rigorousintuition.ca

.
There can be no "payoff" if the alternative energy simply cannot run efficiently, and certainly not at scale, without reliance on traditional sources of fuel/energy.
I have seen no tangible near or long-term (actually achievable) scenarios or tech that can operate solar, wind or EV at scale without ANY carbon-based/traditional fuel source requirements for their manufacture, or to support their ability to operate, and also to ensure long-term maintenance.
(And then there's the issue with proper disposal/recycling and other factors touched on in the prior link I shared Re: solar panels, etc).
With respect to solar, wind and EV being produced, operated and maintained without the aid of ANY carbon-based fuels/energy: Is there anything tangible out there other than rhetoric, models, or 'hope'?
(Right now this alternative energy tech can NOT operate at scale on its own, even in its limited current usage).

My reasons for questioning and not subscribing to the notions of CO2 levels as a key factor in "climate change" -- and further, that it's human activities causing it as a primary factor-- are not limited to whatever NASA's position is on this topic. As with any topic, it's a function of assessing available data, information, and talking points across perspectives, over time.


The factors involved in climate fluctuations are myriad. Models have been wrong as predictors. Many scientists acknowledge manifold and currently unexplainable factors involved in the root causes for weather fluctuations over time. The front-facing reasons and justifications for "climate change" mitigation measures (which all involve curbing fundamental rights, more control by centralized power, and less autonomy for the commoners) do not have merit, in my view.

Appeals to the "collective good" can only work when the proclaimed "ills" are valid/confirmed, and the proposed solutions have actual, demonstrable benefit. Neither is the case with these "climate alarm" measures (The same M.O. was applied, to great success, from 2020 - 2022 Re: covid. The illness was not nearly as dire as predicted/proclaimed, and the so-called "solutions"/"mitigation measures" caused ONLY net harms to most and immense transfer of wealth and power to the very few. These covid policy harms continue to reverberate today and for years to come).

There's much more to it than this, as I've already articulated throughout this thread, though my position has evolved over time and may well continue to do so.

With respect to the following: "using petroleum as a raw material isn't an issue; burning it is":

What are the core objectives of "net zero"? Does Net Zero differentiate between the use of petroleum/hydrocarbons for fuel vs manufacture of products?
And: wouldn't the extraction of petroleum utilized for purposes other than as a source of fuel (i.e. "burning it") also involve processes that would cause emissions?

Bickering on Twitter Re: CO2 levels.

Willis Eschenbach
@WEschenbach
·
Apr 22

People keep claiming that CO2 levels are the "highest in history" and that they are an "existential crisis".

Madness.

We are at the very lowest CO2 levels in history. Modern organisms, including mammals, evolved when CO2 levels were much higher than today.



.....

Tom Plesier
@TomPlesier
·

Noone claims that.

CO2 levels are on the peak for atleast the past 2M years and continue to rise as long as we burn fossil fuels.

We now have added 150% the mass of all life in CO2 up our atmosphere.

.....

Willis Eschenbach
@WEschenbach

"150% of the mass of all life" sure sounds impressive … but it's not. Here's the relative change. Click on the graphic to enlarge so you can see the tiny change.

Perhaps that impresses you. Me, not so much.



.....

Tom Plesier
@TomPlesier
·
Quite misleading.

This is what 421ppm is out of 1m particles. Welcome to a three dimentional world Ellis.



.....

Willis Eschenbach
@WEschenbach

Sorry, that's simply not correct. The graphic is 717 x 1351 pixels, just under a million pixels.

It should have ~ 420 dots the size of the smallest dots in the graphic.

Instead, it has 1000s, including big globs that represent lots of pixels.

Here's 420 pixels/1000.

PS—It's "Willis", thanks.


.....

https://twitter.com/WEschenbach/status/ ... 14017?s=20

______________________

Belligerent Savant » 24 Apr 2023 12:52 wrote:.

Joe: your link does not 'prove' that 'climate change' is the cause of the recent increase in fires in Australia. Let alone the wild leap that it's due to human-caused (anthropogenic) climate change. Indeed, there is no proof of human activities directly impacting climate to the point of ALARM outside of models, rhetoric, and/or interpretations of data.

Regardless, if you pay attention to the words I've typed here the last several pages, you'll see that my argument was never that there is no climate change or fluctuations of climate over time. I am not disputing this point. My core issues are with the notion of 'climate ALARM'; that climate change is primarily or even scondarily caused by human-related energy/fuel usage, and I strongly rebuke ANY/ALL climate-related "solutions" offered by most 1st world govts, WEF, Gates, etc. These 'solutions' are part of ongoing efforts to control & subjugate populations while also reaping immense profits for the very few. Needless to say, none of these solutions will actually improve or positively impact fluctuating climate conditions. How can anyone here defend such "solutions"? They are indefensible.

So the city of Lismore in NSW, the city I used to regularly use is still not rebuilt after serious floods. That city has had four "one in a thousand year" floods in the last 13 years. A levy was built based on the most serious flooding ever in over 100 years and iuts failed twice because of the seriousness of those floods. Everyone affected by this is alarmed by climate change.

And here you are telling those people not to be.

Obviously the fires are driven by fire weather - ie conditions that promote fire. This means very low relative humidity, high curing of fuels, high temperatures and strong winds. Serious fire weather (ie days of severe, extreme or catastrophic fire conditions) happens more frequently than it used to. So obviously some sort of climate change is driving that.

CO2 absorbs directional heat and then radiates it in every direction. CO2 is also increasing in concentration in the atmosphere. The most obvious source of CO2 is fossil fuel emissions tho other things like volcanos contribute. The increases in observable temperature correlate to increases in CO2 in the atmosphere. There are satellite readings showing that the planets heat emissions are lower in the band of wavelengths absorbed and emitted by CO2. If you want people to take what you are saying seriously find another mechanism that explains the heat increase while accounting for CO2 emissions not doing anything.

Produce measurable evidence that we can check and make our mind up explaining the other process you are talking about. If the sun is hotter show its increase in emissions and do the math showing how they would heat the earth by the amount its heated. If its the earth's core do the same. Also do it in your own words so we understand that you get what you are talking about and are not just [arroting things that other people have said that you don't really understand. None of what you post does that to this point.

None of this would matter if we are talking about something trivial but we aren't.

Where I live we have had ongoing climate disasters for the whole century. They are getting worse ie the floods and fires are more intense. The drought's are longer and drier and the heat waves we get are hotter and last for days, weeks or even months (as happened in central and western NSW during the summer of 2018/19.) These are the worst weather events in the historical and pre historical/pre invasion record. Some of the fires we've had may end up being the worst fires in human history (but its impossible to measure that at this point.) They may have destroyed fire based ecologies that are 100,000s or millions of years old.

The year covid happened - 2020 - the sun didn't rise on the South East Coast of Australia on New Years Day cos there was too much smoke. (If that wasn't an omen about what came next I dunno what is either.)

The reason people are alarmed is that they are experiencing it all first hand, losing livelihoods and homes where they were always safe in the past etc etc. Extreme weather has destroyed food crops, national stock levels and cotton crops. This is in a country where we are used to fires and floods and have dealt with them since we got here. Its reasonable to be alarmed at the climate when the last two and a half decades have shown its basically out of control.

Belligerent Savant » Tue Apr 25, 2023 12:29 am wrote:Bickering on Twitter Re: CO2 levels.

<Edited for space and sanity.>

This is just idiotic. No one has claimed that CO2 levels are the highest ever. They are the highest they have been in human history. Big difference. Why do people keep bringing up the distant past and things that happened literally tens or hundreds of millions of years ago, as if it's in any way relevant to what's going on today?

Belligerent Savant » Mon Apr 24, 2023 10:44 pm wrote:.
There can be no "payoff" if the alternative energy simply cannot run efficiently, and certainly not at scale, without reliance on traditional sources of fuel/energy.
I have seen no tangible near or long-term (actually achievable) scenarios or tech that can operate solar, wind or EV at scale without ANY carbon-based/traditional fuel source requirements for their manufacture, or to support their ability to operate, and also to ensure long-term maintenance.
(And then there's the issue with proper disposal/recycling and other factors touched on in the prior link I shared Re: solar panels, etc).
With respect to solar, wind and EV being produced, operated and maintained without the aid of ANY carbon-based fuels/energy: Is there anything tangible out there other than rhetoric, models, or 'hope'?
(Right now this alternative energy tech can NOT operate at scale on its own, even in its limited current usage).

Who said there will be no carbon-based fuels involved whatsoever? That's right, no one. You're creating a straw-man and building your argument on top. Please stop.

My reasons for questioning and not subscribing to the notions of CO2 levels as a key factor in "climate change" -- and further, that it's human activities causing it as a primary factor-- are not limited to whatever NASA's position is on this topic. As with any topic, it's a function of assessing available data, information, and talking points across perspectives, over time.

Speaking of NASA, have you looked at that study yet? I know, I know, the link was to an article about it posted on a NASA site, but the study itself isn't by NASA.

The factors involved in climate fluctuations are myriad. Models have been wrong as predictors. Many scientists acknowledge manifold and currently unexplainable factors involved in the root causes for weather fluctuations over time. The front-facing reasons and justifications for "climate change" mitigation measures (which all involve curbing fundamental rights, more control by centralized power, and less autonomy for the commoners) do not have merit, in my view.

You keep saying the same damn thing over and over again, and it keeps being wrong. No matter how many times I point out your errors you just ignore them and any evidence I post and keep on going. The models have not been wrong, something you would know if you took the time to educate yourself instead of having hysterical fits about NASA. Go look at that study that shows the models were accurate, and then criticize the study if you want (and by criticize I don't mean: it's posted to a NASA site and NASA lied about the Moon landings fifty years ago, ergo it's all lies. QED), but for the love of Zod, stop just proclaiming something isn't true without any evidence to back up your claims.

And no, "many scientists" do not "acknowledge manifold and currently unexplainable factors involved in the root causes for weather fluctuations ( ) over time", that's just you talking shit again. The overwhelming majority are all saying the exact same thing: global warming is real and we're responsible for it. Take out human emissions and the temperature line is flat. There are no unexplainable factors involved, natural variations are accounted for and make no difference.

Appeals to the "collective good" can only work when the proclaimed "ills" are valid/confirmed, and the proposed solutions have actual, demonstrable benefit. Neither is the case with these "climate alarm" measures (The same M.O. was applied, to great success, from 2020 - 2022 Re: covid. The illness was not nearly as dire as predicted/proclaimed, and the so-called "solutions"/"mitigation measures" caused ONLY net harms to most and immense transfer of wealth and power to the very few. These covid policy harms continue to reverberate today and for years to come).

Will you stop bringing up covid already? I'm so sick and tired of hearing about it in a thread that has nothing to do with it. Every single post you go on a long rant about it, as if what happened during the pandemic has any fucking relevance to what's been going on, and been measured, since the dawn of the industrial revolution. They're not the same thing. Jesus.

There's much more to it than this, as I've already articulated throughout this thread, though my position has evolved over time and may well continue to do so.

With respect to the following: "using petroleum as a raw material isn't an issue; burning it is":

What are the core objectives of "net zero"? Does Net Zero differentiate between the use of petroleum/hydrocarbons for fuel vs manufacture of products?
And: wouldn't the extraction of petroleum utilized for purposes other than as a source of fuel (i.e. "burning it") also involve processes that would cause emissions?

Net zero is concerned with the emissions from burning fossil fuels, of course the burning part is relevant. Net zero doesn't mean no emissions or no petroleum products whatsoever (there's a big hint in the first word). There will always be some emissions from things we can't, or don't want to spend the money on converting to emission free sources.

Edit: typo

.

I'm not "wrong" because you say I'm wrong.

You rely on very selective datapoints. You apply a highly biased perspective when assessing the information shared here, or otherwise never address it directly, or otherwise deflect. Of course you'll claim I do the same.

The bottom line, in simplest terms -- and which you continue to avoid addressing directly -- is that all of the currently proposed "solutions" or "mitigations" offered by these entities (WEF, Gates, WHO, most 1st world govts, etc.) for "imminent climate change" will, in fact, if carried out as planned, dramatically curtail and restrict the fundamental rights, agency and autonomy of the majority of everyday humans (commoners) WHILE ALSO massively increasing the wealth and power of the very few.
(And, for a variety of reasons touched on in the content shared here and elsewhere, will likely NOT mitigate or lessen "climate change")

Unless you clearly articulate otherwise, it appears that you essentially subscribe to the measures as prescribed by the entities mentioned in my prior paragraph. The mere fact the above entities are actively and heavily invested in these "solutions" should cause you -- and all those of your ilk -- to minimally pause and reflect rather than double down.

In this sense, it is VERY MUCH EXACTLY like the gameplan employed for the "covid crisis", whether you'd like to accept it or not. The parallels are clear and GERMANE (and, perhaps: they are both incremental phases of an over-arching paradigm shift in more overt forms of control/propaganda/conditioning tactics. The timetables seem to have escalated).

"Imminent Climate Change" and the proposed measures to "combat" this manufactured crisis is a clear SCAM. Just as the "covid crisis" was/is.

Any sober assessment will make this apparent, or should minimally raise concerns.

You can, of course, continue to insist your position is the "correct" one --- clearly, you've invested significant time and energy on this topic (and perhaps other investments as well). You won't be changing course at this point. You are free to proceed as you deem fit, as any of us are (though some of us may have greater obstacles to face than others depending on the extent our positions/actions run counter to over-arching objectives. Millions, for example, lost their jobs & livelihoods due to non-science, draconian policies that were enforced for much of 2021-2022).

Models have been wrong and will continue to be wrong, regardless of how many times you stamp your feet and insist otherwise (Models have been very wrong on covid, and models have been very wrong on climate -- by way of 2 examples). Keep to your echo chamber. But NOTE: the voices against current dogma/dominant talking points Re: "climate change" are growing louder and more voluminous. This trend will continue. The silver lining in the egregious lies told since 2020 is that it has awakened a growing percentage of people (Voices against the dominant narratives Re: "climate alarms" ALSO include legit scientists and environmentalists, despite your continued efforts to downplay this, or claim they are compromised. A subset may well be compromised, but the same could be said for your precious scientists on the "climate alarm" side).

As we observe throughout history: consensus is FAR from a measure of how valid a given claim is. Indeed, more often than not, CONSENSUS is FLAWED, demonstrably. Consensus was WRONG on Covid; they are WRONG on "Climate Change" (...there is no longer a majority consensus on the initial covid narratives -- they are now shifting talking points and moving goalposts, just as there is lessening consensus on the "climate change" narratives, irrespective of attempts to suggest otherwise).

So, let's just agree to disagree, yeh? Keep to your static position while I continue to evolve mine. There is no continued value in this back and forth here (though there is valuable content to sift through among some of the petty squabbles of the last several pages. Petty squabbles are generally expected in any 'discussion forum' topic, though the frequency of noise vs signal will vary per topic, and participants).

You continue to do you. I will do the same.

I'll end this missive with a few images -- some of which I already shared, but are worth sharing again, since they call out multiple elephants in a room that the pro "net zero" crowd increasingly strain to ignore. These images represent mere samplings of the inherent flaws Re: "net zero" AND any delusional/fantastical notions of a "payoff" in the years ahead. My bet is that few, if any, of the manufacturing/supply chain processes will ever be able to be 'offset' as ALL current "clean" tech/solutions are NOT "clean" -- certainly not as advertised in commercials or by govts -- and won't get to a "clean" state using current tech. AND: there is NO revolutionary tech on the horizon that will solve for this.

ALL MOOT, ANYWAY, AS HUMANS ARE NOT A DOMINANT FACTOR IN CURRENT CLIMATE FLUCTUATIONS.
This is my current position -- subject to tweaking over time, as it has been -- but the passage of time has only made this position clearer to me. Time has a way of strengthening or weakening positions, so we shall see how the above CAPS FONT claim will hold over time.

Belligerent Savant » Wed Apr 26, 2023 5:36 pm wrote:.

I'm not "wrong" because you say I'm wrong.

Of course not, you're wrong because all the evidence says you are.

You rely on very selective datapoints. You apply a highly biased perspective when assessing the information shared here, or otherwise never address it directly, or otherwise deflect. Of course you'll claim I do the same.

No, I rely on science and observations. You're the one relying on selective data points, which basically boils down to random blogs, tweets, declarations, class notes, and anything else that tells you what you want to hear as long as it's not actual science.

The bottom line, in simplest terms -- and which you continue to avoid addressing directly -- is that all of the currently proposed "solutions" or "mitigations" offered by these entities (WEF, Gates, WHO, most 1st world govts, etc.) for "imminent climate change" will, in fact, if carried out as planned, dramatically curtail and restrict the fundamental rights, agency and autonomy of the majority of everyday humans (commoners) WHILE ALSO massively increasing the wealth and power of the very few.
(And, for a variety of reasons touched on in the content shared here and elsewhere, will likely NOT mitigate or lessen "climate change")

Unless you clearly articulate otherwise, it appears that you essentially subscribe to the measures as prescribed by the entities mentioned in my prior paragraph. The mere fact the above entities are actively and heavily invested in these "solutions" should cause you -- and all those of your ilk -- to minimally pause and reflect rather than double down.

I've made it abundantly clear what I think of Gates, WEF and company. My issue all along has been your denial of the basic science, not the fuckery Schwab and friends are up to. Unless we change our entire system overnight those fuckers aren't going anywhere, so we have to deal with the problem while working around them as best we can. That of course requires us to recognize that there is a problem to begin with, something you seem to be struggling with.

In this sense, it is VERY MUCH EXACTLY like the gameplan employed for the "covid crisis", whether you'd like to accept it or not. The parallels are clear and GERMANE (and, perhaps: they are both incremental phases of an over-arching paradigm shift in more overt forms of control/propaganda/conditioning tactics. The timetables seem to have escalated).

"Imminent Climate Change" and the proposed measures to "combat" this manufactured crisis is a clear SCAM. Just as the "covid crisis" was/is.

Any sober assessment will make this apparent, or should minimally raise concerns.

But you haven't made a sober assessment. You've consistently refused to even look at the science, unless it's a paper you misunderstood and thought was saying something you agreed with, like the one about the multi-decadal oscillations, or when you were crowing over one day of snowfall on Greenland, thinking it was relevant to climate change.

You can, of course, continue to insist your position is the "correct" one --- clearly, you've invested significant time and energy on this topic (and perhaps other investments as well). You won't be changing course at this point. You are free to proceed as you deem fit, as any of us are (though some of us may have greater obstacles to face than others depending on the extent our positions/actions run counter to over-arching objectives. Millions, for example, lost their jobs & livelihoods due to non-science, draconian policies that were enforced for much of 2021-2022).

Unlike you, yes, I have in fact spent a good deal of time informing and educating myself on the topic. You should do the same.

Models have been wrong and will continue to be wrong, regardless of how many times you stamp your feet and insist otherwise (Models have been very wrong on covid, and models have been very wrong on climate -- by way of 2 examples). Keep to your echo chamber. But NOTE: the voices against current dogma/dominant talking points Re: "climate change" are growing louder and more voluminous. This trend will continue. The silver lining in the egregious lies told since 2020 is that it has awakened a growing percentage of people (Voices against the dominant narratives Re: "climate alarms" ALSO include legit scientists and environmentalists, despite your continued efforts to downplay this, or claim they are compromised. A subset may well be compromised, but the same could be said for your precious scientists on the "climate alarm" side).

So you still haven't looked at the research showing the models being accurate then? Also, fucking hell, covid did a number on your head. You've become incapable of seeing anything outside of that lens. SNAP OUT OF IT MAN!

As we observe throughout history: consensus is FAR from a measure of how valid a given claim is. Indeed, more often than not, CONSENSUS is FLAWED, demonstrably. Consensus was WRONG on Covid; they are WRONG on "Climate Change" (...there is no longer a majority consensus on the initial covid narratives -- they are now shifting talking points and moving goalposts, just as there is lessening consensus on the "climate change" narratives, irrespective of attempts to suggest otherwise).

There is not a lessening on the climate change narrative. Where the hell did you get that from? The scientists have never been more sure, no matter what your Twitter echo chamber tells you.

So, let's just agree to disagree, yeh? Keep to your static position while I continue to evolve mine. There is no continued value in this back and forth here (though there is valuable content to sift through among some of the petty squabbles of the last several pages. Petty squabbles are generally expected in any 'discussion forum' topic, though the frequency of noise vs signal will vary per topic, and participants).

You continue to do you. I will do the same.

Oh no, I'm keeping to my position despite the increasing mountain of evidence telling me It's the correct one. Whatever will I do? I better change my mind to the exact opposite position so I don't appear to be static in my thinking. That'll show'em what a fine, independent mind I have!

Jesus Christ.

I'll end this missive with a few images -- some of which I already shared, but are worth sharing again, since they call out multiple elephants in a room that the pro "net zero" crowd increasingly strain to ignore. These images represent mere samplings of the inherent flaws Re: "net zero" AND any delusional/fantastical notions of a "payoff" in the years ahead. My bet is that few, if any, of the manufacturing/supply chain processes will ever be able to be 'offset' as ALL current "clean" tech/solutions are NOT "clean" -- certainly not as advertised in commercials or by govts -- and won't get to a "clean" state using current tech. AND: there is NO revolutionary tech on the horizon that will solve for this.

ALL MOOT, ANYWAY, AS HUMANS ARE NOT A DOMINANT FACTOR IN CURRENT CLIMATE FLUCTUATIONS.
This is my current position -- subject to tweaking over time, as it has been -- but the passage of time has only made this position clearer to me. Time has a way of strengthening or weakening positions, so we shall see how the above CAPS FONT claim will hold over time.

That your position (on the science) is reinforced by more and more evidence contradicting it isn't something to be proud of. That's how fundamentalists operate.

There is clearly a difference between what is actually happening - ie actual human caused global warming

and the response to it - ie greenwashing and other bullshit.

But Belsav has somehow got confused about these two things and thinks they are the same thing. They clearly aren't.

Everything you are posting is economic propaganda for the current system BS. Every single thing. Every single one of those posts maintains and defends the status quo that supported the lockdowns and mandates you continually use as evidence for the wrongness of the status quo.

You are trapped in a shell game and its because fundamentally you believe in the modern, neo liberal economic project.

If you didn't you'd quit your job and go off grid or become some sort of criminal.

“Never believe that anti-Semites climate change skeptics are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti-Semites climate change skeptics have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past.”

- Sartre

Joe Hillshoist » Fri Apr 28, 2023 1:04 am wrote:There is clearly a difference between what is actually happening - ie actual human caused global warming

and the response to it - ie greenwashing and other bullshit.

Yes.

.
Replying only to the last reply — I may return later to view the other comments, but specific to Joe’s quoted bit directly above: I fully agree. Yes, of course there is a difference. I’ve indicated as such numerous times.

BUT: my position at the moment is also that human-based CO2 emissions are not a dominant factor in climate fluctuations. I have reservations with the dominant narrative blarings that CO2 levels are a primary factor in warming, given that, historically, WELL BEFORE human industry and/or humans, there were much higher levels of CO2 (and ice ages during those periods of much higher CO2), and many species & mammals thrived. Throughout the history of the earth, there have been many other fluctuations over time (of temps and CO2 levels) well before humans and/or their emissions came into play.

I understand the ALARMISTS are deeply concerned about the fate of the precious humans (or is it that many 'climate alarm' proponents are concerned about the negative impact to their comfortable largely well-appointed livelihoods?). And this is how control works so well. Through fear. While there may well be natural and/or climate based threats we’ll face, the fear is largely unwarranted, or perhaps more accurately: misplaced.

As we’ve observed since the dawn of modern man, the biggest threat to humans is humans with power, unchecked.
Such threats have now markedly escalated, demonstrably.

Re: current CO2 levels:
Is there a clear calculus/assessment that does the following:

1. Demonstrates the current percentage of CO2 due mostly by human activities/breathing;
2. Demonstrate the current percentage of CO2 due to non-human factors (which will be much higher in percentage);
3. Make a compelling case that the human contribution to current CO2 levels is a clear and dominant factor in climate fluctuations, without relying on models.
4. As an added exercise: out of the CO2 emitted by humans: what is the percentage emitted by everyday/commoner activities vs emissions by the ultra-wealthy (such as yearly private Jet emissions, etc) and also emissions by large-scale multinational corporations?

The anticipated response to point 4 should make clear that any attempts to solve for human-related emissions should never include dramatic curtailing or restricting everyday human activities, above and beyond reasonable measures to limit pollution/emissions.

That said, to repeat: my current position is that CO2 levels alone are not key drivers in climate shifts, and even if this premise is partially or wholly incorrect, current ‘green’ initiatives and ‘clean’ tech as promoted by govts/WEF/Gates will NOT solve or ‘fix’ whatever climate issues are actually in play (nor are they ‘clean’ or ‘Green’ as advertised).

And all of the above are separate and apart from the very real issues regarding pollution and waste, which include plastics polluting our environment and the pervasive indiscriminate use of harmful pesticides, among many other related examples. THESE are the environmentalist causes that should be the focus.

Too many are being misdirected and misled on this topic.

Environmental knowledge is inversely associated with climate change anxiety

Abstract

This study tests the hypotheses that overall environmental knowledge and climate-specific knowledge are inversely related to climate change anxiety, such that people who know more (less) about the environment in general, and about climate in particular, are less (more) anxious about climate change. Time lagged data were collected from N = 2,066 individuals in Germany. Results showed that, even after controlling for demographic characteristics, personality characteristics, and environmental attitudes, overall environmental knowledge and climate-specific knowledge were negatively related to climate change anxiety (both B = -.09, p < .001).

1 Introduction


The British mathematician and philosopher Bertrand Russell (1872–1970) is quoted as saying, “The degree of one’s emotions varies inversely with one’s knowledge of the facts, the less you know the hotter you get.” Consistent with this idea, we report the results of a study that tested the hypotheses that overall environmental knowledge and climate-specific knowledge are negatively related to climate change anxiety. The rationale for investigating these relationships is that climate change anxiety may be reduced through interventions that enhance environmental knowledge. Environmental knowledge refers to the body of acquired facts and learned expertise in the environmental domain (including climate; Geiger et al. 2019). Climate change anxiety involves people’s self-reported negative emotional responses associated with their awareness of climate change (Clayton 2020). Accordingly, the measure used in this study assesses responses such as worrying and distress, reduced well-being, as well as concentration and sleep difficulties due to people’s thoughts about climate change (Clayton and Karazsia 2020). Compared to more constructive forms of worrying about global warming that result in adaptive responses (e.g., Verplanken et al. 2020), it seems desirable to reduce climate change anxiety because it has been shown to have detrimental consequences for people’s general health and well-being, including higher levels of depression, anxiety, and distress (Schwartz et al. 2022; Searle and Gow 2010).

...

https://link.springer.com/article/10.10 ... 23-03518-z

VIDEO THREAD: Climate activists blocked the GW Parkway into DC on Wednesday morning during rush hour to demand President Biden declare a "climate emergency" and cancel new fossil fuel drilling.

"I have an interview today, are you serious?" yelled one angry driver, who said she's unemployed. "That's not fair! This is the wrong way to go about it!"

"So I'm supposed to be unemployed again? If I miss this interview, what's gonna happen to my family?"

[VIDEO At Link]

7:16 PM · Apr 27, 2023 -- 254.2K Views

https://twitter.com/FordFischer/status/ ... 47168?s=20

.

The following is commentary from an associate of mine who I've come to respect and admire for their articulate and thoughtful takes over the last ~3yrs. I asked for their thoughts on current "climate change" issues. Their 'free association' response is below, which I share here as an added perspective by a former "Bernie Bro".

Back when I was a brainless lefty Bernie supporter, I bought into the idea that CO2 emissions were driving climate change and something needed to be done or else all life on the planet was at risk. But it was never the most important thing to me, which was a tell that I didn't really believe it (wouldn't the potential near term end of life on the planet be the most important thing?). One time in like 2017 I was talking with a friend about it and I said something like "I don't actually know if the climate change stuff is real, I just take everyone's word for it", and he got really upset, like "no, there is no room for doubt here". Unsurprisingly, he would later turn into a lockdown fanatic and is jabbed and boosted to hell. It's clear to me now that "scientific consensus" can be fabricated by powerful forces to suit their own agendas, and so the idea of "scientific consensus" no longer carries any weight for me at all. Nobody knows how gravity works or what cancer really is, so I have my doubts about their computer models predicting the next millennium of the earth's climate.

Obviously the "climate change" narrative is being pushed by the wealthiest people in the world, and obviously they are not in fact motivated to improve the lives of the masses, but are trying to arrange for a world in which they have total control over entire populations. The drastic changes to human society they claim are needed to address CO2 emissions make that dream a reality. Whether or not it would affect the global climate, I don't know or care.

One thing i've come to realize is that CO2 emissions correlate pretty neatly with quality of life. Pollution and so on are important issues, but the more carbon a society "emits", the better off its people are. A "net zero" society is a feudal society.

I think there are three main reasons the average man today lives better than lords of the middle ages: democracy, capitalism (I mean normal capitalism, like people starting their own businesses, not this grotesque monopoly tech dystopia), and fossil fuels. All three are being attacked under the guise of science. Power is making a major, epochal move to arrest the progress that ordinary people have made over the last few centuries, and re-establish total control. Sorry for being long winded but that's my thoughts on the matter.

Lastly, i'm in Miami and the shoreline hasn't moved an inch since they started building the city. It's exactly where it's always been. The older I get, the more I notice that the things I was told were inevitable have not, in fact, happened.

^^^
Exactly what I've highly suspected all along. Scam ass politicians fear mongering. I've long been of the George Carlin variety of environmentalist:


Of course there are corporations/non profit whose soul purpose is to protect us and the environment from toxic polluters whom do the opposite!

Addendum:
Of course these motherfucker's are playing with the weather. With our neolithic emotions and our God like technology as EO Wilson says.

.
That's a great Carlin clip -- I recall when it was initially aired and being a bit put off by the stark cynicism in his overall sentiment, even though it was brilliantly executed/crafted. Today it resonates more for me, to the point that my 2nd paragraph a couple postings ago upthread echoed some of his commentary.

Later in his life his routine focused a bit more on a specific category of humans. Those in the "big club". As I indicated upthread:

the biggest threat to humans is humans with power, unchecked.

This bit is particularly prescient, except it's become global -- not merely tied to the U.S.: