our emissions.

But let's say you're right, and there are other factors at play in the warming? So what? All that means is we're extra fucked because it's not caused by us, so there's probably nothing we can do about that part of the warming. We should still do everything we can to fight the part of the warming we're responsible for, because if you're right it's worse than we think.

[Duplicate]

DrEvil » Wed Jun 22, 2022 3:50 pm wrote:

Based on what data can these weather patterns be attributed directly to "climate change" as currently presented to the public

This right here highlights your fundamental lack of understanding. The scientists aren't saying that this and that extreme weather was a direct consequence of climate change, but that the odds of those events happening are higher today because of climate change.

There's often plenty of conflation there in the press and in general understandings. Of course climate change will cause fluctuations. The key issue here is what are the causes of this climate change, and will the currently proposed measures solve them -- and further, are the proposed govt measures (outside of a few exceptions, and of course excluding the earnest attempts by those with minimal net influence) primarily about solving this issue, i.e. getting to the root causes and exploring all options, apolitically?

No, they are not. And you'd be deeply naive -- especially now in 2022, given what we have observed recently -- to believe this.

DrEvil » Wed Jun 22, 2022 3:50 pm wrote:

My primary issues are that the reasons for it are myriad and I'm skeptical that lockdowns and other hard restrictions/measures inflicted on populations at large -- while the uber-wealthy and large corporations largely get by via loopholes or other escape routes -- will have any real positive impact on current trends.

You would be wrong. Humans are responsible for close to 100% of the warming (more than 100% by some measures, if you count the cooling that should be happening). And who is talking about lockdowns and hard restrictions? You wouldn't be referring to the paper that popped up about how we will need to reduce our emissions as much as covid-lockdown reduced them every year? Because they weren't saying we should continue the lockdowns for the environment, but that we need an equivalent reduction. It was meant as a stark reminder of just how much we need to cut our emissions.

But let's say you're right, and there are other factors at play in the warming? So what? All that means is we're extra fucked because it's not caused by us, so there's probably nothing we can do about that part of the warming. We should still do everything we can to fight the part of the warming we're responsible for, because if you're right it's worse than we think.

There is no fully reliable, 'guaranteed to be right' way to determine the extent of impact by humans. Too many variables that simply can't be fully accounted for or incorporated into analysis. "100%" is one of many fearporn narratives aimed to generate groupthink and compliance. Very successful campaign. That said: net human activity (primarily by corporate entities, large, multinational enterprises and govt-related campaigns) have caused harms to the environment, and may well be a primary reason for recent changes. I don't believe anyone can say that everyday humans are the primary culprits with certainty, despite blarings otherwise.

Also: applying the same value of impact -- that each human causes harms to the environment equally -- is just plain foolish. This is where people can be deeply misled. Most of the human-based damage is not caused by average everyday humans. Human based harms are caused by large-scale enterprise/multinational corporates and actions by govt entities, far more so than average humans driving their cars or drinking from plastic fucking straws -- especially if those humans are also wearing fucking masks with microplastics.

Why aren't adherents to these narratives clamoring to end mask usage given how much damage all these masks w/microplastics have ALREADY caused to the environment and wildlife? There is no environmentally friendly process in place to dispose of all these discarded masks across the globe.

When you type "We should still do everything we can to fight..." -- who's "we"? "We" are being conditioned/led to be passive, compliant consumers, and further, to accept the definition of "change" on their terms. The change that's truly needed is absolutely not the change the key drivers want implemented.

My core point here is to make an effort to assess the soundness of current, and potential soon to be proposed 'solutions' to current circumstances (and also properly vet the true efficiency of "green" tech and related solutions), and aim to determine the actual key drivers to flesh out how much of these plans may involve yet another attempt at control/power grabs, to put it in simple terms.

To operate, at this time in reality, under the assumption that all the big players/entities are proposing solutions to our collective benefit is simply naive at best.

There are direct parallels between the covid-19 M.O. perpetrated across the globe and the current 'climate change' campaigns.

The affronts to essential human rights (and let's not forget power/wealth expansion) have been more brazen and explicit since ~2020; all of us should operate with this as the foundational backdrop to all proposed govt/global solutions.

Part of the problem here is the limited hangout operations that are markedly more prominent and mainstream (and also modulated for the 'normies').

[Much of the next few paragraphs apply broadly to the everyday consumer of news, i.e. the majority of humans that apply relatively minimal discernment, regardless of their education level; the below wouldn't apply as much to those that don't routinely expose themselves to Cable News or 'online' News from Google or Facebook, etc.]

Just like covid has become deeply politicized: anyone that questions the dominant/official govt covid narratives are "Fox News" watchers, etc., so too, in the realm of 'climate change', those that question the narratives are associated with traditionally right-leaning and or news sources that outwardly proclaim to represent 'Right'/'conservative' perspectives. Of course, a fair amount of the objections to climate change-related topics will come from the Right/'Conservatives' by default, given current programming, etc.

Things get complicated when the questions raised are often tainted by mis/disinfo, which at this point is part of everyday news programming across mainstream & even a fair amount of 'alternative' political spectrums. (and who determines what is deemed to be mis/disinfo? Ah. The Biden Admin is attempting to tell a swath of Americans that they have a crack team ready to do just that).

And so, outlets like Fox News will be one of the few that will ostensibly appear to challenge many of the narratives [at least for now, with respect to Biden admin/related positions], but in many respects largely serve to poison wells and make it easier for those that self-identify as "liberals"/"leftists" (per mainstream understanding of these descriptors) to dismiss any counter without scrutiny. And of course, Fox News watchers will absorb whatever they see/hear with minimal filter or discernment, just as those that closely follow CNN, Google News, et al.

We all have our biases. But how many of us fully acknowledge this and at least attempt to course correct as we consider current events?

Here's an example (by yet another 'limited hangout for normies' publication - though Forbes is usually just straightforward Empire glorification) that references climate-based 'lockdowns'. I anticipate the likes of Fox News and other similar outlets have raised this topic as well, to help further divisions and confusion around this topic.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/carlieport ... 696b6a6dee

Report: World Needs Equivalent Of Pandemic Lockdown Every Two Years To Meet Paris Carbon Emission Goals
Carlie PorterfieldForbes Staff

The dramatic drop in global carbon emissions seen during the early days of the pandemic and global shutdowns would need to be matched every two years for the rest of the decade in order to meet the goals outlined in the Paris climate agreement, according to a new study, though the authors don't recommend that the world rely on “lockdowns” to help battle climate change.

KEY FACTS

Published in Nature Climate Change, the report found that carbon emissions fell by about 2.6 billion metric tons in 2020, or roughly a 7% drop from the previous year, a historic decrease.

However, researchers said further drops in carbon output—1 billion to 2 billion metric tons per year—are needed for global emissions to meet the safe worldwide temperature range defined by the Paris Agreement to dodge the effects of climate change.

....

I can hear the thoughts circling in some heads:

"...well yea, that would be reasonable. It's imminent climate change, folks! WE need to do something!"

[A few edits were made to structure of sentences -- and also to remove unnecessary filler. Though I imagine a few would consider most of my response little more than 'filler'/hot air. I can appreciate that notion. Sometimes I feel the same.]

Here's the difference: covid policies were implemented by governments immediately, while climate change action is being resisted by governments. They get together every few years and promise all kinds of shit, and then they go home and do none of it, repeatedly. Scientists have been telling us we need to take action for decades, but no one is on track to even meet the promises in cuts already made.

I can hear the thoughts circling in some heads:

"...well yea, that would be reasonable. It's imminent climate change, folks! WE need to do something!"

It's not imminent, the climate is changing right now, and anyone with two brain cells to rub together can see that.

There are direct parallels between the covid-19 M.O. perpetrated across the globe and the current 'climate change' campaigns.

What climate change campaigns are you talking about specifically, and what are the parallels?

I don't believe anyone can say that everyday humans are the primary culprits with certainty, despite blarings otherwise.

You can believe whatever you want, but reality disagrees. Sure, large industries are responsible for large amounts of the emissions, but why do you think those industries even exist? They create materials to build all the shit us regular folks use, like houses and highways, malls and office buildings, they grow/breed, process and transport the food we eat, they produce the energy we use to heat and cool our houses and work environments and power all our gadgets, etc. They exist because of us.

Report: World Needs Equivalent Of Pandemic Lockdown Every Two Years To Meet Paris Carbon Emission Goals

It's right there in the headline! Do you not understand what the word equivalent means?

I've asked you before what you think we should do, but I've yet to get a straight answer, so here I go again:

What, specifically, do you think we should do about climate change? What, if any, policies should we pursue? Should governments take action at all, and if so, what actions? And what actions/policies being pursued right now are wrong, and why?

Belligerent Savant » 22 Jun 2022 04:59 wrote:
Based on what data can these weather patterns be attributed directly to "climate change" as currently presented to the public, versus a number of factors not attributable directly to consumption/energy usage by regular/average human beings (vs. large-scale corporate and/or wealthy-class usage) as the primary/sole factor?

You saying it's because of "da climate change" doesn't make it so.

Once more: I'm not arguing that climate change isn't real. My primary issues are that the reasons for it are myriad and I'm skeptical that lockdowns and other hard restrictions/measures inflicted on populations at large -- while the uber-wealthy and large corporations largely get by via loopholes or other escape routes -- will have any real positive impact on current trends.

I also have minimal confidence current "green" tech offers sustainable solutions, or that managed/resourceful usage of traditional energy sources would create 'imminent' harms.

This has nothing to do with covid. Its a process we started by burning coal hundreds of years ago.

When I started writing fire permits in the 1990s our fire danger period started in October. Now it starts in September and since 2000 we've brought it in repeatedly in August and once in July. There are more days of severe fire danger or higher. Rainfall across Australia has fallen significantly across decades despite actual rainfall events bringing more rain per downpour. All of this stuff was predicted in the 1980s and early 90s. IE IF AGW is a thing we will see these events (increased fire danger, more, bigger fires, decreased rainfall etc etc) in the next 30 years and more.

I remember this, chose to look out for it and its happened.

Stable weather patterns are becoming unstable, periods of heat ie heatwaves are longer, more frequent and hotter. Rainfall events are more intense, more frequent where the tropics influence them, less frequent in the hotter dryer areas. What used to be ordinary tropical depression now exhibit clockwise movement inside the structure of the depression. Which means another degree or two of ocean heat and these depressions become cyclones/hurricanes. pretty sure I've documented some of these changes in the how bad is climate change thread, when I could be bothered. Cos what's the point?

I think even Penguin, a poster on this site, was working mapping the thawing of permafrost in his home country (Finland iirc) and posting results a decade ago or more.

Look you can think what you like frankly. It makes fuck all difference. If you're so oblivious that you can't see the changes in weather etc then nothing I say will change your mind and you should probably stop whinging about your national security state cos you obviously wouldn't survive without it.

Climate change is real and has been having increasingly bad effects on where I live for decades. The only contrarian evidence comes from sources funded by the fossil fuel industry and frankly I'm not interested in arguing about it. If you don't think its real fine. Be a fucken idiot. Its not my problem.

My problem is that climate change is real, fucked my finances this year as it has in previous years and continually causes weather events of increasing severity.

You saying it's because of "da climate change" doesn't make it so.

Like I said nothing will change your mind so think what you like. Your opinion is irrelevant anyway. Fuck data, get off your computer, go outside and spend some time in the fucken real world. Maybe you'll notice.

You'll be starving soon cos all that California food won't have a water source to keep it growing. You'll no doubt say its some Bill gates plot. But it isn't. There just isn't enough snow falling to fill Lake Mead. Hasn't been for years. Meanwhile more water gets dragged out of it to cover for the ongoing drought in the far west of your country. Like the song from Fallout New Vegas says - Something's gotta give.

Belligerent Savant » 22 Jun 2022 04:59 wrote: You saying it's because of "da climate change" doesn't make it so.

No it doesn't. Its got nothing to do with what I say.