Climate Change(d)?

[TSwizzle]

Even more unhinged;

A climate activist who died after setting himself on fire in front of the Supreme Court on Earth Day is a buddhist who hinted at his future self-immolation with a fire emoji under a Facebook post from 2020. Wynn Bruce, 50, of Boulder, Colorado, lit himself on fire on the court's plaza at around 6.30pm Friday. He suffered critical burns and was pronounced dead at a local hospital on Saturday.

Daily Mail

It really, really is a rapture like cult.

 

[bilby]

Daily Mail

It really, really is a rapture like cult.

I can't argue with that.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

* anthropogenic
* no

I'm curious what anthropomorphic global warming would be like. The Earth putting on a sweater?

 

[Politesse]

* anthropogenic
* no

I'm curious what anthropomorphic global warming would be like. The Earth putting on a sweater?

Mother Earth crying, beads of sweat rolling down her immense body, bringing floods and surges. Can you not hear her voice in the whistling winds, in the crashing seas? Her voice is anenome, it is terrapin, it is reed. "Help me," she calls out to you. "O help me, my children! for once thou wert birth'd of me in love, but now am I smothered neath thy weight. They have forgotten their mother, they who yet grasp greedily at her breast demanding her lifesblood for their milk."

 

[pood]

This is how unhinged the climate cultists are;

An Extinction Rebellion chief has been slammed for proposing to 'euthanise boomers' in retaliation for climate change. Environmental radical Jessica Townsend, 59, said 'rich boomers' would be the 'first to go' under her sick purge even though she herself is a so-called boomer.

Daily Mail

A rapture like cult.

The real cult is climate change denialism, of which you are a star member. But then, one must consider your signature, and it all makes sense.

 

[southernhybrid]

Because I still have quite a few NYTimes articles to "gift" this month, I'm going to offer a link that includes a huge amount of information about climate change. I doubt our climate science denier will read it, but it's available for anyone who has the time and desire to check it out.
One fact mentioned is that, as of now, 97% of climate scientists agree that climate change is real and that climate change is due to human activity. So, who ya gonna believe, 97% of the scientists that actually study climate change or TSwizzle?

nytimes.com/article/climate-change-global-warming-faq.html?unlocked_article_code=AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAACEIPuomT1JKd6J17Vw1cRCfTTMQmqxCdw_PIxfs1nGP_JyyYDj1GzuEcH4XF8EfEY6VuItQ32D6SQJpeOaUqRfp9i-FWJgptVwys6NOiqagyHh8U-8i1T39kmNXER6w5-jvnKTTiI7whnuK1-hvXYGn1XPOI2GkqJ

 

[southernhybrid]

If I can find it again, there was a book review in one of my two favorite papers today, written by a scientist, who gives very good reasons as to why, while climate change is real, it will be impossible to limit our usage of fossil fuels in the time frame that we are told we need to do it. HIs biggest issue is how the largest countries, including China, India, Russia and the US, are continuing to increase their carbon output, and how people keep buying SUVs that use a lot of gas. Where I live, huge pick up trucks are also very common. He gives good points as to why the current goals of climate change activists are totally unreasonable.

 

[Elixir]

If I can find it again, there was a book review in one of my two favorite papers today, written by a scientist, who gives very good reasons as to why, while climate change is real, it will be impossible to limit our usage of fossil fuels in the time frame that we are told we need to do it. HIs biggest issue is how the largest countries, including China, India, Russia and the US, are continuing to increase their carbon output, and how people keep buying SUVs that use a lot of gas. Where I live, huge pick up trucks are also very common. He gives good points as to why the current goals of climate change activists are totally unreasonable.

I think we all know deep down that we are NOT going to forestall catastrophic climate change. The only question concerns who is going to suffer most, and who will suffer least. Will it cause the precipitous drop in human population that would actually mitigate the process? I doubt it - earth processes are slow, compared to human reproduction rates.
For me, it's now a subject of idle curiosity rather than urgent concern, since I am almost certainly not going to live to see the worst of it.

I am starting to wonder about all this climate change stuff.

I mean really, we have had the 6th coldest April on record.

Can't believe you posted that... I hope it was tongue in cheek, because you must have learned the difference between climate and weather by now.

 

[steve_bank]

As I see it it, it all goes back to ancient Zog when he learned to create fire and control it. The rest is history.

Two primary inventions that remain of importance today. Controlled fire and putting a durable cutting edge on metals. Controlled fire extended to controlled heat as in nuclear power ad electric heating.

Whitout fire and cutting edges there would be no barbecues.

 

[steve_bank]

If I can find it again, there was a book review in one of my two favorite papers today, written by a scientist, who gives very good reasons as to why, while climate change is real, it will be impossible to limit our usage of fossil fuels in the time frame that we are told we need to do it. HIs biggest issue is how the largest countries, including China, India, Russia and the US, are continuing to increase their carbon output, and how people keep buying SUVs that use a lot of gas. Where I live, huge pick up trucks are also very common. He gives good points as to why the current goals of climate change activists are totally unreasonable.

I think we all know deep down that we are NOT going to forestall catastrophic climate change. The only question concerns who is going to suffer most, and who will suffer least. Will it cause the precipitous drop in human population that would actually mitigate the process? I doubt it - earth processes are slow, compared to human reproduction rates.
For me, it's now a subject of idle curiosity rather than urgent concern, since I am almost certainly not going to live to see the worst of it.

I am starting to wonder about all this climate change stuff.

I mean really, we have had the 6th coldest April on record.

Can't believe you posted that... I hope it was tongue in cheek, because you must have learned the difference between climate and weather by now.

Comic relief. It is hard for me to think a twizzle really does exist.

It is impossible to get rid of fossil fuels at least not quickly without severe economic consequences. The Biden admin is funding a short term rescue pkan to keep nuclear power going.

Under our global economic paradigm of investment requiring growth to pay back with interest, economies have to grow with populations to expand markets.

 

[skepticalbip]

If I can find it again, there was a book review in one of my two favorite papers today, written by a scientist, who gives very good reasons as to why, while climate change is real, it will be impossible to limit our usage of fossil fuels in the time frame that we are told we need to do it. HIs biggest issue is how the largest countries, including China, India, Russia and the US, are continuing to increase their carbon output, and how people keep buying SUVs that use a lot of gas. Where I live, huge pick up trucks are also very common. He gives good points as to why the current goals of climate change activists are totally unreasonable.

Actually U.S. CO2 output has dramatically decreased from ~20 tons/person/year in the 1970s to ~15 tons/person/year today. It isn't that we are using less energy but fracking has allowed us to switch much usage to natural gas that is 'cleaner'. The new restrictions against fracking will likely see that trend reversed. Even so, the massive increase in coal fired power plant construction in China is a major source of new CO2 emissions.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

If I can find it again, there was a book review in one of my two favorite papers today, written by a scientist, who gives very good reasons as to why, while climate change is real, it will be impossible to limit our usage of fossil fuels in the time frame that we are told we need to do it. HIs biggest issue is how the largest countries, including China, India, Russia and the US, are continuing to increase their carbon output, and how people keep buying SUVs that use a lot of gas. Where I live, huge pick up trucks are also very common. He gives good points as to why the current goals of climate change activists are totally unreasonable.

Actually U.S. CO2 output has dramatically decreased from ~20 tons/person/year in the 1970s to ~15 tons/person/year today. It isn't that we are using less energy but fracking has allowed us to switch much usage to natural gas that is 'cleaner'. The new restrictions against fracking will likely see that trend reversed.

Are the only places to frack located on Federally owned property?

Even so, the massive increase in coal fired power plant construction in China is a major source of new CO2 emissions.

Yes, China will be more responsible for warming of the Earth in the future than they were 20 years ago. The trouble, the West is largely responsible for the warming we have already experienced. China is simply adding to the very large amount of CO2 The West is already responsible for putting in the atmosphere.

 

[skepticalbip]

If I can find it again, there was a book review in one of my two favorite papers today, written by a scientist, who gives very good reasons as to why, while climate change is real, it will be impossible to limit our usage of fossil fuels in the time frame that we are told we need to do it. HIs biggest issue is how the largest countries, including China, India, Russia and the US, are continuing to increase their carbon output, and how people keep buying SUVs that use a lot of gas. Where I live, huge pick up trucks are also very common. He gives good points as to why the current goals of climate change activists are totally unreasonable.

Actually U.S. CO2 output has dramatically decreased from ~20 tons/person/year in the 1970s to ~15 tons/person/year today. It isn't that we are using less energy but fracking has allowed us to switch much usage to natural gas that is 'cleaner'. The new restrictions against fracking will likely see that trend reversed.

Are the only places to frack located on Federally owned property?

No but the restriction means the decrease in natural gas availability will mean that some of the current usage will have to revert to coal or oil since nuclear is also opposed.

Even so, the massive increase in coal fired power plant construction in China is a major source of new CO2 emissions.

Yes, China will be more responsible for warming of the Earth in the future than they were 20 years ago. The trouble, the West is largely responsible for the warming we have already experienced. China is simply adding to the very large amount of CO2 The West is already responsible for putting in the atmosphere.

Exactly. So the U.S. could return to stone age usage of energy and a collapse of the nation and it would make no difference because China would continue to increase CO2 output since they would make up for the manufacturing production to supply the world's demand for doo-dads.

 

[southernhybrid]

If I can find it again, there was a book review in one of my two favorite papers today, written by a scientist, who gives very good reasons as to why, while climate change is real, it will be impossible to limit our usage of fossil fuels in the time frame that we are told we need to do it. HIs biggest issue is how the largest countries, including China, India, Russia and the US, are continuing to increase their carbon output, and how people keep buying SUVs that use a lot of gas. Where I live, huge pick up trucks are also very common. He gives good points as to why the current goals of climate change activists are totally unreasonable.

Actually U.S. CO2 output has dramatically decreased from ~20 tons/person/year in the 1970s to ~15 tons/person/year today. It isn't that we are using less energy but fracking has allowed us to switch much usage to natural gas that is 'cleaner'. The new restrictions against fracking will likely see that trend reversed.

Are the only places to frack located on Federally owned property?

Even so, the massive increase in coal fired power plant construction in China is a major source of new CO2 emissions.

Yes, China will be more responsible for warming of the Earth in the future than they were 20 years ago. The trouble, the West is largely responsible for the warming we have already experienced. China is simply adding to the very large amount of CO2 The West is already responsible for putting in the atmosphere.

Sorry, I can't find the article, which was actually a book review, that I wanted to share. It had lots of details in it. But, the primary thing was that it will be close to impossible to accomplish the goals that the Democrats and the climate activists are hoping for in the next 10 or 20 years, unless almost every individual changes their habits. I don't see that happening.

China may be the worst offender, but the US isn't making much progress either. Think of all the plastics we use, all the unnecessary trips so many people take, all the air travel that Americans take, etc. For example, the closet elementary school near me, has a long line of cars waiting for school to let out, so they can pick up their kids. They at least could car pool if they don't want their kids to walk or take the school bus. We eat an insane amount of meat per capita. We even feed a lot of meat to our pets. If I ever find that book review, I'll share it.

It's very hard for people to change their habits, and that is one reason why it will be very difficult to reduce our carbon footprint in the near future. I'm not blaming anyone. We all grew up ignorant of how our habits were impacting the environment. Cars from my childhood got about 7 mpg. We may not have been as wasteful and we didn't use a lot of plastics, which I don't think were even available until the late 60s, but we had no idea that the things we did and used had a negative impact on the planet. It wasn't until the 80s that scientists became serious about climate change. And, one of the pieces in the link mentioned that only 60% of Americans believe that climate change is influenced by human activity. It will be a huge struggle to change things.

 

[southernhybrid]

I found the article I wanted to share. Basically, he discusses why we need more reasonable goals than we have currently. Anyone who is interested can read the entire article.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive...aZTutDUo67BX-6nyVqif_KOCpm4lB0&smid=url-share

The most important thing to understand is the scale. An energy transition affecting a country of one million people is very different from a transition affecting a nation of more than one billion. It is one thing to invest a few billion dollars, another to find one trillion. This is where we are in terms of global civilization: This transition has to happen on a billion and trillion scales. Now, according to
COP26,2
we should reduce our carbon dioxide emissions by 45 percent by 2030 as compared with 2010 levels. This is undoable because there’s just eight years left, and emissions are still rising. People don’t appreciate the magnitude of the task and are setting up artificial deadlines which are unrealistic. Now, to answer your question. If you assume that carbon dioxide is our deadliest problem, then of course we should decarbonize totally. But people say by 2050 — they call it “net” carbon emissions. The I.P.C.C., they don’t say zero, they say “net zero.” Leaving that cushion — one billion, five billion, 10 billion tons of CO2 we will still be emitting but taking care of by carbon sequestration. Is it realistic that we’ll be
sequestering so rapidly on such a scale?3
People toss out these deadlines without any reflection on the scale and the complexity of the problem. Decarbonization by 2030? Really?

 

[Elixir]

As I see it it, it all goes back to ancient Zog when he learned to create fire and control it. The rest is history.

Two primary inventions that remain of importance today. Controlled fire and putting a durable cutting edge on metals. Controlled fire extended to controlled heat as in nuclear power ad electric heating.

Whitout fire and cutting edges there would be no barbecues.

That’s actually very close to how I believe it has gone. But the real genesis of the whole process had to do with … well, Genesis. Serpents and apples notwithstanding, a dawning self awareness and with it, the ability to correlate observations to make predictions, happened either before or concurrently with the “taming” of fire.
Maybe raw apples were just not satisfying enough.

 

[southernhybrid]

We did our advanced directives in 2003, after Jeb Bush ordered the feeding tube and ventilator to be reinstated for Terri Schiavo. It was concerning to us that a person's next of kin couldn't make the decision to end the suffering of someone like her. Do you all remember that? It was taken to court, and the judge allowed her G-tube and ventilator to be removed. That is why it's so important to have an advanced directive or living will, as some call it. Mine only says that I don't want to be placed on a ventilator. I need to add that unless I am in my right mind and ask for a feeding tube, don't insert one. This might make a good discussion in another place. Perhaps when I have more time, I 'll start one.

 

[bilby]

If I can find it again, there was a book review in one of my two favorite papers today, written by a scientist, who gives very good reasons as to why, while climate change is real, it will be impossible to limit our usage of fossil fuels in the time frame that we are told we need to do it. HIs biggest issue is how the largest countries, including China, India, Russia and the US, are continuing to increase their carbon output, and how people keep buying SUVs that use a lot of gas. Where I live, huge pick up trucks are also very common. He gives good points as to why the current goals of climate change activists are totally unreasonable.

Let me guess, he either didn't even mention nuclear power, or wrote it off as too unpopular to implement.

Humanity's irrational dislike of the only technology that can save civilisation is beyond bizarre, and perhaps an indication that we don't deserve to have nice things (like a civilisation).

 

[bilby]

If I can find it again, there was a book review in one of my two favorite papers today, written by a scientist, who gives very good reasons as to why, while climate change is real, it will be impossible to limit our usage of fossil fuels in the time frame that we are told we need to do it. HIs biggest issue is how the largest countries, including China, India, Russia and the US, are continuing to increase their carbon output, and how people keep buying SUVs that use a lot of gas. Where I live, huge pick up trucks are also very common. He gives good points as to why the current goals of climate change activists are totally unreasonable.

Actually U.S. CO2 output has dramatically decreased from ~20 tons/person/year in the 1970s to ~15 tons/person/year today. It isn't that we are using less energy but fracking has allowed us to switch much usage to natural gas that is 'cleaner'. The new restrictions against fracking will likely see that trend reversed.

Are the only places to frack located on Federally owned property?

Even so, the massive increase in coal fired power plant construction in China is a major source of new CO2 emissions.

Yes, China will be more responsible for warming of the Earth in the future than they were 20 years ago. The trouble, the West is largely responsible for the warming we have already experienced. China is simply adding to the very large amount of CO2 The West is already responsible for putting in the atmosphere.

Sorry, I can't find the article, which was actually a book review, that I wanted to share. It had lots of details in it. But, the primary thing was that it will be close to impossible to accomplish the goals that the Democrats and the climate activists are hoping for in the next 10 or 20 years, unless almost every individual changes their habits. I don't see that happening.

China may be the worst offender, but the US isn't making much progress either. Think of all the plastics we use, all the unnecessary trips so many people take, all the air travel that Americans take, etc. For example, the closet elementary school near me, has a long line of cars waiting for school to let out, so they can pick up their kids. They at least could car pool if they don't want their kids to walk or take the school bus. We eat an insane amount of meat per capita. We even feed a lot of meat to our pets. If I ever find that book review, I'll share it.

It's very hard for people to change their habits, and that is one reason why it will be very difficult to reduce our carbon footprint in the near future. I'm not blaming anyone. We all grew up ignorant of how our habits were impacting the environment. Cars from my childhood got about 7 mpg. We may not have been as wasteful and we didn't use a lot of plastics, which I don't think were even available until the late 60s, but we had no idea that the things we did and used had a negative impact on the planet. It wasn't until the 80s that scientists became serious about climate change. And, one of the pieces in the link mentioned that only 60% of Americans believe that climate change is influenced by human activity. It will be a huge struggle to change things.

Yeah, you are never going to stop people from wanting to use lots of energy.

Cutting energy use isn't going to solve the problem; We need to find a way to generate energy reliably and consistently without emitting carbon dioxide.

Or rather, we need to implement the way we found seventy years ago.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

If I can find it again, there was a book review in one of my two favorite papers today, written by a scientist, who gives very good reasons as to why, while climate change is real, it will be impossible to limit our usage of fossil fuels in the time frame that we are told we need to do it. HIs biggest issue is how the largest countries, including China, India, Russia and the US, are continuing to increase their carbon output, and how people keep buying SUVs that use a lot of gas. Where I live, huge pick up trucks are also very common. He gives good points as to why the current goals of climate change activists are totally unreasonable.

Unfortunately, he's probably right. The political will simply doesn't exist to take action whose benefits are on that long a timeframe. Too many people take a screw-the-future, I-want-it-NOW attitude. We make noise pretending to do something with garbage like Kyoto and Paris, but a government at is serious about it is going to get replaced by one that isn't. By itself, it's not an extinction level event but the wars that will no doubt happen very well might be.