CNN and the field of Democratic Candidates proved once again that we are indeed living in clown world. For seven hours, the brainy individuals engaged in a forum discussing climate change and the coming end of the world. The big takeaway: stop eating meat and we all must drive electric cars.
Left out of course were a few key details like how do people in emerging countries find sustenance, and what will all of this do to the economy? Like, what happens to the trucking industry, the airline industry, the boating industry, and really just about every other industry. Exactly, how many dreamy windmills and solar panels will it take to light up Topeka… not to mention Chicago?
These clowns talked about everything except empirical data. Well, here’s some:
All proxy temperature data sets reveal that there have been cyclical changes in climate in the past 10,000 years. Climate has always changed. And it has changed in both directions, hot and cold. Until at least the 17th century, all these changes occurred when almost all humans were hunters, gatherers, and farmers.
Industrialization did not happen until the 17th century. Therefore, no prior changes in climate were driven by human emissions of carbon dioxide. In the last 2,000 years alone, global temperatures rose at least twice (around the 1st and 10th centuries) to levels very similar to today’s, and neither of those warm periods were caused by humans.
Polar bears and the ice caps are actually doing fine. The 10,000-year Holocene paleoclimatology records reveal that both the Arctic and Antarctic are in some of their healthiest states. The only better period for the poles was the 17th century, during the Little Ice Age, when the ice mass levels were higher than today’s. For the larger part of the past 10,000 years, the ice mass levels were lower than today’s. Despite huge losses in recent decades, ice mass levels are at or near their historic highs.
Polar bears are one of the key species in the Arctic. Contrary to the hype surrounding their extinction fear, the population numbers have actually increased in the past two decades.
Last year, the Canadian government considered increasing polar bear killing quotas as their increasing numbers posed a threat to the Inuit communities living in the Nunavut area.
And it is not just the polar bears in the Arctic. Other critical species elsewhere, like tigers, are also making a comeback.
Carbon dioxide does not have a huge effect on climate.
While most of the current climatologists who collaborate with the United Nations believe anthropogenic CO2 emissions have exacerbated natural warming in recent decades, there is no empirical proof to support their claim.
The entire climate cabal was in for a rude awakening when global temperature between 2000 and 2016 failed to rise as anticipated. The scientists assumed that rising CO2 emissions from human activity would result in a rapid rise in temperature, but…they didn’t.
This proved that atmospheric CO2 concentrations are not the primary factor controlling global temperature. Consideration of a much longer period (10,000 or more years) suggests that CO2 had no significant role to play in temperature increases. CO2 never was the global thermostat.
W. W. Soon in Geophysical Research Letters(2007) has reviewed much of the literature on air temperature-CO2 relationships. He concludes, “there is no quantitative evidence that varying levels of minor greenhouse gases like CO2 and CH4 have accounted for even as much as half of the reconstructed glacial-interglacial temperature changes or, more importantly, for the large variations in global ice volume on both land and sea over the past 650,000 years …changes in solar insolation at climatically sensitive latitudes and zones exceed the global radiative forcings of CO2 and CH4 by severalfold, and that regional responses to solar insolation forcing will decide the primary climatic feedbacks and changes.”
A real worry is the impending solar minimum that NASA has predicted for the next two solar cycles between 2021 and 2041, ushering in a period of global cooling like it did during the solar minimum of 17th century.
There has been no increase in the frequency or intensity of floods, hurricanes, tornadoes, wildfires, droughts, or other extreme weather events. The UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reported low confidence that global warming—manmade or not—was driving increases in extreme weather events.
So, stop listening to these people. As we speak, California is planning to add climate change fear to the school curriculum. We are raising a generation of kids who are living in fear, like the poor girl from Holland that says every day she wakes up afraid for her future, so much so that she had to sail to New York. All of this is based on theory, and not empirical evidence, or as some call it, science.
Do you really want to be a punk driving around in a Prius? Screw that, crank up the Harley, and get that Dodge Challenger if you want it.
Keep Calm and Chive on.
Paul Plante says
“Full specs revealed on the 78 kW Harley-Davidson LiveWire electric motorcycle”
Micah Toll @MicahToll
Jul. 12th 2019 2:19 pm ET
With the release of Harley-Davidson LiveWire quickly approaching, Electrek is in Brooklyn to take a first ride on the new electric motorcycle.
And now we’ve just learned the full specs for the LiveWire. Read on to get all the dirt on this premium new electric bike.
So far we’ve known that the LiveWire has a city range of 146 miles (235 km) and a 0-60 mph (0-97 km/h) time of around 3 to 3.5 seconds.
We also knew that Harley-Davidson’s first electric model would feature Level 3 DC Fast Charging that would top up the battery from 0-80% in 40 minutes or 0-100% in 60 minutes.
But now we’re finally getting the full specs out of H-D.
It turns out the LiveWire will feature a fairly large battery at 15.5 kWh.
To put that in perspective, the largest battery offered by industry leader Zero Motorcycles is 14.4 kWh, giving H-D a slight edge.
Though to be fair, the heavy bike and high powered performance mean that the range doesn’t quite match Zero’s best offerings.
The LiveWire’s battery pack is built from Samsung cells and comes with a 5 year, unlimited mileage warranty.
Speaking of the power, the LiveWire is packing a 78 kW (105 hp) motor.
The LiveWire motorcycle is equipped with the company’s H-D Connect technology that provides cellular connectivity to connect riders with the LiveWire through their phone.
The iOS and Android apps include core functions such as turn-by-turn directions, ride planning, remote motorcycle systems monitoring, charge monitoring, dealer, and event locations, etc.
The app also transmits key vehicle health information and provides the owner with the reassurance of being able to remotely monitor the LiveWire security, including tamper alerts via the app and stolen-vehicle assistance.
Another previously unreported feature is that the LiveWire is hiding a USB-C charging port inside the front fairing just behind the headlight.
It’s still easy to access for charging your phone, but would otherwise go unnoticed if you didn’t know to look for it.
And Harley-Davidson is planning a number of smaller, more affordable electric two-wheelers by 2023 as well.
https://electrek.co/2019/07/12/full-specs-revealed-on-the-78-kw-harley-davidson-livewire-electric-motorcycle/
Viola Mears says
My God, that picture of the brain-washed child is disturbing.
Paul Plante says
Whether or not the “child” is brain-washed remains a matter of conjecture, but the picture is meant to be disturbing.
If that picture is 16-year old Greta Thunberg from Sweden, who just made a movie about herself starring herself as a modern-day heroine sailing the mighty Atlantic Ocean in her hi-tech, carbon fibre racing yacht that only the richest of us can afford to battle “climate change” by “communicating the science,” and who was cheered for her blunt message at the World Economic Forum in Switzerland this year, when she told government and business leaders: “I want you to panic, I want you to feel the fear I feel every day,” I would say that she obviously has some serious issues like persistent paranoia she needs to confront if she thinks adults should panic because she feels “fear” every day.
Surprisingly, very few adults have stepped up to the plate to inform this hysterical and possibly manipulative 16-year old that they don’t do panic just because a 16-year old girl is demanding it of them, or she will hold her breath and turn blue in the face and throw herself down on the ground in a fierce temper tantrum if she doesn’t get her way, as we adults can see from a TWITTER post she made on 23 December 2018, where she TWEETED to her TWIBE of TWITTERATI, as follows:
“We have to understand the emergency of the situation.”
“Our leadership has failed us.”
“Young people must hold older generations accountable for the mess they have created.”
“We need to get angry, and transform that anger into action.”
end quotes
Now, is that a girl who is brain-washed?
Or is that a manipulative girl trying to brain-wash others?
For example, her statement “We have to understand the emergency of the situation.”
Okay, Greta, I’m on, so explain it to me.
But she can’t, because that statement is nothing more than a soundbite to scare ign0rant children who can’t read and so, have to get their news and what it is they are supposed to think and say if they want to be popular, from TWEETS on TWITTER.
As to scaring children, on 13 December 2018, young, frightened Greta, and let me say here that I am a grandfather with granddaughters who are not scared every day, because they have been taught from young to think for themselves, had this to say to the world, to wit:
“We are about to sacrifice our civilization for the opportunity of a very small number of people to continue to make enormous amounts of money.”
“But it is the sufferings of the many which pay for the luxuries of the few.”
“You say that you love your children above everything else.”
“And yet you are stealing their future.”
end quotes
Well, Greta, let me say that as a grandfather here in America that I love my children and my grandchildren, and I and their parents are not “stealing” their future as you accuse us of doing, with no evidence whatsoever to support your thesis; to the contrary, their parents are providing a future for them by teaching them responsibility and discipline and critical thinking, and by feeding them, and by putting a roof over their heads and clothes on their backs, which is why I am standing up in here to tell you, Greta, to stop lying to them and trying to make them hysterical so they can’t think straight, so you can make them your tools, which takes us to this from our Greta, who has the luxury of a very expensive high-tech, carbon-fiber racing yacht only the very wealthy can afford, which is a whiff of hypocrisy on her part, as follows:
“We cannot solve a crisis without treating it as a crisis.”
“And if solutions within the system are so impossible to find, then maybe we should change the system itself?”
“We have not come here to beg world leaders to care.”
“You have ignored us in the past and you will ignore us again.”
“You’ve run out of excuses and we’re running out of time.”
“We’ve come here to let you know that change is coming, whether you like it or not.”
“The real power belongs to the people.”
end quotes
Yes, Greta, it does, and I am one of them, and Greta, I am calling your cards!
Put your facts, not your empty TWEET soundbites, on the table and show us what this “crisis” really is, because we adults who love our children and who don’t ignore them would truly like to know.
Sorin Varzaru says
So, let’s say there are two courses of action. Do nothing, like you suggest, because the climate change has nothing with the recent increase in carbon dioxide and methane we caused. The other would be do what the “other side” is asking. Let’s assume your summarizing of what the other side is saying is correct : “stop eating meat and we all must drive electric cars”.
So.
If they are wrong, nothing bad would happen to the world and the downside is that we’ll all be driving electric cars and eat falafel instead of burgers.
What if you are wrong?
Note: I believe the empirical data, also, I work as a computer scientist in the mod/sim world. Models are extremely important, but I’m not sure I would base climate policy on them. If IC engines are banned in 10 years (just in time to beat the 12-year window of catastrophe), who would deliver your falafel? Actually, who would deliver anything at all, since there would be no trucking industry?? Understand, 70% of our energy is currently based on fossil fuels, and there’s a reason for that. What most don’t take into account is there are 7 billion people in the world that need to live. How does that happen? How about avoiding tech like so-called renewables that rape the biosphere and harm open space, how about absurdly efficient engines that don’t rely on lithium, how about policy that rewards population concentration rather than sprawl, plant trees, why not embrace Nuclear power which will create huge amounts of power on the smallest footprint?? How about design? I believe we are attacking the wrong problems in entirely the wrong way. We used to call this stuff global warming, but when the temp stopped rising, we now call it climate change, as if the climate never changes on its own. “Duh”–Billie Eilish.
Paul Plante says
Before it is anything else, and this would be whether or not humans existed or didn’t exist, or used fossil fuels or not; the earth’s atmosphere is what is known as a “thermodynamic engine,” and because it is, it is never at rest and always in motion, which is why we here on earth, as opposed to Mars or Venus, have both weather and climate.
And at the same time as that engine is running, there is also what is known as a natural “carbon cycle,” and carbon dioxide is a natural part of that carbon cycle.
The models, because computers are limited in how many variables they can handle, always a limitation of models of complex systems like the atmosphere, are therefore forced to make a lot of assumptions which are exactly that – assumptions.
If this, then this.
The models assume that when carbon dioxide is put into the atmosphere, that it simply stays there, which is not at all accurate or true.
As carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere change, so does water vapor content which has been linked to changes in carbon dioxide levels, so that increasing carbon dioxide levels will result in more rainfall, which removes carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.
It needs to be remembered that carbon is an element, and thus, it is finite.
The human body, for example, is made up of carbon to the extent that each of us is about 18 percent carbon by weight, so that if the average human weight is around 120 pounds, there are about 21.6 pounds of carbon stored in the average person, which makes that carbon in accessible for other combinations.
Thus, the more people on earth, the more carbon is fixed in them, and thus is unavailable elsewhere.
All of this is part of the carbon cycle, which is not at all accounted for in all these climate change models, of which there are some 65 or so different and competing ones, I believe, so which do you believe?
And the models assume that we will keep pouring carbon dioxide into the air at the same rate, which is not true, because every day, people are changing their habits and are getting away from fossil fuels, or minimizing their use of same, because the future as always belongs to the efficient.
I am a graduate level engineer who has been studying this subject for some time now, since 1975, actually, and frankly, I don’t believe these projections that are being used to scare people with.
And I have been where I am since 1949, and yes, in that time, the climate, WHERE I AM, has changed quite a bit.
And that is past tense – it has changed, and all the king’s horses and all the king’s men can’t make it go back to what it used to be.
And it is truly just plain stupid to think that we can go cold-turkey on fossil fuels in ten years without chaos ensuing.
So it seems the rock and the hard place, doesn’t it!
As to the “science,” NASA put out a paper on the subject of “The Carbon Cycle” by Holli Riebeek on June 16, 2011, wherein was stated as follows:
Many of the questions scientists still need to answer about the carbon cycle revolve around how it is changing.
The atmosphere now contains more carbon than at any time in at least two million years.
Each reservoir of the cycle will change as this carbon makes its way through the cycle.
What will those changes look like?
What will happen to plants as temperatures increase and climate changes?
Will they remove more carbon from the atmosphere than they put back?
Will they become less productive?
How much extra carbon will melting permafrost put into the atmosphere, and how much will that amplify warming?
Will ocean circulation or warming change the rate at which the ocean takes up carbon?
Will ocean life become less productive?
How much will the ocean acidify, and what effects will that have?
All of these measurements will help us see how the global carbon cycle is changing through time.
They will help us gauge the impact we are having on the carbon cycle by releasing carbon into the atmosphere or finding ways to store it elsewhere.
They will show us how our changing climate is altering the carbon cycle, and how the changing carbon cycle is altering our climate.
Most of us, however, will observe changes in the carbon cycle in a more personal way.
For us, the carbon cycle is the food we eat, the electricity in our homes, the gas in our cars, and the weather over our heads.
We are a part of the carbon cycle, and so our decisions about how we live ripple across the cycle.
Likewise, changes in the carbon cycle will impact the way we live.
As each of us come to understand our role in the carbon cycle, the knowledge empowers us to control our personal impact and to understand the changes we are seeing in the world around us.
end quotes
Works for me, anyway.
Sorin Varzaru says
“And it is truly just plain stupid to think that we can go cold-turkey on fossil fuels in ten years without chaos ensuing.”
Paul, I 100% agree. My point was, putting some serious resources in reducing the CO2 and methane exhaust in the atmosphere seems like a good plan.
What annoyed me about the article was this :
“Do you really want to be a punk driving around in a Prius? Screw that, crank up the Harley, and get that Dodge Challenger if you want it.”
Sure, use your IC because there is no workable alternative, but there is no reason to be proud of the exhaust you’re dumping in the air. And most of those Harleys with straight pipes are just obnoxiously loud. And I say this as a motorcycle rider. As far as Prius drivers? At least they drive a vehicle that minimizes the pollution and carbon footprint. Good for them.
Note: I would sell you some of my sense of humor, but it would probably be wasted anyhow. You are too serious. Besides, the main difference between a Prius driver and a porcupine is with a porcupine, the pricks are on the outside 🙁
Paul Plante says
Sorin, several things here.
First of all, life is not static and without waiting to be told what to do by Greta Thunberg and AOC, people are planting trees, and putting up solar panels, and reducing their carbon footprints all the time.
But I am most curious about your statement above where you say “The other would be do what the ‘other side’ is asking.”
Who exactly is “the other side?”
And why do you think there are only two sides here, presumably Wayne Creed’s side, which I am not in total agreement with, and AOC and Greta Thunberg’s side, which is based on hysteria, which I am not in agreement with, afterall, which seems to make at least three sides in this debate, not just two?
And for the record, I drive a very basic Toyota 4-wheel drive truck with a 4-cylinder engine, and while I used to ride motorcycles, I didn’t ride a Harley, and all these years later, I can say that my manhood did not suffer as a result.
As to Greta Thunberg’s side, it was made clear on her Facebook page on 15 June 2019, as follows:
Around the year 2030, we will be in a position where we probably set off an irreversible chain reaction beyond human control, that will most likely lead to the end of our civilization as we know it.
That is unless in that time, permanent and unprecedented changes in all aspects of industrialized society have taken place.
Including a reduction of our CO2 emissions by at least 50%.
And please note that these calculations are depending on inventions that have not yet been invented at scale.
Furthermore these scientific calculations do not include most unforeseen tipping points and feed back loops.
Nor do these calculations include already locked in warming hidden by toxic air pollution.
Nor the aspect of equity, which is absolutely necessary to make the Paris Agreement work on a global scale.
And these calculations are not opinions or wild guesses.
These projections are backed up by scientific facts, concluded by all nations through the IPCC.
So if we are to stay below the 1,5 degrees of warming limit, which is still possible within the laws of physics, we need to change almost everything.
We need to start living within the planetary boundaries.
This will be a drastic change for many, but not for most.
end quotes
In all seriousness, Sorin, can you make sense out of anything she is saying there?
Let’s start with this:
“Around the year 2030, we will be in a position where we probably set off an irreversible chain reaction beyond human control, that will most likely lead to the end of our civilization as we know it.”
As an adult, as a grandfather, and as a graduate level engineer, quite frankly, Sorin, I think that young woman is quite out of her mind.
Where is there any evidence to support a thesis that around the year 2030, we will probably set off an irreversible chain reaction beyond human control, that will most likely lead to the end of our civilization as we know it?
What is the irreversible chain reaction that we are going to set off?
And as to the end of our civilization, exactly what is she talking about, given that in the 70+ years I have been on the globe, I have seen several “ends” to our previous “civilization,” all of which has been replaced by something new and different.
History itself is chock full of “civilizations” that have come to an end, many through environmental changes, only to be replaced by new civilizations.
So what do you think might be different this time around?
Sorin Varzaru says
You are preaching to the choir about nuclear. I believe it’s one of the stupidest decisions we ever made to not invest more in it. As far as all the others, sure we can do all that that you suggest, I don’t think anyone is against planting trees (for instance). I think you are too hung up on some soundbites about “banning IC”. Nothing is going to get banned before we have a workable alternative, it’s just not politically feasible. But putting resources in finding alternative to IC seems like a smart thing to do. Because, will will run out of fossil fuels eventually, it’s not an infinite resource. And electric vehicles are by nature way more efficient in converting energy to motion. Not to mention quiet, non polluting and , well, fun. Ever seen a Tesla smoke almost any production IC car made in a drag race?
Note: I love Tesla too, but be real, where does it get its power from? A coal-burning plant probably…or a diesel generator? And lithium is an environmental disaster all on its own. The Bolivian Andes are being raped for lithium as we speak (so-called sustainables always have a poison pill). When it’s all said and done, is my gasoline-powered Fiat 500c better or worse for the environment than the expensive Tesla? The T may do well in a drag race, but the Daytona 500…not so much.
Sorin Varzaru says
“Note: I love Tesla too, but be real, where does it get its power from? A coal-burning plant probably…or a diesel generator? And lithium is an environmental disaster all on its own. The Bolivian Andes are being raped for lithium as we speak (so-called sustainables always have a poison pill). When it’s all said and done, is my gasoline-powered Fiat 500c better or worse for the environment than the expensive Tesla? The T may do well in a drag race, but the Daytona 500…not so much.”
Watch this, it’s interesting : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6RhtiPefVzM
So the answer is, in most cases, the electric car better, even when some of the energy it’s powered with comes from fossil fuels. But the better point i think, is that an electric car can run any electricity produced by any source, so as we find better ways of producing electricity, the car doesn’t have to change.
Ray Otton says
Robert Heinlein or Milton Friedman said it best. ( There’s quite a debate out there as to who said it first.)
TANSTAFFL – There Ain’t No Such Thing As A Free Lunch.
The Democrats want to replace coal and gas power plants with batteries to ensure we have electricity even when intermittent wind and sunshine refuse to cooperate with our need for 24/7/365 power.
If we blanketed the US with enough wind and solar facilities to replace the 4 billion megawatt-hours of electricity Americans used in 2018 we would need batteries to store electricity for seven straight windless or sunless days. That’s over a billion 1,000-pound lithium and cobalt-based batteries
They would require huge amounts of iron, copper, rare earth metals, concrete and other raw materials.
In addition, every one of these batteries, turbines and panels would have to be replaced far more often than coal, gas, nuclear or hydroelectric power plants.
All this free, renewable, sustainable, eco-friendly, ethical energy would require the biggest expansion in mining the world has ever seen.
Question is, when was the last time any environmentalist or Democrat politician supported opening a single US mine?
Which brings us to the dirtiest renewable, sustainable energy secret of all.
Slave and child labor.
Because of rabid environmentalist opposition, the US no longer has much mining within it’s borders. We import minerals from China, Russia and numerous 3rd world countries that do not adhere to any of our labor, safety or environmental laws.
The minerals are dug out and processed by fathers, mothers and children under horrific, unsafe, inhumane conditions with nonexistent labor, wage, health, safety, and pollution standards.
The mining and industrial areas where they live and work become vast toxic wastelands, where nothing grows and people or wildlife can’t live for long.
Lastly, what do we do with the worn-out turbines, panels, and batteries?
They contain large amounts of toxic materials, many of them we don’t even have a way to dispose of safely.
The solar panels alone would result in TWICE the tonnage of the United States’ total plastic waste in 2017!
Contrary to Democrat politicians and contributors right here at the Mirror, you can’t just wave your hand and say “These thing will be dealt with”. They are real problems that defy simple solutions. In fact, some of these problems are insurmountable with present technology.
It’s time for Americans to disavow the dishonesty and ideology drive public policies that affect our future jobs, prosperity, freedoms and civilization.
What Democrats are talking about has nothing to do with stopping man made climate change. It has everything to do with socialist politicians and crony capitalists controlling people’s lives, dictating energy use, economic growth, job opportunities, birth rates and living standards.while getting richer, more powerful and more privileged in the process.
Paul Plante says
That’s a law of thermodynamics, Mr. Otton – you can’t get something for nothing and you can’t even break even!
Entropic losses see to that.
The harder you push on a rope, the less work the rope actually does, which does not stop the Democrats from pushing on ropes, because they don’t know better, and don’t care that they don’t!
To them, you spend money as a government so you can rake off enough graft to keep the soldiers happy, so you can maintain political power.
And humans cannot control the climate, which is a combination of temperature, humidity, precipitation, cloudiness, visibility, and wind.
It was 39 up here the other morning, an my goodness, you should have heard all the people out there screaming at the sky “stop it, stop it, we want it to stay warm forever!”
As for me, I went down in my basement and pyrolized some sequestered carbon like poor people in the country have been doing for centuries and millennia, and I was quite toasty!
Sorin Varzaru says
I agree, solar and wind are nowhere near enough. We’ll need nuclear.
Paul Plante says
And meanwhile, I can simply go outside and exhale some carbon dioxide into a carbon capture mechanism that sequestrates the carbon dioxide and turns the carbon dioxide into sugar and then into a solid carbohydrate that I can then mix with oxygen to pyrolize it, which releases the energy stored in the carbon bonds in the carbohydrate, to give me heat energy, and the pyrolization process turns that carbohydrate back into more carbon dioxide, which in turn is captured and sequestrated and turned into more pyrolizable carbohydrate in an endless reaction.
For anyone interested in the science of what I am doing, the formula for the chain reaction is as follows:
C6H12O6 + 6 O2 = 6 CO2 + 6 H2O + heat energy
And yes, there is 100% consensus on this, but hey, give it a try yourself and see if the science is truly repeatable.
As to the heat energy output, I am getting approximately 90.4224537037 BTU/cubic inch of sequestered carbon dioxide I am pyrolyzing, with no radioactive waste, and no parasitic power losses, either.
So by utilizing science and the carbon cycle as I am doing, my carbon footprint is down around zero, and I am largely self-sustaining, which actually used to be an American trait shared by many.
How the times they have changed.
Sorin Varzaru says
“And meanwhile, I can simply go outside and exhale some carbon dioxide into a carbon capture mechanism that sequestrates the carbon dioxide and turns the carbon dioxide into sugar and then into a solid carbohydrate that I can then mix with oxygen to pyrolize it, which releases the energy stored in the carbon bonds in the carbohydrate, to give me heat energy, and the pyrolization process turns that carbohydrate back into more carbon dioxide, which in turn is captured and sequestrated and turned into more pyrolizable carbohydrate in an endless reaction.”
Hey if you can live your life only consuming energy produced by burning wood, then yes you’d be carbon neutral. Are you?
Then there is that side issue breathing in the particulates from burning wood.
Note: Interesting Soren, we are working on an article about an algae-based bio-reactor that captures carbon. Did some research on it here: https://www.digitaltrends.com/cool-tech/biorreactor-co2-trees-400x/. You know more about it, would you like write up something on this?
Paul Plante says
Well, I also have some sequestered carbon dioxide that I can gain energy from in my potato patch and my squash, etc., because everything we eat that is natural, Sorin, at least that which grows, is sequestered carbon dioxide.
Without carbon dioxide, life on earth would cease.
Nothing green could grow.
Check our NASA, Sorin – studies have shown that increased concentrations of carbon dioxide increase photosynthesis, spurring plant growth.
A plant will not grow or thrive in environments with less than 300 ppm in their atmosphere, and when modifying the growing environment to increase the yield of plants, a grower will increase their CO2 up to 2,000 ppm.
And the present carbon dioxide reading according to a NOAA scientific paper entitled “Climate Change: Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide” by Rebecca Lindsey on September 19, 2019 states thusly, with respect to CLIMATE CHANGE HYSTERIA, to wit:
The global average atmospheric carbon dioxide in 201 was 407.4 parts per million (ppm for short), with a range of uncertainty of plus or minus 0.1 ppm.
Carbon dioxide levels today are higher than at any point in at least the past 800,000 years.
end quotes
GASP!
OMG!
HOW TERRIBLE!
WE’RE ALL GOING TO DIE AND GRETA THUNBERG ISN’T GOING TO HAVE A FUTURE!
Which is bull****.
Look at the graph and tell me what you see, Sorin https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide because what I see is a line across labeled 300 ppm, and up until literally yesterday, the earth’s supposed CO2 level was BELOW 300 ppm of carbon dioxide, which means that NO GREEN PLANTS COULD HAVE BEEN ALIVE ON EARTH, if the other science is correct that plants cannot grow below 300 ppm, which should give you an idea of just how stupid this climate science bull**** really is.
To believe it, you have to suspend disbelief at how silly it really is.
And if you study some HVAC guidelines, you will find that 350-1,000 ppm of carbon dioxide is the typical level found in occupied spaces with good air exchange, and that is carbon dioxide caused by people breathing.
In the meantime, there are no VIABLE studies that predict carbon dioxide is going to cause the world to end in 10 or 12 years.
THE MODEL IS FATALLY FLAWED, regardless of how many people want to be so foolish as to sign their names to something.
So how much carbon dioxide do you want to remove from the earth’s atmosphere, Sorin, where it is a naturally occurring component?
And how are you going to accomplish that?
As to the scientific community, Sorin, it is a diverse network of interacting scientists and objectivity is expected to be achieved by the scientific method.
As to the scientific method, it is an empirical method of acquiring knowledge that has characterized the development of science since at least the 17th century.
It involves careful observation, applying rigorous skepticism about what is observed, given that cognitive assumptions can distort how one interprets the observation.
RIGOROUS SKEPTICISM, Sorin, i.e. science is not a democracy, no matter how many articles on “consensus” you want to post in here, because there is no consensus that carbon dioxide will cause the world to end in 10 or 12 years.
You say that scientific consensus is the collective judgment, position, and opinion of the community of scientists in a particular field of study, and consensus implies general agreement, though not necessarily unanimity.
And I point to a paper entitled “NASA Releases New CO2 Data, Refutes Conventional Wisdom – Analyses of a set of NASA data shows that water vapor greatly amplifies global warming, and carbon dioxide doesn’t mix in the atmosphere as quickly as assumed” by Ucilia Wang dated December 15, 2009, which gives us some real science, as follows:
SAN FRANCISCO — NASA has released the first-ever set of carbon dioxide data based only on daily observations by a satellite instrument, a new tool that will help researchers study climate change and improve weather predictions.
The data came from the Atmospheric Infrared Sounder (AIRS) that NASA launched aboard its Aqua spacecraft in 2002.
Since then, AIRS has amassed information about carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, water vapor, methane and temperatures in the mid-troposphere (see multimedia presentations).
The mid-troposphere is about three to seven miles above the Earth’s surface.
For carbon dioxide, AIRS measures and tracks its concentration and movement as it moves across the globe.
Observation data is critical for scientists to validate their models or adjust them to better predict the impact of greenhouse gas emissions on the weather and climate.
The data have already refuted a long-held belief that carbon dioxide is evenly distributed and do so fairly quickly in the atmosphere once it rises from the ground, said Moustafa Chahine, the science team leader of the AIRS project at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, at the annual meeting of the American Geophysical Union (AGU) in San Francisco Tuesday.
“Contrary to the prevailing wisdom, carbon dioxide is not well mixed in the mid-troposphere,” Chahine said.
“You can see the jet stream splitting the carbon dioxide clump.”
AIRS data shows instead that carbon dioxide, which has seen its rate of increase accelerating from 1 part per million in 1955 to 2 parts per million today, would require about two to three years before it blends in, he said.
The atmosphere currently has about 400 parts per million.
How well and how quickly carbon dioxide blends in is important for understanding how much and how long carbon dioxide remains in the atmosphere and affects the climate before some of it is scooped up by Earth’s natural scrubbers, such as the ocean.
And by extension, that knowledge would be crucial in determining what humans must do to minimize their emissions or use technologies to capture and sequester their carbon dioxide pollution before it escapes into the atmosphere.
Chahine said several climate models have assumed an even distribution because researchers didn’t have adequate data to show how the carbon dioxide is vertically transported through the atmosphere.
“The data we have now will help researchers improve their models’ vertical transport,” Chahine said.
end quotes
So much for your consensus theory.
Sorin Varzaru says
“In the meantime, there are no VIABLE studies that predict carbon dioxide is going to cause the world to end in 10 or 12 years.
THE MODEL IS FATALLY FLAWED, regardless of how many people want to be so foolish as to sign their names to something.”
Paul, 95% of the climate researchers agree that continuing to release CO2 in the atmosphere is not a good idea. I hope you will forgive me if I will take their word over yours.
Paul Plante says
Sorin, this is America, not some communist country like Rumania, so you can believe anything and anyone you want, and it will trouble me not one single whit.
And by my count, your “scientists” number about 2,000, which is but a fraction of all the scientists that there are out there, so while your crowd agrees with each other that the world is going to end in 10 or 12 years, not all of us are on board with that conclusion, although our voices up until the advent of the Cape Charles Mirror were not being heard.
And did you know, Sorin, that a tree can sequester up to a ton of carbon dioxide?
Anyway, I’m not getting hysterical about the world coming to an end because of CO2.
And today, I had a very interesting conversation or discussion on this very subject with the Climate Science Program Manager at NOAA’s Air Resources Laboratory which is still on-going.
We are talking about all the flaws in that model your scientists are touting, because Sorin, that model is flawed.
CO2 DOES NOT create heat.
That is indisputable.
Paul Plante says
And Sorin Varzaru, I am curious as to why you seem to think it is necessary to get anyone’s permission to change your own habits and to reduce your carbon footprint, which puts money back in your pocket, because carbon tax or not, when you buy oil or gas or propane or natural gas, you are already paying a carbon tax, since all of those fuels have carbon in them.
Why do you need someone else’s permission to produce your own energy from solar cells, which so many smart people in this country are now doing?
Why do you need someone else’s permission to drive an electric car?
And as to electric cars, the Porsche Taykan is putting out some 600 horsepower and can leave the retro-Dodge Challenger in its dust.
I had a 1969 Camaro Z-28 back in the day and when the Oil Embargo was on back in the 1970s and the price of gas (carbon) went up, the gas-guzzling g Camaro went on the block and I bought a much-more efficient Toyota, and my manhood quotient did not suffer as a result, proving wrong that old adage that you can’t be a man if you don’t ride a Harley-Davidson like me.
Of course you can.
So if you believe the climate where you are is changing, because there is not one “earth climate,” there are climatic zones, all with different conditions, and you want to do something about it, then do it.
Cut back; be efficient.
And if your neighbors don’t like it, so what?
Do you have to live extravagant because your neighbors do?
Seems silly to me, anyway.
Ray Otton says
Before we get all lathered up over an all renewable, all electric future read some stats put out by Paul Dreissen, senior policy analyst for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow –
“The first bucket of icy cold reality is that we simply do not face a climate emergency. Computer models certainly predict all kinds of catastrophes. But both the models and increasingly hysterical assertions of planetary doom are completely out of synch with reality.
The second, even colder bucket of reality is that the wind and sun may be free, renewable, sustainable. and eco-friendly. But the technologies and raw materials required to harness this widely dispersed, intermittent, weather dependent energy to benefit humanity absolutely are not. In fact, they are far more environmentally harmful than any of the fossil fuel energy sources they would supposedly replace.
Biofuels. US ethanol quotas currently gobble up over 40% of America’s corn – grown on cropland nearly the size of Iowa, to displace about 10% of America’s gasoline. Corn ethanol also requires vast quantities of water, pesticides, fertilizers, natural gas, gasoline and diesel, to produce and transport a fuel that drives up food prices, adversely affects food aid and nutrition in poor nations, damages small engines, and gets one-third fewer miles per gallon than gasoline.
Replacing 100% of US gasoline with ethanol would require some 360 million acres of corn. That’s seven times the land mass of Utah. But eliminating fossil fuel production means we’d also have to replace the oil and natural gas feed stocks required for pharmaceuticals, wind turbine blades, solar panel films, paints, synthetic fibers, fertilizers, and plastics for cell phones, computers, eyeglasses, car bodies and countless other products. That would mean planting corn on almost 14 times the area of Utah.
Solar power. Solar panels on Nevada’s Nellis Air Force Base generate a minuscule 15 megawatts of electricity, about 40% of the year, from 72,000 panels on 140 acres. Arizona’s Palo Verde Nuclear Power Plant generates 760 times more electricity, from less land, 90-95% of the time.
Generating Palo Verde’s electricity output using Nellis technology would require acreage ten times larger than Washington, DC. And the solar panels would still provide electricity only 40% of the year.
Generating the 3.9 billion megawatt-hours that Americans consumed in 2018 would require blanketing over ten million acres with solar panels. That’s half of South Carolina – a lot of wildlife habitat and scenic land. And we’d still get that electricity only when sufficient sun is shining.
Wind power. Mandated, subsidized wind energy also requires millions of acres for turbines and new transmission lines, and billions of tons of concrete, steel, copper, rare earth metals and fiberglass.
Like solar panels, wind turbines produce intermittent, unreliable electricity that costs much more than coal, gas or nuclear electricity – once subsidies are removed – and must be backed up by fossil fuel generators that have to go from standby to full-power many times a day, very inefficiently, every time the wind stops blowing. Turbine blades kill numerous raptors, other birds and bats every year – a million or more every year in the USA alone. Their light flicker and infrasonic noise impair human health.
Modern coal and gas-fired power plants can generate 600 megawatts some 95% of the time from less than 300 acres. Indiana’s Fowler Ridge wind farm also generates 600 megawatts – from 350 towering turbines, located on more than 50,000 acres, and less than 30% of the year.
Now let’s suppose we’re going to use wind power to replace those 3.9 billion megawatt-hours of US electricity consumption. Let’s also suppose we’re going to get rid of all those coal and gas-fired backup power plants – and use wind turbines to generate enough extra electricity every windy day to charge batteries for just seven straight windless days.
That would require a lot of extra wind turbines, as we are forced to go into lower and lower quality wind locations. Instead of generating full nameplate power maybe one-third of the year, on average, they will do so only around 16% of the year. Instead of the 58,000 turbines we have now, the United States would need some 14 million turbines, each one 400 feet tall, each one capable of generating 1.8 megawatts at full capacity, when the wind is blowing at the proper speed.
Assuming a barely sufficient 15 acres apiece, those monster turbines would require some 225 million acres! That’s well over twice the land area of California – without including transmission lines! Their bird-butchering blades would wipe out raptors, other birds and bats in vast regions of the USA.
But experts say every turbine needs at least 50 acres of open airspace, and Fowler Ridge uses 120 acres per turbine. That works out to 750 million acres (ten times Arizona) – to 1,800 million acres (ten times Texas or nearly the entire Lower 48 United States)! Eagles, hawks, falcons, vultures, geese and other high-flying birds and bats would virtually disappear from our skies. Insects and vermin would proliferate.
Manufacturing those wind turbines would require something on the order of 4 billion tons of steel, copper and alloys for the towers and turbines; 8 billion tons of steel and concrete for the foundations; 4 million tons of rare earth metals for motors, magnets and other components; 1 billion tons of petroleum-based composites for the nacelle covers and turbine blades; and massive quantities of rock and gravel for millions of miles of access roads to the turbines. Connecting our wind farms and cities with high-voltage transmission lines would require still more raw materials – and more millions of acres.
All these materials must be mined, processed, smelted, manufactured into finished products, and shipped all over the world. They would require removing hundreds of billions of tons of earth and rock overburden – and crushing tens of billions of tons of ore – at hundreds of new mines and quarries.
Every step in this entire process would require massive amounts of fossil fuels, because wind turbines and solar panels cannot operate earth moving and mining equipment – or produce consistently high enough heat to melt silica, iron, copper, rare earth or other materials.
Not once did any of CNN’s hosts or Green New Deal candidates so much as mention any of this. To them, “renewable” energy will just happen, like manna from Gaia, or beamed down from the Starship Enterprise.
They should no longer be allowed to dodge these issues, to go from assuming the climate is in crisis, to assuming “reliable, affordable, renewable, sustainable, eco-friendly” alternatives to fossil fuel (and nuclear) energy will just magically appear, or can just be willed or subsidized into existence.
Citizens, newscasters, debate hosts and legislators who are more firmly grounded in reality need to confront Green New Dealers with hard questions and icy cold facts – and keep repeating them until the candidates provide real answers. No more dissembling, obfuscation or incantations permitted.”
Kinda puts a damper on all those Toyota Pius drivers.
Paul Plante says
I just heard this young “climate activist” Greta Thunberg, who was across from our White House in Washington. D.C. as she gets ready to do something we common American citizens don’t have an opportunity to do, which is to address our Congress, on the news telling us American people that we have a moral responsibility to her, a scared 16-year old girl from Sweden, who wants us all to feel panic, because she feels fear every day, to go back to a cave-man type of existence so we don’t steal her future from her. so this spoiled little rich girl from Sweden who doesn’t have a clue as to what she is talking about obviously has a lot of clout in this country, as we can see from a Washington Examiner entitled “Democrats invite teen climate change activist Greta Thunberg to testify before Congress” by Josh Siegel on September 12, 2019, where we have as follows:
Swedish climate change activist Greta Thunberg, 16, is testifying before Congress next week at the invitation of House Democrats.
Thunberg will appear Sept. 18 before a joint hearing of a House Foreign Affairs subcommittee and the Select Committee on the Climate Crisis.
She is among a group of young climate activists Democrats invited to testify at the hearing, entitled “Voices Leading the Next Generation on the Global Climate Crisis.”
end quotes
Being clueless themselves, and devoid of knowledge and ideas, and being political opportunists wishing to milk this “climate change crisis” for all it is worth, even if it means exploiting and manipulating children which they shamelessly do, the Democrats are going to stage another of their media extravaganzas where they will have scared children like Greta Thunberg come before the cameras to tell lies to other children to scare them too, all to score cheap political points for the Democrats.
Getting back to that Washington Examiner article, we have more on young Ms. Thunberg as follows:
Thunberg is best known for founding an international movement called Fridays for Future, in which students skip school on Fridays to participate in demonstrations demanding action to combat climate change.
Last month she traveled across the Atlantic Ocean in an emissions-free solar-powered boat, instead of flying, to New York City ahead of her speech on Sept. 23 at the United Nations Climate Action Summit.
end quotes
Young Greta, who has been nominated for a Nobel Prize, was the herself the subject of an article in the NEW YORKER entitled “The Fifteen-Year-Old Climate Activist Who Is Demanding a New Kind of Politics” by Masha Gessen on October 2, 2018, where we learned about her, as follows:
Sometimes the world makes so little sense that the only thing to do is engage in civil disobedience — even in a country as attached to its rules and regulations as Sweden is.
Fifteen-year-old Greta Thunberg has been protesting for more than a month.
Before the country’s parliamentary election on September 9th, she went on strike and sat on the steps of the parliament building, in Stockholm, every day during school hours for three weeks.
Since the election, she has returned to school for four days a week; she now spends her Fridays on the steps of parliament.
She is demanding that the government undertake a radical response to climate change.
Thunberg’s parents are Svante Thunberg, an actor, and Malena Ernman, a very well-known opera singer.
Ernman has published a book in which she described her family’s struggle with her two daughters’ special needs: both Greta and her younger sister, Beata, have been diagnosed with autism, A.D.H.D., and other conditions.
end quotes
This is the little girl the Democrats have invited to appear before our Congress to tell our Congress what it is we American people have to do to please this troubled little girl with some serious issues, and I for one, am refusing to dance to the tune she wishes to call, which takes us back to the NEW YORKER, as follows, as to how Greta Thunberg became the leading voice in the world for climate change, to wit:
In part because of her mother’s fame and the publicity that surrounded the publication of her book, Greta’s protest serves a dual purpose.
It not only calls attention to climate policy, as she intended, but it also showcases the political potential of neurological difference.
“I see the world a bit different, from another perspective,” she explained to me, in English.
“I have a special interest.”
“It’s very common that people on the autism spectrum have a special interest.”
Thunberg developed her special interest in climate change when she was nine years old and in the third grade.
“They were always talking about how we should turn off lights, save water, not throw out food,” she told me.
“I asked why and they explained about climate change.”
“And I thought this was very strange.”
“If humans could really change the climate, everyone would be talking about it and people wouldn’t be talking about anything else.”
“But this wasn’t happening.”
end quote
That’s it, people – when she was nine years old, Greta Thunberg heard people saying the sky could fall, which she took to mean it was really falling, and since nobody but her seemed concerned that the sky was falling, she appointed herself as our savior, and now, she is going to appear before the Democrats in Congress as an expert on the subject, which takes us back to the Washington Examiner article, to wit:
“We’re at the point where an entire generation has grown up in the climate crisis,” said Democratic Rep. Kathy Castor of Florida, chairwoman of the Select Climate Crisis Committee.
“They know the science, they know the stakes and they know how to rise to the challenge.”
“We need to rise with them.”
end quotes
Except that is not at all true that they know the science, because they don’t.
Greta Thunberg no more knows the “science” than she does a day without living in irrational fear.
Being hysterical about something as Greta Thunberg is precludes her from being “scientific,” plain and simple.
And for those who don’t know the Congresswoman making those ridiculous claims about these scared children knowing the “science, Katherine Anne Castor, born August 20, 1966, is a Democrat serving as the U.S. Representative for Florida’s 14th congressional district, who holds a bachelor’s degree in political science from Emory University (1988) and a J.D. from Florida State University College of Law (1991).
And as to this asinine statement by Democrat Katherine Anne Castor that “We’re at the point where an entire generation has grown up in the climate crisis,” that is pure balderdash as we can clearly see if we aren’t hysterical like her and Greta Thunberg by doing a bit of research into technical articles like “History of the greenhouse effect and global warming” by S.M. Enzler MSc where we learn as follows with respect to carbon dioxide, to wit:
Svante Arrhenius (1859-1927) was a Swedish scientist that was the first to claim in 1896 that fossil fuel combustion may eventually result in enhanced global warming.
end quotes
Ah, 1896, yes, that would be one hundred twenty-three (123) years ago now, so it is hardly recent, and all of us alive today have been living with this “greenhouse gas” theory of Arrhenius all our lives without it troubling us, because it is merely a theory which in the intervening 123 years has been shown to be seriously flawed, although Greta Thunberg and Democrat Katherine Anne Castor are totally unaware of that, being scared out of their minds as they are by chimeras.
What Arrhenius actually found was that the average surface temperature of the earth is about 15C because of the infrared absorption capacity of water vapor and carbon dioxide, which is called the natural greenhouse effect.
In other words, carbon dioxide exists in the earth’s atmosphere because nature itself put it there for its own reasons.
And notice water vapor included there as a greenhouse gas.
The real science, as opposed to the bogus science Greta Thunberg and the Democrats are peddling, has water vapor as a much more effective greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide.
So why is that science being excluded by the Democrats and Greta Thunberg?
And as to these scare tactics Greta Thunberg and the Democrats are employing here with respect to the sky is falling and the world is going to come to an end and deprive Greta Thunberg of her future, I have been living with that crap all my life and after 60+ years of hearing about the world is going to end, I’m sick of it, which takes us back once again to that technical article for some necessary background history on this hysteria mongering by the Democrats, as follows:
In the late 1950’s and early 1960’s Charles Keeling used the most modern technologies available to produce concentration curves for atmospheric CO2 in Antarctica and Mauna Loa.
These curves have become one of the major icons of global warming.
The curves showed a downward trend of global annual temperature from the 1940’s to the 1970’s.
At the same time ocean sediment research showed that there had been no less than 32 cold-warm cycles in the last 2.5 million years, rather than only 4.
Therefore, fear began to develop that a new ice age might be near.
The media and many scientists ignored scientific data of the 1950’s and 1960’s in favor of global cooling.
In the 1980’s, finally, the global annual mean temperature curve started to rise.
People began to question the theory of an upcoming new ice age.
end quotes
It is not science we are being sold here by Greta Thunberg and the Democrats, people.
So ask yourself if you have children or grandchildren – why should you tolerate the Democrats lying to them and scaring them to score some cheap political points at their expense?
Sorin Varzaru says
Well Paul, what I am deducing from your writing is that you have a hatred for “the Democrats”, whatever that means. Whatever “the Democrats” are saying or doing is wrong. But, that is your problem, so knock yourself out. On the topic at hand, let’s say for the sake of argument that you are right, and dumping all that co2 and/or methane in the atmosphere is not causing climate change. You are aware that burning gas/coal/diesel also pollutes the air, water and soil, right? Or that’s bullshit too? So, maybe it’s not the worst thing to direct some energy towards finding a better way to move our asses around that reduces pollution. Also, I am guessing you understand that oil/coal and gas are a finite resource, right? You must, despite your somewhat irrational disdain of ” the Democrats”, you appear to be a smart person. What do you propose we do when we can’t find any more shit to burn? How are your grandchildren going to get around? Horses?
To clarify my position. I think we should put massive resources into refining solar, wind, wave energy production, battery storage, electric vehicles, advanced nuclear reactors, hopefully fusion. I propose we pay for it by adding a surcharge on anything that burns gas/coal/oil, like the gasoline tax. This was the biggest offenders and funding the development of alternative technologies. Considering I’m driving a V8 truck and have a boat, I guess I’d be contributing to that fund more then most.
Note: Why do wealthy white people enjoy hurting the poor so much? Who is the gas and oil tax really going to hurt? Not the guy with the yacht jammin’ twin chryslers, he’ll just pay the money. But single moms, who are already stretched, what are they supposed to do?
Paul Plante says
Sorin, one of the reasons I generally stay out of these discussions is because they are usually stupid, with hysteria on one side, and total denial of all reality on the other.
Yours above would run towards the hysterical, no offense intended, of course.
As to the topic at hand, it is not my argument that dumping all that co2 and/or methane in the atmosphere is not causing climate change.
The real “science,” not the “science” of Greta Thunberg is what says CO2 is not causing climate change, and given that I am an engineer, I go with the real science, not the science of hysteria.
And real science is not the possession of one person like Greta Thunberg – real science is available to everyone, so the science I rely on is as accessible to you as it is to me.
So that you might understand what an engineer is, versus a scientist, the practice of the profession of engineering is defined as performing professional services wherein the safeguarding of life, health and property is concerned, when such service or work requires the application of engineering principles and data.
Since engineers like myself are supposed to safeguard life, health and property, Sorin, we are not supposed to be running around like chickens with our heads cut off yelling the sky is falling, nor are we supposed to be gulled by the ravings of a frightened 16-year old Swedish girl who wants us all to panic because she feels fear every day.
So no, Sorin, I don’t “have a hatred for the Democrats”, whatever that means, although I would agree with you based on evidence and long years of experience that whatever the Democrats are saying or doing is wrong, but that is another subject for a different thread.
And engineering principles, Sorin, are not theories like this greenhouse gas model, which has many flaws due to the fact that there are too many variables for it to handle.
Engineering principles are based on natural laws and are fundamental truths that serve as the foundation for a system of belief or behavior or for a chain of reasoning.
So when applying engineering principle here, one looks at the fact that on earth, as opposed to Venus, our air, the general name for the mixture of gases that makes up the Earth’s atmosphere, is primarily nitrogen (78 percent), with oxygen (21 percent), water vapor (variable), argon (0.9 percent), carbon dioxide (0.04 percent), and many trace gases, as well as dust, pollen, and spores.
Notice how small a percentage of our air carbon dioxide really is.
And another engineering principle or natural law is that at standard temperature and pressure, the density of carbon dioxide is around 1.98 kg/m3, or about 1.67 times that of air, so that it is a dense gas, which means it does not rise and form a greenhouse layer in our upper air as the greenhouse gas model being pushed by Greta Thunberg and the Democrats, who are in the game for POWER, Sorin, and domination over us, if you didn’t already know that, requires it to.
So the thing with me, which may be different from you, is that I don’t like getting lied to and I don’t like seeing children being scared by lies.
And since I am an engineer, Sorin, who worked in the field of air pollution control yes, I am aware that the combustion products of burning gas are carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides and particulate matter, while the combustion products of burning coal include carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, sulfur dioxide and sulfur trioxide, while the combustion products of diesel are carbon dioxide and water vapor.
I am also aware that burning wood, or turf, or buffalo chips or any other organic matter also releases carbon dioxide into the air.
So if we want to be totally carbon free, then nothing can be burned to give us heat, which means it has to come from somewhere else, doesn’t it?
And how is that heat then supposed to get to us who now live out in the countryside?
As for me, Sorin, I’m not sitting around waiting for all you people out there running around like chickens with your heads cut off waiting for somebody to do something.
My personal carbon footprint is now very low, and very little do I have to rely on your grid to keep me alive, because your grid is becoming more and more unreliable.
As to nuclear, Sorin, let me leave you with this:
“Drought could force nuke-plant shutdowns”
By MITCH WEISS, Associated Press
Last updated: 12:52 p.m., Wednesday, January 23, 2008
LAKE NORMAN, N.C. — Nuclear reactors across the Southeast could be forced to throttle back or temporarily shut down later this year because drought is drying up the rivers and lakes that supply power plants with the awesome amounts of cooling water they need to operate.
“Water is the nuclear industry’s Achilles’ heel,” said Jim Warren, executive director of N.C. Waste Awareness and Reduction Network, an environmental group critical of nuclear power.
“You need a lot of water to operate nuclear plants.”
He added: “This is becoming a crisis.”
All but two are built on the shores of lakes and rivers and rely on submerged intake pipes to draw billions of gallons of water for use in cooling and condensing steam after it has turned the plants’ turbines.
At some plants — those with tall, Three Mile Island-style cooling towers — a lot of the water travels up the tower and is lost to evaporation.
Progress spokeswoman Julie Hahn said the Harris reactor, for example, sucks up 33 million gallons a day, with 17 million gallons lost to evaporation via its big cooling towers.
end quotes
When you have solved that cooling problem, Sorin, get back to me and we’ll talk further about nuclear.
In the meantime, have yourself a wonderful day, and Sorin, keep in mind that the average human like yourself or Greta Thunberg or AOC exhales about 2.3 pounds of carbon dioxide on an average day, and the exact quantity depends on a person’s activity level, so that a hysterical person chanting “hey, hey, ho, ho, climate change has got to go” over and over like Greta Thunberg the other day with all her friends can put out up to eight times as much CO2 as a calm person like myself, and that carbon dioxide is as much a “greenhouse gas” as is the carbon dioxide produces by burning wood or gas or diesel.
Thus, all of these politicians running their mouths at high speed telling us the untruth that the world is going to come to an end in ten years if we don’t enact the Green New Deal right now are themselves contributing greatly to climate change, assuming their model is correct that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, which shows some of the ignorance and hypocrisy and scientific voodoo at play here from those who want us to be scared so we are easier to manipulate, which takes us to Greta’s carbon fiber sailboat.
Carbon fiber is manufactured by refining oil to obtain acrylonitrile and then spinning this acrylonitrile and baking the spun yarn.
Due to the high baking temperature of 1000℃ or more, 20 tons of CO2 are emitted to manufacture 1 ton of carbon fiber.
So Greta’s crossing of the Atlantic in a high-tech, carbon fiber sailboat was hardly emission-free as we are being told by the media.
Why do you think they lie to us, Sorin?
Any guesses?
Note: I don’t think I would call Sorin hysterical. Passionate, yes his arguments seem reasonable. And there are many in the middle. Some that acknowledge the climate is changing, but aren’t sold on the fact that weak gases like Co2 and methane are wreaking that much havoc. Some believe that efforts to fight something you can’t really control will cause more harm to humanity than a changing climate ever will. Plus, we mostly live indoors now. Not a big deal.
Paul Plante says
And I would note that what I really said was that the latter part of Sorin’s post above ran towards the hysterical when he posted as follows:
“What do you propose we do when we can’t find any more shit to burn?”
“How are your grandchildren going to get around?”
“Horses?”
“To clarify my position. I think we should put massive resources into refining solar, wind, wave energy production, battery storage, electric vehicles, advanced nuclear reactors, hopefully fusion.”
end quotes
For the record, my grandchildren get around by using the two feet they were born with to propel them around, which is how I got along for many years of my own life when I didn’t own them extra burden of a car.
But now that school is back in session up this way, anyway, each morning, you see a seemingly endless convoy of Lincoln and Cadillac and GMC and Mercedes-Benz and BMW SUV’s and assorted sedans and coupes with a mommy or daddy in them ferrying little Johnny or little Suzy to school, creeping along in the traffic jam spewing out the deadly carbon dioxide that those same little children are so upset by as they walk out of school to stand and holler over and over along with Greta and AOC, “hey, hey, ho, ho, climate change has got to go,” which is the epitome of hypocrisy.
If those children really cared about the “environment” and carbon dioxide, they would tell mommy to leave the Lexus home, and they would walk to school, or take the bus.
As to how people will get along come the day there is no more **** to burn, who knows, because to date, it hasn’t happened yet, and I suspect that outside of a few places here in America, for many people, they won ‘t even know the difference, not being addicted in the first place to burning fossil fuel to keep them alive.
I was in Viet Nam in 1969, and where I was, there were no motorized vehicles, at all, nor was there electricity, and yet those people were getting along fine, by their standards, living as they had for centuries, given that the history of Viet Nam goes back to 2879 B.C.
And Rome, one of the truly great civilizations on earth began its history on April 21, 753 BC, long before internal combustion engines and V-8 powered trucks to haul your boat around with, and they built many engineering wonders without the aid of motorized equipment.
Julius Caesar in Gaul and in his other campaigns was moving his legions around quite rapidly on foot over 2,000 years ago.
And that is just a snapshot.
Then we have the Seima-Turbino phenomenon which dates from 2100 BCE to 1900 BCE, the homeland of is considered to be the Altai Mountains.
What makes that unique is that these people were in possession of advanced metal working technology, and two-wheeled chariots.
So by bothering to come out of our comfort zone to study a bit of history, we can plainly see that humans have gotten along just fine without the things we think are absolutely necessary today to sustain life, like the V-8 powered truck, and the big boat, etc. etc. etc.
When I was young, the old woman at the farm up the road where I worked was born after the civil war and had lived a good portion of her life without anything we consider essential to life today, and she was in her nineties when I knew her.
So, life without a BMW and a big boat with twin V-8 power used to be possible, even if it isn’t, anymore.
As to nuclear power, the first plant commissioned was on June 26, 1954, at Obninsk, Russia, when nuclear power plant APS-1 with a net electrical output of 5 MW was connected to the power grid, the world’s first nuclear power plant that generated electricity for commercial use, which is sixty-five (65) years ago now.
So, nuclear power is hardly a new concept, and by this time, there are no mysteries about nuclear power left, so what exactly is it that we are going to pour these massive resources into, outside of graft and corruption?
What is it about nuclear that we do not understand today, besides exactly nothing?
And it is not only a matter of electrical generation, it is also a matter of distribution, and what is known as Joule Heating, or “I squared R” losses.
Joule heating, also known as Ohmic heating and resistive heating, is the process by which the passage of an electric current through a conductor produces heat, and Joule heating affects the whole electric conductor, which means the farther away the source is, the greater the losses, and that heat produced goes into the atmosphere, because heat is energy.
And this has all been known now for several centuries, which is an indication of just how tedious these discussions have become today, where people are acting like we are just discovering what people have known for a long time already.
James Prescott Joule first published in December 1840, an abstract in the Proceedings of the Royal Society, suggesting that heat could be generated by an electrical current.
That was 179 years ago now.
Joule immersed a length of wire in a fixed mass of water and measured the temperature rise due to a known current flowing through the wire for a 30 minute period.
By varying the current and the length of the wire he deduced that the heat produced was proportional to the square of the current multiplied by the electrical resistance of the immersed wire, which is high school physics today, or even grade school physics, which raises the existential question of how people in this country today have become so pitifully stupid and ignorant.
Paul Plante says
And I would like to thank the Cape Charles Mirror for hosting this discussion on “climate change” before we get totally buried in bull**** by Greta Thunberg and the manipulative and exploitative Democrats, because it is not happening anywhere else, and that is to our detriment.
It is amazing how scared adults are of this poor little misguided girl with some serious psychological issues from Sweden who is the star of her own movie, which is a real statement about those in this country over 18 who are alleged to be adults.
Sorin Varzaru says
“And I would like to thank the Cape Charles Mirror for hosting this discussion on “climate change” ………. because it is not happening anywhere else, and that is to our detriment.”
I second that.
As far as Greta T, I could not care less about that stunt. They give her airtime probably because they think it would be political suicide if they don’t. Anyway, that’s barely worthy a side note as far as I’m concerned.
As far as water for cooling nuclear plants, I find it hard to believe we can’t find a place to put a plant that has sufficient water, but I’m not anywhere near an expert here. Paul Grossman is though, maybe he’ll jump in. Besides, it seems there are other nuclear plant designs that are possible, and some of them are pursued by small companies, but they seem to be poorly funded.
As far as hurting the poor with the oil/gas tax, I’m not against helping them out to counter the increased cost of fuel, but I think your side of the isle is not very fond of taxes that are taking money from the rich and give it to the poor. I think you call that “socialism”
Note: Thanks Soren, we really appreciate all you bring to the table. Keep up the good work, your opinion is very important!
Ray Otton says
Couple of things, real quick.
1 – Most of the Democrat candidates have come out AGAINST nuclear power and all in for sun and wind. Republicans, OTOH, have no problem with improving our nuclear power generation so you may be on the wrong side of the isle.
2 – You stated “I think your side of the isle is not very fond of taxes that are taking money from the rich and give it to the poor. I think you call that “socialism”
Earlier in this discussion you made it clear that you took pride in your independent approach to politics yet your comment parrots those uttered by ideologically driven Democrats Seems you aren’t as independent as you proclaim.
In addition, the claim that taxing the rich and giving it to the poor is the basis for socialism is, well, just plain wrong.
The simplest definition of socialism is that the government owns the means of production and the distribution of goods in a society in which there is no private property.
Sounds GREAT!
In fact, it’s so great it has to be enforced at the point of a gun.
Sorin Varzaru says
“1 – Most of the Democrat candidates have come out AGAINST nuclear power and all in for sun and wind. Republicans, OTOH, have no problem with improving our nuclear power generation so you may be on the wrong side of the isle.”
As I mentioned before, I’m not really on any side of the isle. I think nuclear power is currently the ONLY way to go “green”
“2 – You stated “I think your side of the isle is not very fond of taxes that are taking money from the rich and give it to the poor. I think you call that “socialism”
Earlier in this discussion you made it clear that you took pride in your independent approach to politics yet your comment parrots those uttered by ideologically driven Democrats Seems you aren’t as independent as you proclaim.”
I called myself “independent” because my opinion on various topics is not driven by the political party who supports that point. For instance I am for nuclear power. I believe in scientific consensus (the 98% of scientists who insist the climate change is driven by humans and bad for all of us). I like Warren for president but think her idea to ban fracking by executive order is moronic.
“In addition, the claim that taxing the rich and giving it to the poor is the basis for socialism is, well, just plain wrong.”
I could not agree more. I was “parroting” the reaction most conservatives have when they hear about that.
“The simplest definition of socialism is that the government owns the means of production and the distribution of goods in a society in which there is no private property.”
That’s really not the definition, the definition is that the WORKERS own/control the means. That being said, I am not for socialism. Unlike most of the people here, i experienced socialism and communism first hand. I’m for capitalism tempered by social measures to keep a cap on extremes.
Ray Otton says
“I think we should put massive resources into refining solar, wind, wave energy production, battery storage, electric vehicles, advanced nuclear reactors, hopefully fusion.”
Curious if you even read what I posted.
“Well Paul, what I am deducing from your writing is that you have a hatred for “the Democrats”, whatever that means. Whatever “the Democrats” are saying or doing is wrong.”
Can’t speak for Paul, but this is what Democrat proposals would do if they get their way in getting rid of fossil fuels.:
– Millions of good private sector jobs will be lost.
– Hundreds of billions of dollars in stock value, real estate and bond value will be lost.
– The federal and state government will lose substantial income and Social Security tax revenue.
– State and local governments will lose sales, property and other taxes and fees.
– Severely underfunded public pension plans will become more severely underfunded.
How will the Democrats fill all these gaps? The only way is more taxes, which disproportionately hurt poor Americans.
Here are some of the severe impacts to our economy if fossil fuels are outlawed:
Commuting – Every vehicle on the road powered by fossil fuels will be worthless. How will the poor and middle class be able to afford to replace their worthless vehicles? Subsidies from the government? Subsidies=more taxes.
Trucking – Same thing, Every vehicle on the road powered by fossil fuels will be worthless. How will the truckers be able to afford to replace their worthless vehicles? And it they do, the cost to ship goes way up, leading to much higher costs for services and products.
Infrastructure – How will cities be able to afford to replace all their police cars and fire engines? Only way is more taxes.
Who will produce them? it’s not like auto manufacturers will flip a switch and start churning out millions of electric powered vehicles.
How will businesses, hospitals, and power companies afford to retrofit all their businesses? More taxes, higher medical bills, higher energy cots and higher cost for services and products.
Airlines – Done…………………..except for the elites who will fly in private jets because they don’t care how much fuel costs.
Cruise Lines – Done, unless they start building nuclear crui$e $hip$.
Farming – All farm equipment powered by fossil fuels will be obsolete and worthless. They will not have enough money to replace the equipment and lithium powered equipment will be expensive and scarce. Gonna be back to 40 acres and a mule.
Banking – Think about all those defaulted internal combustion car loans. Can’t drive it, ain’t gonna pay for it.
Vacations – People will not be able to afford to travel. Again, the middles class, NOT the elites. For them it’s a win-win, less traffic to get in the way of their giant RV’s and LESS riff-raff around when they get where their going.
National Defense – The space and defense industries will be destroyed. There will be no way to defend ourselves from China, Russia, Iran and other countries which will not give up their source of income from fossil fuels.
The list of businesses, jobs, and families who will be destroyed by the Democrats’ proposed policies is endless.
Not opinion, fact.
The greatest existential threat to our freedom, prosperity and survival as a great country are journalists, politicians, educators and some regular folks who seem to have no idea of the destruction they are proposing.
Awaiting a rebuttal, typed on your laptop, sitting at your desk, SURROUNDED by products made from petroleum.
Sorin Varzaru says
” but this is what Democrat proposals would do if they get their way in getting rid of fossil fuels.”
OK, what specific proposals are you referring to? I’ve read them all, and the most ambitious would seem the one proposed by Warren. And nowhere it says that the gas/diesel vehicles that would be on the road at the time would be “banned”. So the entire premise of your commend seems flawed.
“By 2028, 100% zero-carbon pollution for all *NEW* commercial and residential buildings;
By 2030, 100% zero emissions for all *NEW* light-duty passenger vehicles, medium-duty trucks, and all buses;
”
Now Warren also say some stupid things, like give up nuclear energy which i think is moronic, but you resistance Ray to ANY change that would result in less pollution and burning fossil fuels is disarming.
You know, what is ironic is that before Trump, before all of this, i was leaning towards the Republican party ideology. And somehow, a few years later, i find myself more often then not, defending Democrat’s agendas.
Paul Plante says
I do not support either the Democrats nor the Republicans, and Sorin, you cannot expect us to support a government policy being put forth by the Democrats that is based on fraud, lies and deception as is the case with this “Green New Deal” which is the underlying basis of all these plans being put forth by Lizzie Warren and barmy Bernie Sanders, etc.
Where that all is now is captured in a New York Times story entitled “Climate Town Hall: Several Democratic Candidates Embrace a Carbon Tax” by Coral Davenport and Trip Gabriel on 5 September 2019, as follows:
WASHINGTON — Democratic candidates promised unprecedented new action on climate change on Wednesday night in the first prime-time televised forum devoted to the issue in a presidential campaign, vowing to undo the Trump administration’s environmental policies, spend trillions of dollars to promote renewable energy and force companies to pay new taxes or fees.
In perhaps the most significant development of the night, more than half of the 10 candidates at the forum openly embraced the controversial idea of putting a tax or fee on carbon dioxide pollution, the one policy that most environmental economists agree is the most effective way to cut emissions — but also one that has drawn intense political opposition.
While the candidates appeared in back-to-back interviews, it was a former presidential hopeful, Gov. Jay Inslee of Washington, who dominated the event in an unusual way.
He made climate change the singular focus of his campaign before dropping out of the race last month, only to see several of the current candidates echo his ambitious proposals in their climate plans and at Wednesday’s forum on CNN.
“You may remember Gov. Jay Inslee said, ‘Let’s get tough on this,’” said Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, as she laid out a new plan that she said had been influenced by her former rival.
In addition to proposing $3 trillion in spending on environmental initiatives, Ms. Warren also responded “Yes!” when asked by a moderator, Chris Cuomo, if she would support a carbon tax — a measure she had not spelled out in her official policy proposal.
Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont, who has not explicitly taken up Mr. Inslee’s ideas, said, “We are proposing the largest, most comprehensive program ever presented by any candidate in the history of the United States.”
Mr. Sanders has sought to win over the liberal wing of the Democratic Party with a plan that takes its name from the Green New Deal and has the biggest price tag of all the candidates’ proposals — $16.3 trillion over 15 years.
end quotes
All of that, Sorin, is based on as lie.
Why are you so accepting about that?
In support of my position, I present you with a technical paper from NASA entitled “Water Vapor Confirmed as Major Player in Climate Change” on 11.17.08, wherein is stated as follows:
Water vapor is known to be Earth’s most abundant greenhouse gas, but the extent of its contribution to global warming has been debated.
Using recent NASA satellite data, researchers have estimated more precisely than ever the heat-trapping effect of water in the air, validating the role of the gas as a critical component of climate change.
Andrew Dessler and colleagues from Texas A&M University in College Station confirmed that the heat-amplifying effect of water vapor is potent enough to double the climate warming caused by increased levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
With new observations, the scientists confirmed experimentally what existing climate models had anticipated theoretically.
end quotes
Now, again, we are talking about things we have known about for many years now, the role water vapor plays as a greenhouse gas, but water vapor does not sound so scary as carbon dioxide, which green plants need to live, and so we don’t have that part of the conversation, because it does not support the efforts of the Democrats to impose mon us their Green New Deal, which is a power grab, plain and simple.
Getting back to the NASA paper:
The research team used novel data from the Atmospheric Infrared Sounder (AIRS) on NASA’s Aqua satellite to measure precisely the humidity throughout the lowest 10 miles of the atmosphere.
That information was combined with global observations of shifts in temperature, allowing researchers to build a comprehensive picture of the interplay between water vapor, carbon dioxide, and other atmosphere-warming gases.
The NASA-funded research was published recently in the American Geophysical Union’s Geophysical Research Letters.
“Everyone agrees that if you add carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, then warming will result,” Dessler said.
“So the real question is, how much warming?”
The answer can be found by estimating the magnitude of water vapor feedback.
Increasing water vapor leads to warmer temperatures, which causes more water vapor to be absorbed into the air.
Warming and water absorption increase in a spiraling cycle.
Water vapor feedback can also amplify the warming effect of other greenhouse gases, such that the warming brought about by increased carbon dioxide allows more water vapor to enter the atmosphere.
“The difference in an atmosphere with a strong water vapor feedback and one with a weak feedback is enormous,” Dessler said.
Climate models have estimated the strength of water vapor feedback, but until now the record of water vapor data was not sophisticated enough to provide a comprehensive view of at how water vapor responds to changes in Earth’s surface temperature.
That’s because instruments on the ground and previous space-based could not measure water vapor at all altitudes in Earth’s troposphere — the layer of the atmosphere that extends from Earth’s surface to about 10 miles in altitude.
AIRS is the first instrument to distinguish differences in the amount of water vapor at all altitudes within the troposphere.
Using data from AIRS, the team observed how atmospheric water vapor reacted to shifts in surface temperatures between 2003 and 2008.
By determining how humidity changed with surface temperature, the team could compute the average global strength of the water vapor feedback.
“This new data set shows that as surface temperature increases, so does atmospheric humidity,” Dessler said.
“Dumping greenhouse gases into the atmosphere makes the atmosphere more humid.”
“And since water vapor is itself a greenhouse gas, the increase in humidity amplifies the warming from carbon dioxide.”
end quotes
Focus your attention on that last sentence, people, and really contemplate what it means in terms of what we are being told by the Democrats concerning the role carbon dioxide itself plays, which is a secondary role, not a primary role as the Democrats would have us believe, which takes us back to that paper, as follows:
“We now think the water vapor feedback is extraordinarily strong, capable of doubling the warming due to carbon dioxide alone.”
“This study confirms that what was predicted by the models is really happening in the atmosphere,” said Eric Fetzer, an atmospheric scientist who works with AIRS data at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, Calif.
“Water vapor is the big player in the atmosphere as far as climate is concerned.”
end quotes
And for the record, in 1975, which is 44 years ago now, I had all the records of research I was doing into the amount of water vapor being put into the atmosphere by nuclear generating facility cooling towers confiscated and destroyed because the New York State Power Pool as it was then known did not want that research published, so they had it covered up, instead.
So to answer the question of whether or not “science” is political, of course it is.
And I am not going to endorse a federal government program that is based on fraud, deception and outright lies.
Ray Otton says
Well, I wouldn’t normally do your work for you, but since your Carpal Tunnel is acting up I went ahead and typed “Democrats call for banning fossil fuels” into my favorite search engine “STARTPAGE.COM”.
To refute your claim than (D)’s aren’t looking to ban fossil fuels, turns out, they are pushing a bill that would require the U.S. to be 100 percent fossil free by 2035.
A bill introduced with relatively little public notice in September 2017, the OFF Fossil Fuels for a Better Future Act (OFF Act), is gaining support from Democrat political candidates across the nation.
As stated in the bill, the OFF Act would require “100 percent renewable energy by 2035 (16 years from now) and 80 percent by 2027( 8 years from now), places a moratorium on new fossil fuel projects, bans the export of oil and gas and also moves our automobile and rail systems to 100 percent renewable energy.
I duuno about you but that sounds pretty specific to me and I take them at their word.
As to the idea that I want no advancement, that is just insulting. As a conservative I believe in constant improvement of the human condition, in a controlled, non-chaotic fashion.
The point of my post was to inform the readers of the uncontrolled, chaotic transformation of our energy sector based on FEELINGS, not FACTS.
Sorin Varzaru says
OK, i’ve read that bill now. Once again it bans the sale of gas engine from manufacturers, it doesn’t ban ICE cars/trucks of the road. i can’t say i am against banning new coal powered plants. It seems wise to me to keep whatever fossil fuels we have in the country for ourselves, so the export ban seems wise.
But the bill is flawed in my opinion in regards to the targets of clean energy production. even if we had the will to do it, you can’t build so many plants so fast.
The bottom line is, Democrats are not a unified block. So some democrats introduced this, so what. it didn’t go anywhere because as introduced is flawed. some aspects of it seem ok though (to me).
Ray Otton says
Same ole, same ole.
Your argument boils down to this. Not ALL Democrats want to ban fossil fuels.
We’ve heard it all before:
Abortion must be legal, safe and rare.
We aren’t coming for your guns.
We must protect our voting system from foreign influence but Voter ID laws are racist.
If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor.
This economic resurgence is Obama’s doing.
RUSSIA, RUSSIA, RUSSIA!!!!!!!!
Nov. 6th, 2016, Trump can’t beat the Big Blue wall provided by the Electoral College……..Nov. 8th, 2016, the Electoral College has got to go.
And on
And on
And on
Paul Plante says
It is not just our energy sector, Mr. Otton – these fools, who spin out pie-in-the-sky “solutions” to something they have no control over, that being the continual change of climates that are a feature of life on earth, as opposed to the moon, Mars, or Venus, are talking about turning our very lives upside down if their cock-a-mamie plans were somehow to be imposed upon us by AOC and Elizabeth Warren and barmy Bernie Sanders, none of whom really have a clue as to what the ramifications are of what they are proposing, nor do they care, because they will have power, which is what it is all about for them – control.
I lived through the northeast blackout of 1965, which was a significant disruption in the supply of electricity on Tuesday, November 9, 1965, affecting parts of Ontario in Canada and Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, Pennsylvania, and Vermont in the United States, and as far as we could tell from inside the affected zone, the world had come to an end.
Everything stopped.
Where there was the light of cities and suburbs, there was darkness.
I was going to get gas that evening, and was just about out when the power went out, so that was it for me.
Unless you are on top of a hill, and where you want to go is down, a car without gas is worthless.
Luckily, a friend lived near-by, so I was able to find a place to wait out whatever was happening, and since everything was off, nobody knew.
That is what these fools are proposing, except on a national scale, not just the northeast.
Getting back to the blackout of 1965, over 30 million people and 80,000 square miles (207,000 km2) were left without electricity for up to 13 hours.
And everything came to a halt, just like that.
So, what do AOC and Lizzie Warren and barmy Bernie Sanders propose to do when that happens again as a result of their Green New Deal or OFF Act?
Has anyone heard?
If so, could you please share it with us?
Thank you.
Sorin Varzaru says
Paul, you are wearing me out… 🙂
I don’t agree with everything in the “new green deal”, but part of that is turning the electrical grid into a smart grid. That would make it almost impossible to have a blackout like in 1965.
Paul Plante says
The so-called “smart grid,” which actually isn’t all that smart, wouldn’t prevent a black-out and doesn’t.
We have had power outages up this way all summer from weather-related events, and anyway, you took that one way over into the tules, because I wasn’t saying that the green new deal was going to cause black-outs.
What I was saying is that the great black-out is a preview of the carbon-free world the Democrats are going to force on us in their hysteria over supposed global warming due to carbon dioxide, which theory goes back to the 1820s and Jean-Baptiste Joseph Fourier (21 March 1768 – 16 May 1830), the French mathematician and physicist who is also generally credited with the discovery of the greenhouse effect.
In the 1820s Fourier calculated that an object the size of the Earth, and at its distance from the Sun, should be considerably colder than the planet actually is if warmed by only the effects of incoming solar radiation.
He examined various possible sources of the additional observed heat in articles published in 1824 and 1827.
While he ultimately suggested that interstellar radiation might be responsible for a large portion of the additional warmth, Fourier’s consideration of the possibility that the Earth’s atmosphere might act as an insulator of some kind is widely recognized as the first proposal of what is now known as the greenhouse effect, although Fourier never called it that.
So, if we are not hysterical like Greta Thunberg and AOC and the Democrats, we can see that originally, the so-called “greenhouse effect” due to carbon dioxide in the earth’s atmosphere was a good thing, not a bad thing, because it made life more livable for humans than it otherwise might have been, absent the greenhouse gases.
In the 1820s, Fourier concluded that gases in the atmosphere could form a stable barrier like the glass panes, and it was this conclusion may have contributed to the later use of the metaphor of the “greenhouse effect” to refer to the processes that determine atmospheric temperatures.
Except today, with constant satellite measurements, plus the science that Greta Thunberg, AOC and the Democrats ignore or discard, because it does not serve to make people scared like they need them to be, we know not only that carbon dioxide does not make a layer in our atmosphere like a pane, but that it is not well-mixed, either, which shoots that “pane of glass” theory being pushed by Greta, AOC, and the Democrats right in the ***.
And that takes us forward in time from Fourier to Svante August Arrhenius (19 February 1859 – 2 October 1927), a Swedish scientist who was originally a physicist, but often is referred to as a chemist, as he was one of the founders of the science of physical chemistry, a course I took in my training to become an engineer.
With respect to this discussion, Arrhenius was the first to use basic principles of physical chemistry to estimate the extent to which increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide are responsible for the Earth’s increasing surface temperature.
In developing a theory to explain the ice ages, Arrhenius, in 1896, was the first to use basic principles of physical chemistry to calculate estimates of the extent to which increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) will increase Earth’s surface temperature through the greenhouse effect.
Arrhenius wanted to determine whether greenhouse gases could contribute to the explanation of the temperature variation between glacial and inter-glacial periods.
In his calculation Arrhenius included the feedback from changes in water vapor as well as latitudinal effects, but he omitted clouds, convection of heat upward in the atmosphere, and other essential factors.
His work is currently seen less as an accurate quantification of global warming than as the first demonstration that increases in atmospheric CO2 will cause global warming, everything else being equal.
With respect to this hysterical bull*** we are being force-fed today by Greta, the little scared girl from Sweden, the manipulator AOC and the Democrats, circa 1906, Arrhenius wrote Världarnas utveckling (1906) directed at a general audience, where he suggested that the human emission of CO2 would be strong enough to prevent the world from entering a new ice age, and that a warmer earth would be needed to feed the rapidly increasing population:
“To a certain extent the temperature of the earth’s surface, as we shall presently see, is conditioned by the properties of the atmosphere surrounding it, and particularly by the permeability of the latter for the rays of heat.” (p46)
“That the atmospheric envelopes limit the heat losses from the planets had been suggested about 1800 by the great French physicist Fourier.”
“His ideas were further developed afterwards by Pouillet and Tyndall.”
“Their theory has been styled the hot-house theory, because they thought that the atmosphere acted after the manner of the glass panes of hot-houses.” (p51)
“Although the sea, by absorbing carbonic acid, acts as a regulator of huge capacity, which takes up about five-sixths of the produced carbonic acid, we yet recognize that the slight percentage of carbonic acid in the atmosphere may by the advances of industry be changed to a noticeable degree in the course of a few centuries.” (p54)
“Since, now, warm ages have alternated with glacial periods, even after man appeared on the earth, we have to ask ourselves: Is it probable that we shall in the coming geological ages be visited by a new ice period that will drive us from our temperate countries into the hotter climates of Africa?”
“There does not appear to be much ground for such an apprehension.”
“The enormous combustion of coal by our industrial establishments suffices to increase the percentage of carbon dioxide in the air to a perceptible degree.” (p61)
“We often hear lamentations that the coal stored up in the earth is wasted by the present generation without any thought of the future, and we are terrified by the awful destruction of life and property which has followed the volcanic eruptions of our days.”
“We may find a kind of consolation in the consideration that here, as in every other case, there is good mixed with the evil.”
“By the influence of the increasing percentage of carbonic acid in the atmosphere, we may hope to enjoy ages with more equable and better climates, especially as regards the colder regions of the earth, ages when the earth will bring forth much more abundant crops than at present, for the benefit of rapidly propagating mankind.” (p63)
end quotes
So WTF, Sorin?
Can the greenhouse effect be both a good thing and a bad thing at the same time?
Paul Plante says
And do you realize that this so-called “smart grid” does not yet exist, beyond being an idea, although it is a catchy buzzword for the millennials and the Greta Thunberg set to grasp onto?
Sorin Varzaru says
“And do you realize that this so-called “smart grid” does not yet exist, beyond being an idea, although it is a catchy buzzword”
There is nothing magical about a smart grid, it’s just expensive to implement because it involves upgrading a lot of power delivery infrastructure.
Paul Plante says
A simple question: should public policy in the United States of America that affects the lives of all citizens in this country be based on lies, fraud and deception?
Sorin Varzaru says
“A simple question: should public policy in the United States of America that affects the lives of all citizens in this country be based on lies, fraud and deception?”
I think policy should be based on science and common sense. I don’t need (new) studies to support the following, because to me, it’s obvious that we should :
1. Stop burning coal for energy production ASAP (because it’s dirty)
2. Build houses with good insulation (because it’s more efficient to cool/warm)
3. Update the grid (to reduce power losses and better handle events)
4. Support electric vehicle research (because even now, it’s a more efficient way to convert energy to motion)
5. Invest more in fusion or molten salt reactor research
I give a sh*t about Greta or AOC , but if something they say or do gets us closer to these goals, then great.
I have a simple question for you. What do you think the public policy should be on the topic of energy production, transportation, etc? Do we need to come together as a nation and change anything or just carry on what we do now?
Paul Plante says
In all seriousness, Sorin, where the hell do you live that you are so disconnected from the reality that the rest of us who don’t live in Never Never Land with Peter Pan, where life is beautiful all the time, live in that you end up thinking that all of us are sitting out here wantonly wasting resources and being profligate with energy, creating veritable clouds of carbon dioxide in our passing, so we can steal Greta Thunberg’s future to have for our own instead, as we are being accused of doing by this younger set in America who don’t know there is a sky above them, because they are always staring at the palm of their hand, while waiting for the Democrats to take over all three parts of our federal government so they can then send us to re-education camps where we can learn the “right path” by engaging in hard labor every day?
And let me tell you, as belligerent as you are getting right now, I’m damn glad I’m not anywhere near you, especially after a few beers, because I can see you starting to get puce with rage here, with those big veins in your head standing out, and poor Mr. Otten trying to hold you back before you pummel me and knock me to the floor so you can stomp me a bit before kicking me the rest of the way out the door.
You say that it’s obvious that we should stop burning coal for energy production ASAP. because it’s dirty, and Sorin, we, that portion of the American people who are still capable of INDEPENDENT ACTION have been doing that, dude.
If you did even the very basic type of research on the subject of coal that my four-year old grand daughter does on the computer, along with a lot of other “children” (read, young adults) her age, you would find that in America, right here where we, the American people are, as opposed to some other country or ignorant ****-hole, the U.S. coal industry is declining in the face of lower-cost natural gas, renewable energy and regulations designed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and protect public health.
You would find, as any intelligent child does, that in the United States of America, as opposed to some benighted ****-hole like Zimbabwe or Kenya and Venezuela, utilities are accelerating their retirement of coal plants because they are increasingly uneconomical, but oh my goodness, don’t I sound just like a NATIONALIST there, talking about what we, the American people who aren’t ignorant are doing, as if we were somehow different or smarter than every one else on the planet.
You would find that in America, as opposed say, to Sweden, or China, coal demand is poised to drop by more than 2 percent each year as our economy continues to shut down coal plants in favor of natural gas and renewable energy.
You would find that in the United States of America, OUR country, the average share of electricity generated from coal in the US has dropped from 52.8% in 1997 to 27.4% in 2018.
So tell me, Sorin , if that is what children in America know, how come you don’t?
How come you think we are doing nothing, perhaps because the rich set down in Cape Charles with all their big boats and such are doing nothing, because to them, ostentation is what matters?
The you say we should build houses with good insulation, because it’s more efficient to cool/warm, as if none of us out here where it gets a hell of a lot colder than the perfect year-round climate of Cape Charles, known as a garden spot of the world when it comes to having a climate that is just lovely every day of the week and all the year round, could possibly know that.
We people in America who live in places where it gets down below zero in the winter have known about insulation for longer than you have been alive, so that we can stay alive, unlike you people down there who can go out in your bathing suit all year round to do your surfing.
And you obviously do not know that energy efficiency in building construction in the Commonwealth of Virginia is MANDATED (oh, my goodness, SNIFF, SNIFF, regulations, which we Americans so hate) by the state’s energy code https://up.codes/viewer/virginia/iecc-2015/chapter/CE_1/ce-scope-and-administration#CE_1 with its intent stated in C101.3, as follows:
This code shall regulate the design and construction of buildings for the effective use and conservation of energy over the useful life of each building.
This code is intended to provide flexibility to permit the use of innovative approaches and techniques to achieve this objective.
This code is not intended to abridge safety, health or environmental requirements contained in other applicable codes or ordinances.
end quotes
If you go to this site by the Virginia Energy Efficiency Council https://vaeec.org/programs/building-codes/ you will see that it is educating (not sowing hysteria like they do in Sweden to scare little girls like poor Greta) children about energy efficiency in residential buildings, to wit:
Everyone wins when new homes are built to the most cost-effective and efficient standards.
Studies show that rigorous energy codes are among the most cost-effective ways to improve energy efficiency and provide immediate cost savings to new home buyers.
end quotes
And Sorin, those of us who aren’t stupid, and don’t have big boats, and a lot of money to waste, and who live where it gets cold know that to be true, which is why we do use the best materials and most modern techniques that we can to keep yourself from ******* FREEZING OUR ***** OFF in the winter, which is on its way, no matter how hard we all get out there and screech that we don’t want the climate top change, we want it to be just like Cape Charles or Disneyland all year round, so we can go surfing too, instead of having to deal with shoveling snow.
And then you say to update the grid to reduce power losses and better handle events, as if that is not an on-going process by the power companies, who are publicly traded companies always looking to maximize return on investment.
And Sorin, you cannot reduce Joule Heating losses b y using what you call a “smart network.”
You reduce Joule Heating losses by reducing resistance, and by having the source of power as close to the user as possible which is why Alcoa has its aluminum plants, which use a lot of energy, in northern New York by the St. Lawrence River.
From there you go to support electric vehicle research, because even now, it’s a more efficient way to convert energy to motion, and that too is going on, Sorin.
Consider this article from the HOUSTON CHRONICLE entitled “Demand for gasoline wanes as electric car sales advance: report” by Marissa Luck on Nov. 30, 2018, to wit:
Americans’ appetite for gasoline is slowing and could fall further as electric car sales continue to bite into gasoline demand.
Electric vehicles sales are expected to make up 36 percent of new car sales by 2040, or in the most extreme scenarios, 100 percent of new car sales in the U.S. Europe and China, according to new analyses by the energy research firm from Wood Mackenzie.
Wood Mac projected that that this rate of adoption of electric vehicles would displace 5.5 million barrels a day of oil, although in an extreme scenario that could be as high as 11 million barrels a day.
If the current pace of reducing emissions of carbon dioxide, a major cause of global warming produced by fossil fuels such as oil, natural gas and coal, the global demand for oil would peak in 2036.
If the pace accelerates, global oil demand could peak as soon as 2031.
That, of course, has big implications for the economy of Houston, where most of the world’s biggest energy companies have headquarters or significant operations.
“The global energy transition will continue to progress, led in large part to technologies and (carbon dioxide reduction) trends we’re already seeing in the marketplace – the rise of renewables, growth in electric vehicles, electrification of end-use demand, increasing efficiency,” said David Brown, senior analyst at Wood Mackenzie, in a statement.
The auto industry’s bullish outlook on electric vehicles was highlighted this week when GM announced it will stop making its hybrid, the Chevy Volt, in favor of focusing on electric and autonomous vehicles.
Fossil fuels, however, are not going to vanish.
Even in an extreme scenario, fossil fuels will still make up 77 percent of global energy demand through 2035, according to Wood Mackenzie
While Americans are still consuming lots of gasoline, demand is flattening as vehicles become more fuel efficient.
The could mean lower profit margins — even losses — on motor gasoline for refineries along the Gulf and East coasts, the U.S. Energy Department said in a note Wednesday.
Higher gasoline prices for most of this year has hurt gasoline demand, the Energy Department said.
In the short-term energy outlook released earlier this month, the Energy Department estimated that U.S. gasoline consumption fell 1.3 percent in October compared to the same time last year, the sixth month this year with year-over-year declines.
For the first three weeks of November, estimated monthly gasoline consumption averaged about 9.2 million barrels per a day, a decrease of 262,000 barrels per a day since last November.
“Gasoline production has outpaced demand,” the Energy Department said, “and inventories have increased beyond their normal seasonal levels, lowering gasoline prices and, as a result, gasoline margins.”
end quotes
The world is not static, Sorin, and people don’t stand still waiting for some Democrat to come along and tell them “okay, now it is time, children, to inhale!”
Change is happening all the time, and as Wayne Creed said in an earlier edition of the Cape Charles MIRROR, or another episode, depending on how you look at it, “IT IS THE ECONOMICS” which determine the direction things go in, not the Democrats and AOC and poor little scared Greta Thunberg.
And then you say invest more in fusion or molten salt reactor research, to which I, an engineer, say why?
What is it that we don’t know about them by this time, given that research into fusion reactors began in the 1940s and has been on-going since then?
For the record, collaborative, multinational physics projects in this area include the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER) joint fusion experiment in France, which broke ground for its first support structures in 2010 — with the first experiments on its fusion machine, or tokamak, expected to begin in 2025.
However, ALL of the research done to date makes it clear that fusion energy production is pie-in-the sky for a host of reasons which are detailed in a paper from the BULLETIN OF THE ATOMIC SCIENTISTS dated April 19, 2017 and entitled “Fusion reactors: Not what they’re cracked up to be” by Daniel Jassby, a principal research physicist at the Princeton Plasma Physics Lab until 1999 who for 25 years worked in areas of plasma physics and neutron production related to fusion, to wit:
To sum up, fusion reactors face some unique problems: a lack of a natural fuel supply (tritium), and large and irreducible electrical energy drains to offset.
Because 80 percent of the energy in any reactor fueled by deuterium and tritium appears in the form of neutron streams, it is inescapable that such reactors share many of the drawbacks of fission reactors — including the production of large masses of radioactive waste and serious radiation damage to reactor components.
These problems are endemic to any type of fusion reactor fueled with deuterium-tritium, so abandoning tokamaks for some other confinement concept can provide no relief.
If reactors can be made to operate using only deuterium fuel, then the tritium replenishment issue vanishes and neutron radiation damage is alleviated.
But the other drawbacks remain — and reactors requiring only deuterium fueling will have greatly enhanced nuclear weapons proliferation potential.
These impediments — together with the colossal capital outlay and several additional disadvantages shared with fission reactors — will make fusion reactors more demanding to construct and operate, or reach economic practicality, than any other type of electrical energy generator.
The harsh realities of fusion belie the claims of its proponents of “unlimited, clean, safe and cheap energy.”
Terrestrial fusion energy is not the ideal energy source extolled by its boosters, but to the contrary: It’s something to be shunned.
end quotes
And there is also this:
A fusion reactor is a thermal power plant that would place immense demands on water resources for the secondary cooling loop that generates steam, as well as for removing heat from other reactor subsystems such as cryogenic refrigerators and pumps.
Worse, the several hundred megawatts or more of thermal power that must be generated solely to satisfy the two classes of parasitic electric power drain places additional demand on water resources for cooling that is not faced by any other type of thermoelectric power plant.
In fact, a fusion reactor would have the lowest water efficiency of any type of thermal power plant, whether fossil or nuclear.
With drought conditions intensifying in sundry regions of the world, many countries could not physically sustain large fusion reactors.
Numerous alternative coolants for the primary heat-removal loop have been studied for both fission and fusion reactors, and one-meter thick liquid lithium walls may be essential for inertial confinement fusion systems to withstand the impulse loading.
However, water has been used almost exclusively in commercial fission reactors for the last 60 years, including all of those presently under construction worldwide.
This circumstance indicates that implementing any substitute for water coolant such as helium or liquid metal will be impractical in magnetic confinement fusion systems.
And all of the above means that any fusion reactor will face outsized operating costs.
Fusion reactor operation will require personnel whose expertise has previously been required only for work in fission plants — such as security experts for monitoring safeguard issues and specialty workers to dispose of radioactive waste.
Additional skilled personnel will be required to operate a fusion reactor’s more complex subsystems including cryogenics, tritium processing, plasma heating equipment, and elaborate diagnostics.
Fission reactors in the United States typically require at least 500 permanent employees over four weekly shifts, and fusion reactors will require closer to 1,000.
In contrast, only a handful of people are required to operate hydroelectric plants, natural-gas burning plants, wind turbines, solar power plants, and other power sources.
Another intractable operating expense is the 75-to-100 megawatts of parasitic electric power consumed continuously by on-site supporting facilities that must be purchased from the regional grid when the fusion source is not operating.
Multiple recurring expenses include the replacement of radiation-damaged and plasma-eroded components in magnetic confinement fusion, and the fabrication of millions of fuel capsules for each inertial confinement fusion reactor annually.
end quotes
So, with regard to your simple question for me as to what I think the public policy should be on the topic of energy production, transportation, and do we need to come together as a nation and change anything or just carry on what we do now, I’m not waiting for that to happen, to be quite frank, because it will never happen, that the American people will come together on this, especially now when people are so very ignorant and hysterical as they are.
As to what public policy should be, I would go back to 1942, and pp. 251,252 of Fundamentals of Economic Geography by Nels A. Bengtson, Professor of Geography, and Chairman of the Department of Geography, University of Nebraska, and Willem Van Royen, Department of Economics, Brooklyn College of the City of New York; Board of Economic Warfare, Division of Resources and Supply, copyright 1942, where we have as follows:
The oil pools of California are characterized by high gas pressure, and therefore the flush output of wells is high.
The quality of the oil varies from light to heavy in different pools, some being of exceptionally high quality, but for the province as a whole asphaltic oils predominate.
In spite of low prices for such oils the great flush production long ago made wells highly profitable and led to veritable orgies of drilling.
Enormous production has been obtained from several pools in the Los Angeles Basin, which in proportion to its area must be classed as one of the most productive districts in the world.
Competition for the oil caused too close drilling and resulted in production so great that markets were unable to absorb the output.
Oil interests have finally become convinced of the truth long agitated by economists and geologists, that unrestricted drilling is uneconomical and that the rapid reduction of gas pressure which it entails lessens the amount of oil which ultimately be obtained from the area.
In recognition of this, California has a state conservation law, the intent of which is to prevent the waste of natural gas and thereby not only conserve it for industrial use, but, through maintained gas pressure, increase the amount of petroleum which may ultimately be recovered from the producing sands of the area.
Such legislation is distinctly forward-looking and reflects the sane view that wanton waste in utilizing natural resources is economically unsound, and that, therefore, the immediate profits of a few must be sacrificed for the ultimate advantage of the many.
end quotes
Do you think that makes me sound like an anti-capitalist, Sorin?
Sorin Varzaru says
I am getting belligerent? I find that amusing.
Paul, you spent a lot of energy in writing that long reply, so I made an effort to read it. You seem to have difficulty in writing concisely, so I will attempt to summarize your points :
* Democrats are evil
* Greta is the devil incarnate
* Human driven climate change is a hoax (so all these scientists, are either mistaken or evil : https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/ , https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_who_disagree_with_the_scientific_consensus_on_global_warming#/media/File:Climate_science_opinion_graph_3Path.svg)
* We don’t have to change policy because change is happening already
* We shouldn’t accelerate research in nuclear power because … Actually i was unable to make out any coherent argument against that.
Did miss anything?
Did I miss anything?
Paul Plante says
Did you miss anything?
Are you kidding me?
You missed everything, especially with respect to fusion, but hey, this is America, where you really don’t need to know anything, especially if you are running for high public office, so it is alright that you missed everything, and I hope you have a real great day!
But while we have you on the line here, before you go, let’s go down through your points one by one, because that is how important this conversation really is, to everybody alive in America today, to wit:
* Democrats are evil
That, Sorin is a value judgment that I myself would ,lead to the moralists and theologians out there to argue through, but, if you see them as evil in your scheme of things, then to you, they are, and I would not argue against you that exploiting and manipulating children and politicizing children for partisan political gain as the Democrats are doing with this climate change hysteria they are provoking with lies and deception is obscene, and where evil is defined as profoundly immoral and wicked, as in “their evil deeds,” with such synonyms as bad, morally wrong, and immoral, then yes, Sorin, we can say that those Democrats who believe it is alright to scare children with lies for political gain are indeed evil.
Moving right along:
* Greta is the devil incarnate
And again, Sorin, that is another value judgment, and while you might see it that way, to me, as a compassionate grandfather, I see her as a very troubled youth who is a victim of her parents and her society.
Consider this from the poor girl’s published bio, Sorin:
Thunberg says she first heard about climate change in 2011, when she was 8 years old, and could not understand why so little was being done about it.
Three years later she became depressed and lethargic, stopped talking and eating, and was eventually diagnosed with Asperger syndrome, obsessive–compulsive disorder (OCD), and selective mutism.
end quotes
YEOW! you know what I mean, Sorin?
That poor little girl is a mess, and we should be feeling real sorry for her victimhood instead of condemning the poor damaged girl as the devil incarnate and calumniating against her like that when it is quite clear the girl is in need of some good psychiatric help, instead, which she apparently does not have access to in Sweden, poor thing.
And consider this from the puff piece about here in the GUARDIAN article “When Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez met Greta Thunberg: ‘Hope is contagious’ – One is America’s youngest-ever congresswoman, the other a Swedish schoolgirl. Two of the most powerful voices on the climate speak for the first time” by Emma Brockes on 29 Jun. 2019, to wit:
“Millions of children around the world, striking and saying, ‘Why should we study for a future that may not exist any more?’”
“This is not only me, but everyone in the movement.”
end quotes
That is Greta speaking, Sorin – does she sound like the Devil incarnate there, or just a confused little girl?
And while we are on the subject of the exploitation and manipulation of that troubled little girl, how about the NPR article “Greta Thunberg To U.S.: ‘You Have A Moral Responsibility’ On Climate Change” by Bill Chappell and Ailsa Chang on September 13, 2019, as follows:
Asked when she became so passionate about climate change, Thunberg says it started before she was 10 years old, during a school lesson that, as she recalls, made the entire class very sad.
“We saw these horrifying pictures of plastic in the oceans and floodings and so on, and everyone was very moved by that.”
“But then it just seemed like everyone went back to normal,” Thunberg says.
“And I couldn’t go back to normal because those pictures were stuck in my head.”
“And I couldn’t just go on knowing that this was happening around the world.”
end quotes
And it is not happening all around the world, but nobody in the media which is exploiting this little girl has the courage to tell this little girl she is wrong, and that is what is wrong, Sorin – they let this little girl stay scared so they can sell advertising, which is obscene.
And then we have THE NEW YORKER article entitled “The Fifteen-Year-Old Climate Activist Who Is Demanding a New Kind of Politics” by Masha Gessen on October 2, 2018, as follows:
Thunberg developed her special interest in climate change when she was nine years old and in the third grade.
“They were always talking about how we should turn off lights, save water, not throw out food,” she told me.
“I asked why and they explained about climate change.”
“And I thought this was very strange.”
“If humans could really change the climate, everyone would be talking about it and people wouldn’t be talking about anything else.”
“But this wasn’t happening.”
“I can become very angry when I see things that are wrong,” she said.
On a recent class trip to a museum exhibit on climate change, for example, she noticed that some figures in the show — statistics on the carbon footprint of meat production, for example — were wrong.
“I became very angry, but I’m quiet, so I just went to the exit and sat there by the doors.”
“I didn’t say anything until people asked me.”
end quotes
She needs you to give her a good hug, Sorin, not have you calling her the devil incarnate, which takes us to your next point,. as follows:
* Human driven climate change is a hoax (so all these scientists, are either mistaken or evil : https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/ ,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_who_disagree_with_the_scientific_consensus_on_global_warming#/media/File:Climate_science_opinion_graph_3Path.svg)
“Science,” Sorin, is not a democracy, where the majority rules.
And unless you happen to be in balmy Cape Charles, Virginia, or Disneyland, or Burbank, California, or San Diego, or maybe Papeete, Tahiti, where the climate is perfect just as you would want it to be 24/7/365, climate, which is nothing more than the state of the atmosphere at a place and time as regards heat, dryness, sunshine, wind, rain, etc., is constantly changing, so given that, climate change can hardly be a myth, can it?
And of course the activities of humans affect the climate, which is the state of the atmosphere at a place and time as regards heat, dryness, sunshine, wind, rain, etc.
Fourth grade children are aware of that.
And moving right along again:
* We don’t have to change policy because change is happening already
Policy is constantly changing, Sorin.
* We shouldn’t accelerate research in nuclear power because …
Because why?
Sorin Varzaru says
“Science,” Sorin, is not a democracy, where the majority rules.”
You may to to read on that : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_consensus
I’ve said what I had to say otherwise.
Paul Plante says
And Sorin, let me sincerely say that I am quite sorry to hear that real climate science makes you “tired,” given that it is nothing more than high school science that we are discussing here, and to be sure, I just googled “high school science, teaching Arrhenius,” and sure enough, just as I remembered from like 57 years ago when I was taught the subject in high school, the “Arrhenius Equation” is still taught, as it should be, so that our American children are able to think for themselves about this subject of carbon dioxide and its role in life on earth, where carbon dioxide, as any child growing up in the countryside growing their own food knows, is essential to life in that everything we grow that is green requires carbon dioxide to breathe, or it doesn’t live, so that they are not misled by manipulators like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Svante Thunberg.
The following formulation of Arrhenius’s rule is still in use today, and when it comes to “science,” it is the only science that there is, to wit:
Δ F = α ln(C/C subscript 0)
where C subscript 0 is the concentration of CO2 at the beginning (time-zero) of the period being studied (if the same concentration unit is used for both C and C subscript 0, then it doesn’t matter which concentration unit is used); C is the CO2 concentration at end of the period being studied; ln is the natural logarithm (= log base e (log subscript e)); and Δ F is the augmentation of the temperature, in other words the change in the rate of heating Earth’s surface (radiative forcing), which is measured in joules of heat energy per second, per square meter — a joule per second is one watt.
That is the “science” that all these so-called “consensus scientists” are working with, and it has been known now for some 123 years, which brings us back to public policy that impacts the lives of all of us being based on fraud, lies, deceit and deception, much as was the case with the Tonkin Gulf Resolution back when, which was based on lies, deceit and deception by the Democrats.
And that brings us to these words from United States Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez on 29 June 2019, to wit:
In the 1970s, ExxonMobil had internal science that not only definitively proved that climate change was real, but they themselves, the oil company, invested in modelling to see how bad it was going to be.
Some of their models were so sophisticated that, back in the 70s, they were predicting our weather patterns as far out as 2012 – and many of them were accurate.
They knew exactly what was happening.
So what they did, starting the year I was born, around 1989, was to start funding a lot of media and lobbying campaigns.
They knew they couldn’t fund campaigns outright saying climate change is not real.
But they could fund campaigns sowing confusion.
So they would run campaigns saying we need to see more science, to sow doubt around the consensus.
For a very long time it worked, and it got very bad.
We came very close to acting on the climate in 1989, but the lobbying was so powerful that they effectively prevented action – we had almost 40% of Republican voters not believing that climate change was settled fact.
But I think because of our advocacy and our movement, those numbers have been dropping precipitously in just the last few years.
And in the last year especially, with our push for a Green New Deal, connecting everything that is happening to climate change.
People who cover increasingly worse hurricanes as though they are accidents, or just things that happen – now, every time a storm comes, we talk about climate change.
The other piece of it is not just acknowledging that it’s real, but prioritising it as a top issue.
We just received some very encouraging numbers yesterday – a year or two years ago, only 20% of Democratic voters, the more liberal voters in the country, saw climate change as a top issue.
With our action, and the youth organising that’s going on now, it has surged.
We’ve seen in very early voting states, something like 70% of Democratic voters think that a Green New Deal should be a top issue, and that they would support candidates who support it, and not supporting it is a red flag for many voters.
I think we’re moving, but it takes this radical action to move it.
We have historically had an issue with media coverage of the climate crisis – I think they don’t realise that not covering it is just as bad as denying it.
We have issues because much of our media is profit-driven, and if it doesn’t drive ratings they will not cover it as much.
But we simply don’t have a choice.
We have to do this.
end quotes
SHRIEK, SHRIEK, SHRIEK!
What Exxon Mobil had back in the 1970s was the same Arrhenius Equation that ALL of us alive back then had, including high school children, but AOC, who was born on born October 13, 1989, doesn’t know that because she never bothered to learn, or was never taught, or just plain did not give a ****, being into modern expressive dance as she was back then.
And that brings us to an article in the Scientific American entitled “Exxon Knew about Climate Change almost 40 years ago – A new investigation shows the oil company understood the science before it became a public issue and spent millions to promote misinformation” by Shannon Hall on October 26, 2015, where we are provided the following mindless bull**** by this fraud of a magazine, as follows:
Exxon was aware of climate change, as early as 1977, 11 years before it became a public issue, according to a recent investigation from InsideClimate News.
end quotes
To which I say, oh, get out of here with this bull****, will you!
In 1977 in America, there should have been no one under the age of 15 who were not aware of climate change, since we were modeling climate change with the same science which still exists today, in high school back in 1962.
But obviously, you can be real stupid, ignorant and uninformed and still be a feature writer for Scientific American as is the case here with this Shannon Hall, who is advertised as being an award-winning freelance science journalist based in the Rocky Mountains who specializes in writing about astronomy, geology and the environment, from an obviously biased perspective.
That spew of bull**** then continued as follows:
This knowledge did not prevent the company (now ExxonMobil and the world’s largest oil and gas company) from spending decades refusing to publicly acknowledge climate change and even promoting climate misinformation — an approach many have likened to the lies spread by the tobacco industry regarding the health risks of smoking.
end quotes
Now, I am over 70, and in 1975, I was inducted into Sigma Xi, The Scientific Research Honor Society, which is the international honor society of science and engineering.
One of the oldest and largest scientific organizations in the world, Sigma Xi has a distinguished history of service to science and society for more than one hundred and twenty five years.
Scientists and engineers, whose research spans the disciplines of science and technology, comprise the membership of the Society.
More than 200 Nobel Prize winners have been members.
Sigma Xi was founded in 1886 to honor excellence in scientific investigation and encourage a sense of companionship and cooperation among researchers in all fields of science and engineering.
So regardless of what AOC or Greta Thunberg or Shannon Hall were aware of in 1977, I and many others in the “science community” were aware of what Exxon Mobil was doing, which was conducting their own research into the equation and WHY NOT?
Because they are an oil company?
What horse****!
So despite the bull**** being spewed by the Scientific American in 2015, which bull**** was then regurgitated by United States Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez on 29 June 2019, there was no cover-up by Exxon Mobil, and no, I never worked for them, nor desired to, and I don’t own stock in Exxon Mobil, and there was no misinformation campaign by Mobil, which takes us back to the hysteria-mongering and misinformation that real stupid Scientific American article as follows:
“It’s never been remotely plausible that they did not understand the science,” says Naomi Oreskes, a history of science professor at Harvard University.
end quotes
DUH!
It has never been remotely plausible that any high school graduate over the age of 15 since at least the 1950s if not before does not understand the “science,” so that hype and tripe from this Naomi Oreskes, a history of science professor at Harvard University, above here about Mobil not understanding high school science can be dismissed for what it is – mindless drivel, which makes it plain that you can be a collitch perfesser at Harvard without having to know a ******* thing.
And what makes this truly obscene is that Arrhenius was trying to quell hysteria about climate change with his equation while the AOC manipulative crowd that is exploiting poor little Greta Thunberg, the scared girl from Sweden, are trying to use the Arrhenius Equation to sow fear and hysteria to get us off-balance so we can’t think straight and thus, will be easy meat for AOC to manipulate at her will.
So, when you are for the Green New Deal, which has already been proven by AOC herself to be nothing more than a fund-raising scam, you are for fraud, lies, deceit and deception.
Why?
Sorin Varzaru says
“And Sorin, let me sincerely say that I am quite sorry to hear that real climate science makes you “tired,””
Well Paul, I didn’t say the SCIENCE was wearing me out… 🙂
Listen, I am going to say this only one last time.
I DON’T CARE about the reasons AOC, Greta and anybody else are doing what they are doing. I don’t care if they have some nefarious reasons, if they are misguided, if they are lying, if they are political puppets, or anything else. So reading pages on top of pages of you railing against them or against “the Democrats” tires me.
***SOME*** of the points they make are correct in my opinion. If the noise they are making is raising awareness on some of the issues I care about, then that’s good enough for me. Since I already mentioned those points elsewhere I am not going to repeat those here.
Paul Plante says
Well said, Mr. Otton, and not a single word out of place!
Sorin Varzaru says
And Ray, Paul and whoever else feels like it, I am renewing my offer to buy everyone some beers and discuss this in person. I have carpal syndrome and typing a lot hurts my hands. Besides, I much rather interact with people in person then though the anonymity of internet.
Note: Sound’s like a great idea!
Paul Plante says
It is absurd, Sorin Varzaru, at least from an engineering point of view employing thermodynamics and heat and mass transfer, if you have any of your own experts in those areas you want to bring into the conversation, to say that the heat energy produced by human activity has no impact whatsoever on the weather, and hence, the climate.
It is, however, far more absurd, and dangerously so, to insist, as these Democrats are doing, that humans can actually stop climate change, when climate change is a function of what the earth wants it to be, not the whims of 16-year old Greta Thunberg, who incidentally in my estimation as a grandfather and American citizen is the biggest fraud to be perpetrated on the public at large in the name of “science,” since the famous Piltdown Man hoax back in 1912, or AOC, for that matter, who is helping to perpetrate this fraud that is Greta Thunberg on us, in her own bid for considerable political power over our lives without our having a voice in the matter, which is tyranny.
As to the Piltdown Man, it was a paleoanthropological hoax in which bone fragments were presented as the fossilised remains of a previously unknown early human.
The inauthenticity of the hoax was described in 1953.
An extensive scientific review in 2016 established that amateur archaeologist Charles Dawson was its likely perpetrator.
In 1912, Charles Dawson claimed that he had discovered the “missing link” between ape and man.
In February 1912, Dawson contacted Arthur Smith Woodward, Keeper of Geology at the Natural History Museum, stating he had found a section of a human-like skull in Pleistocene gravel beds near Piltdown, East Sussex.
That summer, Dawson and Smith Woodward purportedly discovered more bones and artifacts at the site, which they connected to the same individual.
These finds included a jawbone, more skull fragments, a set of teeth, and primitive tools.
Smith Woodward reconstructed the skull fragments and hypothesised that they belonged to a human ancestor from 500,000 years ago.
The discovery was announced at a Geological Society meeting and was given the Latin name Eoanthropus dawsoni (“Dawson’s dawn-man”).
The questionable significance of the assemblage remained the subject of considerable controversy until it was conclusively exposed in 1953 as a forgery.
It was found to have consisted of the altered mandible and some teeth of an orangutan deliberately combined with the cranium of a fully developed, though small-brained, modern human.
The Piltdown hoax is prominent for two reasons: the attention it generated around the subject of human evolution, and the length of time, 41 years, that elapsed from its alleged initial discovery to its definitive exposure as a composite forgery.
end quotes
And here we are once again, being confronted with an elaborate fraud, this one named Greta Thunberg, which fraud is being stage-managed by her father and PR dude, the famous Swedish actor Svante Thunberg, who is listed as a co-author of a book she wrote about herself entitled “Scenes from the Heart,” where we are informed that Greta has “condition” that makes her far more intelligent than any of us churls or serfs out here spewing gobs of carbon dioxide into the air each day with our profligate lifestyle that Greta knows every American has, so that we should submit to her superior intelligence and do whatever it is she tells us to do.
Svante Thunberg, born 10 June 1969, the year I was in Viet Nam, father of Greta and
manipulator of us, is a Swedish author, arts manager and producer, and actor, and he is the son of actors Olof Thunberg and Mona Andersson, so acting runs deep in that family as we can see in this YouTube video of Svante Thunberg smoothly spinning his web of lies to capture the minds of America’s youth, to twist them to his cause, which is promoting Greta as a serious financial asset:
Greta & Svante Thunberg – Straight Talk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GiD04TRwebQ
Personally, I think every parent and grandparent in America should watch that video with their children and grandchildren to see exactly what kind of mind poison they are being fed here in the name of “science,” which this is a mockery of.
Paul Plante says
And thank you to the Cape Charles Mirror once again for hosting this discussion, which lets an old disabled, certified poor person like myself have as equal access as do the well-to-do yacht owners who proliferate in the balmy clime of Cape Charles, Virginia (yes, I drove through one time with my windows down just to experience it first-hand, and I thought it was lovely, far better in fact than even San Diego or Burbank, California, or Marseilles, France, for that matter), and to Mr. Otton for bringing us back to the reality that a small group of people, at best 32% of the American people, called the Democrats are unilaterally attempting to enact an insane policy known as the “GREEN NEW DEAL (see, Cape Charles Mirror 7 April 2019 http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/green-new-deal-is-really-just-about-ending-capitalism/#comment-138950 ) that will cause chaos in this country that will greatly impact the lives of the 68% of us who are not Democrats and who will be harmed by this while being denied a voice at the table, which brings us American citizens who care about due process of law, which is to say, citizenship as opposed to being a cud-chewing consumer as so many Americans have become, to this issue of the Democrats in Congress, and here we are talking directly about this AOC, inviting this young Swedish girl who is spouting nonsense to appear before something called the House Select Committee on the Climate Crisis, a select committee established in the 116th United States Congress in 2019 when Democrats regained the majority of the United States House of Representatives chaired by Congresswoman Kathy Castor of Florida, without someone standing there right beside her to question her “science” and to then rebut it, as it should be, given that it is nothing more than ignorant rubbish, and I say that as an American citizen who openly resents this spoiled and willful rich and manipulative Swedish teen-ager coming over here to tell me, “You are not mature enough to tell it like it is, even that burden, you leave to us children,” which is ignorant horse****, although not to the Democrats who are exploiting this girl to push their “green new deal” agenda in this upcoming presidential race, by having poor little Greta Thunberg come on camera to chide us all for being so morally irresponsible, which will have the Democrats on the panel openly weeping and possibly tearing at their clothes while flagellating themselves with chains to expiate their sins, which they will then project onto the rest of us, as well, while telling us to our faces as she did at the World Economic Forum in Switzerland this year, when she told government and business leaders:
“I want you to panic.”
“I want you to feel the fear I feel every day.”
end quotes
As to the existence of that particular committee, in November and December of 2018, youth climate activists with the Sunrise Movement pushed House Democrats to form a select committee with the mandate to draft “Green New Deal” legislation, working with incoming freshman Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who proposed language for the committee’s authorization.
As can be seen, that was entirely one-sided, with no input from those of us who are not in favor of the Green New Deal for legitimate reasons the Democrats are keeping out of the record.
As to keeping us out of the discussion, which is very un-democratic, a hallmark of the Democrats, it is only necessary to go to their website https://climatecrisis.house.gov/ where they make it incandescently clear (The science is in. We know the cause. Burning fossil fuels and destroying tropical forests are driving the climate crisis.) that thank you very much, the discussion is over, we have all the facts and we have all of what we need to know, so go back home and STFU if you don’t agree with the green new deal, which makes you an obstructionist trying to steal the future of people like Greta Thunberg.
Which raises the existential question of why are the Democrats bringing this girl over from Sweden to try and turn our children and grandchildren against us by accusing us of stealing their futures because we are all a bunch of self-centered gluttons and wastrels, a characterization I frankly resent and find extremely insulting as an American citizen, which has me standing up in here to protest this Swedish trouble-maker appearing before our Co9ngress without equal time for rebuttal being offered on behalf of the American people themselves, who are quite obviously being left out of the discussion by the Democrats.
Sorin Varzaru says
I see no one i taking me up on my offer to discuss this over a beer. That’s a shame 🙂
Paul Plante says
Discuss this subject over beers?
Been there and done that, Sorin, and I can guarantee you that that conversation, if it can be called that, goes nowhere fast, just as it usually does when discussed by people on the internet.
People on beer who don’t believe that the climate can change, or that the activities of humans can affect the weather, and hence climate, usually get pretty belligerent once they have a few beers in them, whereas the ones who think the world is going to come to an end get maudlin and start crying in their beer about all these poor children like Greta Thunberg who are having their futures stolen from them so we can all drive around with big pick-ups towing our boat behind us so all the neighbors can see how well off we are.
This is about the best I have seen, since no screaming has started yet in here, and you are doing a good job of being objective and considering what has been offered so far.
So, is this a true statement then:
We are no longer at the point of preventing [climate disaster] from happening entirely – we are now at the point of minimising the damage.
end quote
And what is “climate disaster?”
Is that something that you could define, or find a definition of for us, because what the term is supposed to mean eludes me, who in over 70 years of life now, has been in some harsh environments, both hot and cold and wet.
As to “climate disasters, in 1886, an extremely severe winter wiped out over half of Teddy Roosevelt’s cattle herds out in the Dakotas, and after the disastrous winter of 1886–87, many of the cattle ranchers went out of business.
You would think with all those farting cows that AOC wants to ban, or equip with carbon-capture technology, that there would have been enough extra co2 in the air out there to keep it tropical.
And then, on the other side of the ledger, on May 31, 1889, we had the Great Johnstown Flood, which occurred after the catastrophic failure of the South Fork Dam, located on the south fork of the Little Conemaugh River in Pennsylvania, which was caused by excessive rainfall,
Were those climate disasters?
Or is that just the way it is for reasons the earth itself only knows?
And look at the dates there, Sorin, that cold winter and that excessive rainfall all happened within a few years of each other.
Why would carbon dioxide cause two such diverse events in such a short time period?
And in the early 1980’s, out in Wyoming, a bunch more cows were killed by the winter.
Again, with all those farting cows, why did that happen?
How could that have happened?
It goes against the physics, afterall, doesn’t it?
And then we had the Little Ice Age, which was a period of cooling that occurred after the Medieval Warm Period.
The Little Ice Age has been conventionally defined as a period extending from the 16th to the 19th centuries, although some experts prefer an alternative timespan from about 1300 to about 1850.
So much for consensus, ain’t it?
As to this discussion on this climate disaster which is going to deprive Greta Thunberg of her future, which she wants guaranteed to her, as socialists do (with them, it is always the responsibility of someone to provide for them which is how that system works, breeding weakness in society as it goes), the NASA Earth Observatory notes three particularly cold intervals: one beginning about 1650, another about 1770, and the last in 1850, all separated by intervals of slight warming.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Third Assessment Report considered the timing and areas affected by the Little Ice Age suggested largely independent regional climate changes rather than a globally synchronous increased glaciation.
At most, there was modest cooling of the Northern Hemisphere during the period.
Several causes have been proposed: cyclical lows in solar radiation, heightened volcanic activity, changes in the ocean circulation, variations in Earth’s orbit and axial tilt (orbital forcing), inherent variability in global climate, and decreases in the human population (for example from the Black Death and the colonization of the Americas).
end quotes
Inherent variability in global climate?
No, wait, get that out of there – it goes against AOC’s model of impending climate disaster!
SCREECH, SCREECH, SCREECH, the sky is falling, the sky is falling, run, run, run!
Can you imagine having this conversation over some beers, Sorin?
And thank you for the extension of that offer of the famous Virginia hospitality!
And thanks once again to the Cape Charles Mirror for making this discussion possible in the first place.
Sorin Varzaru says
“Can you imagine having this conversation over some beers, Sorin?
And thank you for the extension of that offer of the famous Virginia hospitality!”
Actually, sure, I do. As long as the parties can be civil about their disagreements, i think it’s a lot more productive to talk in person. As I mentioned before, i am not much of a typer, my years in front of the computer gave me hand issues, so i am much more “productive” when talking when when typing 🙂
as far as the beer, i would assume that everyone knows their limits, because talking with a drunk is not that fun regardless of the topic 🙂
Paul Plante says
So, today is what is known as “SREECH AND SHRIEK” day across the world, where hordes of people led by AOC and Greta Thunberg are going to be out on the street en masse ululating and chanting over and over, feverously, “HEY, HEY, HO, HO, CLIMATE CHANGE HAS GOT TO GO,” which should make for some pretty exciting news coverage, anyway, if you like pictures of throngs of people all with their mouths wide open howling at the sky for it to stand still and stop changing.
Which brings us to the essential question of “if there is but one Arrhenius Equation, then how can there be any disagreement about climate change,” which is a very good question, the answer to which was touched upon by Wayne Creed in another edition of the Cape Charles Mirror, where he made a statement to the effect that models of reality are not reality and do not control reality,
The controversy comes in because the Greta/AOC crowd are treating the Arrhenius Equation as absolute, when in reality, it is an approximation, as are all models of physical systems.
While Arrhenius never intended his equation to be used in the manner it is being used in today, which is to strike fear into our hearts and minds that if we do not right now at this instant hand control of our lives over to Greta Thunberg and AOC and the Democrats, the world is going to end and be gone in ten or twelve more years, that is exactly what Greta and AOC and the Democrats are doing with it, which is a total perversion of science, which is what has me standing up in here saying “wait a minute,” because these l8es being propagated by the hysterical set involve the lives of all of us, which is why this must needs be and remain a very public discussion, to counter this bull**** Greta and AOC and Svante Thunberg and the Democrats are peddling, especially in this day when they are all going to be out there shrieking about the world coming to an end as they chant slogans and wave signs saying HOORAY for their side, with the potential for acts of violence and smashing of things by them if they don’t get their way.
In his work “WORLDS IN THE MAKING – THE EVOLUTION OF THE UNIVERSE,” published March, 1908, Arrhenius had this to say about the times that caused him to come up with his equation, to wit:
The problem of the evolution of the Universe has always excited the profound interest of thinking men.
And it will, without doubt, remain the most eminent among all the questions which do not have any direct, practical bearing.
Different ages have arrived at different solutions to this great problem.
Each of these solutions reflected the stand-point of the natural philosophers of its time.
end quotes
Now, if you are a real “scientist,” whatever that empty word is supposed to mean anymore, when the most ignorant among us can now claim them title, as we are seeing with the case of Greta Thunberg, the poor scared little girl from Sweden who is running around with what she calls “the science,” we take that to mean just what it says – theories of how something happened are just that, theories, and theories of reality are not reality itself, and it is too bad that United States Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is unaware of that.
As to those times which spawned the Arrhenius Equation, the author himself stated thusly, to wit:
The theses of Mayer and of Helmholtz, on the manner in which the Sun replenishes its losses of heat, have had to be abandoned.
My explanation is based upon chemical reactions in the interior of the Sun in accordance with the second law of thermodynamics.
The theory of the “degradation” of energy appeared to introduce a still greater difficulty.
That theory seems to lead to the inevitable conclusion that the Universe is tending towards the state which Clausius has designated as ” Wdrme Tod” (heat death), when all the energy of the Universe will uniformly be distributed through space in the shape of movements of the smallest particles.
That would imply an absolutely inconceivable end of the development of the Universe.
The way out of this difficulty which I propose comes to this: the energy is “degraded” in bodies which are in the solar state, and the energy is “elevated,” raised to a higher level, in bodies which are in the nebular state.
end quotes
Yes, people, back then, and it was still being said when I was young, the operative theory that Arrhenius debunked was that indeed them world was going to end, and all life, on it, which includes you and me, and AOC and poor little Greta, because like your car on a trip, whether IC or an all-electric Tesla, which are quite fast, each day the sun shone down on earth used up some of its energy, so that it was going to run out of gas, and it would blink out, and doom for all of us, would follow!
SHRIEK! SHRIEK! SHRIEK!
Run for your lives!
The world is going to end when the sun runs out of gas!
No, wait!
Sorry, people, I grabbed the wrong cue card by mistake!
Oh, here it is!
Today’s headline – run for your lives, them world is going to end because it is going to overheat and cook us all like a side of beef at a Texas bar-b-cue if we don’t all get out there right now and shake brooms and sticks and clubs at the carbon dioxide in the sky and make it go away or we’ll all throw fits and lay in the road and block traffic, which should teach that nasty carbon dioxide a good lesson, alright.
And once again, my thanks as an American citizen concerned about this mounting hysteria intended to turn our children and grandchildren against us for the crime of stealing their futures from them by daring to create carbon dioxide when we exhale to the Cape Charles Mirror, which alone in America seems to be them only publication giving equal time to BOTH sides of this issue, instead of just Greta’s!
Dave says
Wow! After reading about all the climate hysteria I haven’t seen one Democrat getting rid of their cars, or refusing to ride on aircraft, or heating their houses with fossil fuels. This is not about climate change this is about political power. Who gets to tell everyone what they can and cannot do. Don’t be fooled the elite never apply these same restrictions to their own lives. Really sick of people buying into the lie.
Sorin Varzaru says
“Wow! After reading about all the climate hysteria I haven’t seen one Democrat getting rid of their cars, or refusing to ride on aircraft, or heating their houses with fossil fuels. ”
Actually, some/many do. Because most democrats live in cities, they already have a much smaller footprint in carbon emissions. Apartment buildings are WAY more efficient to build and operate then single family houses, public transport is orders of magnitude more efficient then cars, etc.
The issue is that reducing our dependence of burning stuff for energy needs to come from systemic changes, individuals have little power to make a difference.
Paul Plante says
Were some Jungian to come along to give me a word association quiz, and was to ask me what words come to mind when I hear the words AOC and Greta Thunberg, my answer would be as follows:
* Red Guards;
* Holodomore;
* Great Leap Forward;
* Repression.
tokenny says
Hey Paul why don’t you look at this graph and tell us what you see?
https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/carbon-dioxide/
Clearly shows an increase in CO2. Harmless right? Mr. Know it All, what happens when CO2 mixes with water/saltwater? You know mixes with all that water vapor up there in the atmosphere. That unlike CO2 doesn’t keep building up, it is cyclical, too much water vapor and it snows/rains. It creates carbonic acid, which reacts with carbonate ions and forms bicarbonate. Hence, excessive CO2 is leading to the acidification of our oceans and waterways.
So the coral reefs are dying, the chemistry of the ocean is changing. (in the scheme of things, quite quickly) I don’t care what you call it , climate change, global warming, BS …)but it’s a fact the oceans are becoming more acidic and that is a direct result of excessive CO2..
With all your chest thumping you’re not very good at analyzing complex issues, you are extremely one dimensional
Paul Plante says
Well, tokenny, I can’t tell you how very glad I am to see you coming in to this very important discussion, especially today when Great Thunberg threw the temper tantrum of all temper tantrums, telling us adults that we have stolen the poor girl’s future which has me so upset that I am weeping copious amounts of tears which makes it difficult for me to read all of what you have spewed forth above here, but don’t go away, tokenny, because I intend to answer you in detail, because you see, tokenny, I am very good at analyzing complex issues, and what you have put forth is really extremely one dimensional, because you leave out so many important factors which we will get into one by one by one.
But suffice to say that right now, tokenny, the PH of the ocean is about 8.1, which is basic, tokenny, not acidic.
Check it out for yourself though, and see if my science is right on that.
And tokenny, did you know that one tree alone, and I have ten acres of them for this exact reason, can sequester a TON of CO2?
So thank me for thinking of you and the oceans by not getting greedy and cutting them all down to make a quick killing in the market so I too could own a mega-mansion right on the shore of some barrier island.
And tokenny, ALL the scientists agree that when it comes to a greenhouse gas, CO2 is puny when compared to water vapor.
Just saying, and I hope that helps you to stop hyperventilating in your hysteria that the world is ending, because hyperventilating pours forth copious amounts of CO2 compared to a calm person such as myself.
tokenny says
Jeeze, Paul you sure seem to be a duck out of the water here. Yes, on average the ocean PH is 8.1 but you didn’t mention that it was about 8.2 before the industrial revolution. So, hell that’s no a big deal – 1/10th decrease. However, each decrease of one pH unit is a ten-fold increase in acidity. That means its about 25% higher (more acidic )than it was during pre-industrial times.
So, yeah Paul there’s a problem. It’s only project to decrease further.
Trees, Paul. You’re a great steward of our environment but again not being able to think about more complex problems you didn’t mention the increase of deforestation of our forest, the decline of open space, the abundance of wild fires. and the fact that the 1 ton of CO2 take up in a tree happens in about 40 years. Oaks are one of the better sequesters of carbon but we all know how long one takes to grow.(that solution is a little problematic) Now the real kicker, Paul, is that the average american creates 20 tons of CO2 a year. Your’re gonna have to plant a lot more trees. Did you know that California lost 18 million trees in 2018. 18 million trees released their 18 million tons of CO2 back into the atmosphere. Oh well.
Paul, you’re right about water vapor being the largest greenhouse gas but you missed the part that it’s not like CO2. CO2 takes a long time to leave the atmosphere, whereas water vapor is cyclical, too much and it rains or snows. Now, why is there so much water vapor? Come on Paul, you know the answer – too much CO2. CO2 warms the earth which in turn creates more water vapor.
It’s not hyperventilating it’s just facts. Plain and simple. Other than nice stories you and trying to be witty your argument is weak
Paul R. Plante says
tokenny, let me sincerely say that to the people up here to the north of you where the climate is changing and winter is coming, your contribution to this very important discussion which affects all our futures is incalculable, because you are not afraid to trot out and drag into here every cock-a-mamie theory there is affecting pretty much everything under the sun so far as I can tell, so extensive is your knowledge base, including the “climate,” which you believe can actually be made to stop changing, as if you could suspend or reverse time, and we are all greatly and at the same time humbly thankful to you for your valuable participation and contribution to our collective learning in here.
But let us give you the benefit of the doubt, tokenny, and go with your premise then that our CO2 levels are way too high because they are higher than they have been in the last 800,000 years, so to save ourselves and Greta, who seems to want reparations from us for stealing her childhood, we really need to reduce them back to those levels from say, 18,000 years ago, when because of lower CO2 levels, according to your operative premise that we, the American people are examining right now to see if we want to buy into it en masse, the climate was much more conducive to sustaining human life that it is right now.
Now, given that premise, tokenny, that we need to go back to the climate of thousands of years ago if we are going to have a hope of a tomarrow, especially for Greta, I went back in time, more or less year by year, which we can do with the internet, to look for an ideal climate more conducive to human life than this one is, and what I found, tokenney, and this might or might not agree with your science and Greta’s science, which is said to be “real deal” science, was that when CO2 levels were below 300 ppm 120,000 years ago, that was the time the last great ice age began so that there was one massive ice sheet, more than 3 kilometres thick in places, that grew in fits and starts until it covered almost all of Canada and stretched down as far as Manhattan.
Coming forward in time, continuing to look for maybe a little better climate, still with a low CO2, level, I came to the most recent glaciation period, often known simply as the “Ice Age,” reaching peak conditions some 18,000 years ago, when CO2 levels were very low.
At the height of the recent glaciation, the ice grew to more than 12,000 feet thick as sheets spread across Canada, Scandinavia, Russia and South America.
Corresponding sea levels plunged more than 400 feet, while global temperatures dipped around 10 degrees Fahrenheit on average and up to 40 degrees in some areas.
In North America, the region of the Gulf Coast states was dotted with the pine forests and prairie grasses that are today associated with the northern states and Canada.
So, is that where tokenny wants to take us back to, I found myself wondering?
The CO2 level was quite low back then, afterall, even if the climate might have been a bit nippy for the comfort of some.
And as to tokenny’s cock-a-mamie theory of CO2 causing the end of the ice age, I put the question to my four-year old grand daughter who referred me to what children know as the Holocene Climate Optimum (HCO), which was a warm period during roughly the interval 9,000 to 5,000 years BP, with a thermal maximum around 8000 years BP, when CO2 levels were still well below 300 ppm.
The Holocene Climate Optimum, when the CO2 level was about 280 ppm, which stayed constant for some 10,000 years, consisted of increases of up to 4 °C near the North Pole (in one study, winter warming of 3 to 9 °C and summer of 2 to 6 °C in northern central Siberia).
During that event, which tokenny would attribute solely to CO2 levels, Northwestern Europe experienced warming, but there was cooling in Southern Europe.
The average temperature change appears to have declined rapidly with latitude and so essentially no change in mean temperature is reported at low and middle latitudes.
Tropical reefs tend to show temperature increases of less than 1 °C; the tropical ocean surface at the Great Barrier Reef about 5350 years ago was 1 °C warmer and enriched in O by 0.5 per mil relative to modern seawater.
In terms of the global average, temperatures were probably warmer than now (depending on estimates of latitude dependence and seasonality in response patterns).
While temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere were warmer than average during the summers, the Tropics and parts of the Southern Hemisphere were colder than average.
Out of 140 sites across the western Arctic, there is clear evidence for conditions warmer than now at 120 sites.
At 16 sites, where quantitative estimates have been obtained, local HTM temperatures were on average 1.6±0.8 °C higher than now.
Northwestern North America had peak warmth first, from 11,000 to 9,000 years ago, and the Laurentide Ice Sheet still chilled the continent.
Northeastern North America experienced peak warming 4,000 years later.
Along the Arctic Coastal Plain in Alaska, there are indications of summer temperatures 2–3 °C warmer than present.
Research indicates that the Arctic had less sea ice than the present.
Current desert regions of Central Asia were extensively forested due to higher rainfall, and the warm temperate forest belts in China and Japan were extended northwards.
West African sediments additionally record the African Humid Period, an interval, between 16,000 and 6,000 years ago, when Africa was much wetter.
This was caused by a strengthening of the African monsoon by changes in summer radiation, resulting from long-term variations in the Earth’s orbit around the Sun.
The “Green Sahara” was dotted with numerous lakes, containing typical African lake crocodile and hippopotamus fauna.
A curious discovery from the marine sediments is that the transitions into and out of the wet period occurred within decades, not the previously-thought extended periods.
It is hypothesized that humans played a role in altering the vegetation structure of North Africa at some point after 8,000 years ago, when they introduced domesticated animals.
This introduction contributed to the rapid transition to the arid conditions found in many locations in the Sahara.
In the far Southern Hemisphere (New Zealand and Antarctica), the warmest period during the Holocene appears to have been roughly 8,000 to 10,500 years ago, immediately following the end of the last ice age.
By 6,000 years ago, the time normally associated with the Holocene Climatic Optimum in the Northern Hemisphere, they had reached temperatures similar to present ones, and they did not participate in the temperature changes of the north.
However, some authors have used the term “Holocene Climatic Optimum” to describe the earlier southern warm period, as well.
AND DURING ALL THAT TIME, EVEN WHEN WARMER THAN NOW, THE CO2 LEVELS WERE FAIRLY CONSTANT AND BELOW 300 PPM.
And yes, tis true, with my four-year old grand daughter slipping me the answers here, it does give me an unfair advantage over tokenny who has to suss this stuff out all by himself, and such it happens to be.
Sorin Varzaru says
>Or should we be investing in technology now to prevent that from happening?
it would not be bad to have technology that could help with that, if that ever becomes an issue.
The part that saddens me Paul is that you appear to be against whatever “the democrats” are supporting and find any excuse to ignore the overwhelming evidence supporting those actions. Why on earth would you be against of a reduction in CO2 emissions? it may or may not have catastrophic results in 10 or 20 years, but how dense can you be to think changing the composition of the atmosphere is … good?
Paul Plante says
How dense are you, Sorin, to think that we can change and or control the composition of the atmosphere?
The composition of “air” on earth has been CONSTANT, ,i.e. unchanging and not controlled by humans, for eons.
NASA tells us that the Earth’s atmosphere is composed of air, and air is a mixture of gases, 78% nitrogen and 21% oxygen with traces of water vapor, carbon dioxide, argon, and various other components AND we usually model air as a uniform (no variation or fluctuation) gas with properties that are averaged from all the individual components.
But if you want it to be something else, Sorin, have at it, this is America, and in America today, not only are we free to have our own opinions; we are all free to have our own facts, as well, so if you want it to be that we have control over the composition of the atmosphere, be my guest, and have at it.
And IF there were a shred of evidence, real evidence, not hype and hysteria, to support anything the Democrats have put forth, I would certainly consider it.
So where is any of it?
Why are they keeping it secret?
As to carbonic acid, we have this to consider from Berkeley Labs in the article “New Insights on Carbonic Acid in Water – Berkeley Lab Study Holds Implications for Geological and Biological Processes” by Lynn Yarris on October 22, 2014, as follows:
Carbonic acid is a crucial intermediate species in the equilibrium between carbon dioxide, water and many minerals.
It plays a crucial role in the carbon cycle – the exchange of carbon dioxide between the atmosphere and the oceans – and in the buffering of blood and other bodily fluids.
end quotes
In other words, Sorin, what is going on with CO2 is part of natural cycles that I do not for a moment believe the Democrats have a clue about, and given all that they have totally ****** up in the last seventy or so years with their ignorance, I do not want them in control of the earth or the earth’s atmosphere.
If you do, Sorin, then by all means, knock yourself out and not only vote Democrat, but send them money, as well.
As for me, it think it is reprehensible for the Democrats to be scoring cheap political points by causing hysteria and panic in the children of America.
And the last time CO2 levels were as low as the Democrats in control of the atmosphere want to take them, the northern United States was buried under several kilometers of ice known as glaciers.
Is that where you want us to go, Sorin?
Sorin Varzaru says
“But suffice to say that right now, tokenny, the PH of the ocean is about 8.1, which is basic, tokenny, not acidic.”
I think tokenny would prefer that to stay at 8.1 and not drop by absorbing more Co2. There is overwhelming evidence that the reduction of ocean’s PH has negative effects.
https://www.whoi.edu/press-room/news-release/scientists-identify-how-ocean-acidification-weakens-coral-skeletons/
Paul Plante says
And why do you think I am against lower CO2 levels, Sorin?
My personal carbon footprint today is about the same as it was 70 years ago because it is not us folks living in poverty who are generating all the CO2.
I am very much for lowering CO2.
We should start with getting rid of cellphones, which are made from plastic which comes from oil.
Turn down the heat in the school buildings so the water doesn’t freeze, and leave it there, say 40 degrees should suffice.
Stop the parents from ferrying the kids to school and let them walk or take the bus.
Turn off the concentration camp lights outside.
I have one fool near me, I don’t know where they came from, a city probably, and they are so afraid of the dark that they have concentration camp spotlights that light up about a quarter mile or more of my woodlot at night.
Make a treaty that bans all weapons of war other than those which existed in the time of Julius Caesar.
No more jets, no more tanks, no more any weapon of war that produces CO2 emissions.
But am I willing to be reduced to living in stone-age conditions to protect some fat ass’s water front home from being washed away?
**** them, Sorin, that’s how I feel about it.
Why do they think they have the right to own the seashore?
And why do they think we have some obligation to them to protect their barrier islands, when children in fifth grade know that barrier islands are called barrier islands because they are always shifting and moving.
So how much extra CO2 is generated catering to these rich fools by hauling in sand to restore their beach or sand dunes after the ocean took some away?
You want to lower CO2, Sorin, get rowboat.
I’m standing pat.
Paul Plante says
And tokenny, dude, coral reefs are dying around the world because of damaging activities including coral mining, pollution (organic and non-organic), overfishing, blast fishing, and the digging of canals and access into islands and bays.
If you want to protect the coral, tokenny, make yourself up a sign that says “STOP IT STOP IT, I LIKE THE CORAL,” and I bet if you stand out there with Greta and you both wave your signs and howl and bay at the moon in unison, that something good and real positive could come out of it, so what are you waiting for, tokenny?
The time to act is now, you know!
tokenny says
Well Paul, another simplistic response from you. The Great Barrier Reef is protected yet it’s declining., yet it is declining. How’s that happening Paul? Reefs are dying because the ocean is becoming more acidic along with warmer water temps causing coral bleaching.
Here’s a nice little primer that even you can understand:
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/education/info_activities/pdfs/TBI_coral_reefs_and_climate_change.pdf
Paul you are no different than Greta – she puts her energy into awakening people about the very real changes in our environment. A very altruistic endeavor. You, you put all your energies into getting Sonia Sotomayor shit-canned because of some perceived personal slight. You tell me which one of is crazy.
Paul Plante says
Dear tokenny, you are as hysterical as is that poor little girl from Sweden with all the serious mental issues who is being shamelessly exploited and manipulated by her parents, AOC and the Democrats.
You need to get yourself a brown paper bag, not a plastic bag, and put your head in it and try to calm down your breathing.
And tokenny, IF you had paid any attention at all in ninth grade high school science, you would know that as water warms up, it holds LESS CO2 than does cold water, a scientifically proven fact for more years than you have been alive, and since a solution of CO2 in water is called carbonic acid (H2O + CO2 = H2CO3), it would logically follow to someone who was not hysterical that as the concentration of CO2 in water goes down due to temperature rise, the water becomes LESS ACIDIC, not more acidic, so toss that cock-a-mamie theory of yours out the window, tokenny, that the ocean is becoming more acidic.
As to what is harming the coral, tokenny, grade school science on the subject informs us adults as follows, to wit:
Coral bleaching occurs when coral polyps expel algae that live inside their tissues.
Normally, coral polyps live in an endosymbiotic relationship with these algae, which are crucial for the health of the coral and the reef.
The algae provides up to 90 percent of the coral’s energy.
Bleached corals continue to live but begin to starve after bleaching.
The leading cause of coral bleaching is rising water temperatures.
end quotes
And going on to some more very basic grade school science that you obviously missed, tokenny, LIKE ANY OTHER PLANT, algae, when grown using sunlight, consume (or absorb) carbon dioxide (CO2) as they grow, releasing oxygen (O2) for the rest of us to breathe.
For high productivity, algae require more CO2, which can be supplied by emissions sources such as power plants, ethanol facilities, and other sources.
So as water temperature rises, which means less CO2 is available to the algae within the coral, it is the algae impacted, and that relationship has nothing to do with acidification of the ocean.
And this is grade school science, tokenny – you don’t need the “pile it higher and deeper” degree from collitch to understand it.
But people like yourself who are so hysterical, thinking the world is going to end in 2030, can’t think clearly, and so you are blind to that reality.
And Sonia Sotomayor is a liar who perverts the law, tokenny.
For many in America, that is what her their hero.
You can have her, tokenny.
tokenny says
Dude, you jumped the shark when you tried to compare HVAC requirements to the earths atmosphere. Give up.
You are the one providing theories. I’m giving you facts straight from NOAA.
Paul Plante says
If I jump sharks, tokenny, I make sure to take a real good chunk of their dorsal fin as I pass over them because they taste so good, YUM YUM.
As to heat transfer, tokenny, here on earth where we earthlings are, as opposed to whatever planet you are signing in from, regardless of what one happens to be modeling, there are three, and only three modes of heat transfer, period.
And that again is high school science.
No “pile it higher and deeper” degree is required to understand that, tokenny, so why are you clueless?
Whether you are measuring heat transfer in a small room, a large building, a dog house, or the atmosphere, there are three modes of heat transfer that must be considered, and they are conduction, convection and radiation, and you can’t do like the hysterical woman in France who gave us the GRETA REPORT and negate any of those modes of heat transfer because you can’t model movement like ocean waves and convective currents in the air.
You can’t treat the ocean like it was a non-moving pane of glass with a plastic film above it and no convection currents within it and a layer of CO2 above it in an atmosphere with absolutely no movement of any kind, meaning no convection currents, with that still layer of CO2 alleged to be the radiating “heat” into the ocean through that film to make the ocean hot, as if that were the only possible source of ocean heating because you can’t do the complicated math to model it as it really is, especially when you are trying to use “science” to scare people.
THAT IS INTELLECTUALLY DISHONEST.
And it becomes reprehensible and perhaps criminal when you do it for political reasons to scare children and create hysteria and panic for partisan political gain, as we are now seeing happening here in America.
My thoughts, anyway.
tokenny says
So, one more thing Paul .. it’s about that linear thinking of yours. You are getting so hysterical about trying to prove your sooo right that you are so wrong
“IF you had paid any attention at all in ninth grade high school science, you would know that as water warms up, it holds LESS CO2 than does cold water, a scientifically proven fact for more years than you have been alive, and since a solution of CO2 in water is called carbonic acid (H2O + CO2 = H2CO3), it would logically follow to someone who was not hysterical that as the concentration of CO2 in water goes down due to temperature rise, the water becomes LESS ACIDIC, not more acidic, so toss that cock-a-mamie theory of yours out the window, tokenny, that the ocean is becoming more acidic.”
I do remember my chemistry class, you are right when water warms it holds less CO2. but it doesn’t make water less acidic. Water absorbs less CO2 which means less CO2 is trapped, which means there is more CO2 in the atmosphere. So water will still be getting acidic. It will just reach a point where it won’t become anymore acidic and there will be more CO2 in the air.
Paul, I don’t think you understand this CO2 problem at all.
Paul Plante says
I don’t have a television, tokenny; I get my news from the radio, so the other day, when I heard this basso profundo voice bellowing out from my radio speaker, saying “HOW DARE YOU,” the first thought was OMG, it’s the little girl from “The Exorcist” whose head could spin around while this obnoxious black **** would pour out of her mouth, and as that first take, which was based on the pitch and timbre of the voice by a practiced professional and accomplished child actor, as could only be expected of the daughter of the famous Swedish child star, now movie maker and press agent for Greta Svante Thunberg, passed through my cognitive filters, the next thought to be formed in that cognitive cascade was based on the HAUGHTY and IMPERIOUS manner in which the words were delivered, as if from a queen to the meanest of her subjects who has met with her extreme displeasure for letting his shadow touch hers, which in turn went further into the cognitive filters where what it means to be an American versus a Swede or Kenyan is stored, and the intellectual thought which came from there, since all I had heard was the actual bellowing basso profundo, was “WHO THE **** WAS THAT, AND WHO WERE THEY TALKING TO IN THAT TONE OF VOICE,” and the answer was Greta Thunberg to the trembling and quivering and quaking “leaders” of the world, God help us all for that, assembled at the United Nations, where Greta told them that they had stolen her childhood from her, and not knowing any better, or different, and not having an ounce of either knowledge or courage among them, they hung their heads in shame, and were said to have wept in addition to groveling before Greta while passing through a yoke set up in front of her on her throne for that purpose.
Anybody who won’t grovel to Greta and treat her as Ard Rhys can’t be a world leader, plain and simple.
In what is supposed to be a Republic of, by, and for the AMERICAN PEOPLE, of whom I am one, I personally found the way this little spoiled rich girl from Sweden was speaking to adults here in the United States of America, “HOW DARE US FOR STEALING HER CHILDHOOD,” which is rank HORSE****, to be quite offensive.
Just saying tokenny.
tokenny says
Paul, she isn’t American and she was speaking to the UN which kinda, sorta isn’t US soil.
Per your favorite resource Wikipedia -Although it is situated in New York City, the land occupied by the United Nations Headquarters and the spaces of buildings that it rents are under the sole administration of the United Nations and not the U.S. government. They are technically extraterritorial through a treaty agreement with the U.S. government. However, in exchange for local police, fire protection and other services, the United Nations agrees to acknowledge most local, state, and federal laws.
I think she has a point – all you old farts are in charge and don’t give a shit
Paul Plante says
You are bonkers, tokenny.
My electric company tracks who uses how much electricity, and they rate us in comparison to our neighborhood in terms of who is most efficient, and that is me, tokenny.
According to the power company, I use half of what my more greedy upscale neighbors use, and the interesting thing is that those are the households where the complaining children are, so I would task them with getting their electric use down to mine.
And the hypocrite Greta has a huge carbon footprint, which is what makes her such a transparent fraud.
Paul Plante says
It’s getting worse, isn’t it, tokenny, you losing time like you are doing here, as well as cognitive functioning.
Of course, little Greta is NOT American, and you know what, thank God for that.
Let the socialist Swedes have her and they are welcome to her and her bushel basket full of psychiatric disorders and her extreme paranoia and “queen of the world” complex.
And regardless of where her young mouth might have been, tokenny, when she was bellowing “HOW DARE YOU,” whether in New York City or the UN, the fact is that she was talking to US, tokenny, the people of the United States of America, which has not yet been subsumed into the ONE-WORLD GOVERNMENT the socialists are hoping to impose on us.
And in fact, tokenny, and I’m not sure how you missed any of this, but little Greta, who you correctly point out is not an AMERICAN CITIZEN, nonetheless was able to score an audience with Hussein Obama here in America, where according to news reports, she got a fist-bump from Hussein himself, but of more importance to those of us in the country who are citizens, unlike Swedish Greta, she was able to secure an audience before OUR AMERICAN CONGRESS, not the Swedish congress, to spread her poison without a single one of us having the opportunity to rebut her, and if it wasn’t for the courage of then Cape Charles Mirror, despite us being citizens, we would have no voice in this whatsoever.
Are you cheering that, tokenny?
Do you want your future put into the hands of a freaked-out, emotionally disturbed 16-year old girl from Sweden by our Congress?
Sorin Varzaru says
Tokenny, dude, thanks for carrying the torch 🙂
Paul Plante says
Did I tell you that I was talking to a high-ranking NOAA scientist on this very subject today, tokenny?
I like to go straight to the experts themselves, as opposed mto those who quote experts, and this is what I asked him:
Another point is that when an engineer doing HVAC design looks in standard references for NORMAL background air, the figure given for CO2 ranges from 250 – 350 ppm, with no whiff of hysteria, whatsoever, that the world is going to come to a cataclysmic end in 10 or 12 years, as we are being told today, and in answer to the question “What is the safe top limit of the amount of co2 for Earth?”, it is in short that no one knows the safe upper limit for atmospheric CO2 while the generally accepted maximum safe figure is 350 PPM.
Does that agree with your science?
end quotes
His answer was as follows:
As for what a generally maximum number, yes, the generally accepted maximum safe figure has been pegged to 350 ppm.
That level was chosen for practicality as well as the fact that that level is generally pegged to result in about a 1°C increase which was considered much better than projections right now that take us well above that limit.
Yes, we are only at 0.8°C at this point, but again, from my previous information, the oceans have not quite kicked in yet.
So, is 350 ppm the best safe top limit?
Well, it’s probably as close as is practical short of going back to the pre-industrial average of 280 ppm.
end quotes
Back to you on the issue of absolute, as you would have it, versus theoretical and therefore, unknown, as really is the case.
You show me a curve of YESTERDAY, tokenny, and it really means nothing, or let me ask you, what does that graph tell you about what is going to happen tomarrow to CO2 levels?
What do you think the graph is predicting?
The end of the world in ten or twelve years, which really is the issue here in this thread as I understand it?
tokenny says
Yeah right, talking with a NOAA guy.
“Another point is that when an engineer doing HVAC design looks in standard references for NORMAL background air, the figure given for CO2 ranges from 250 – 350 ppm, with no whiff of hysteria, whatsoever, that the world is going to come to a cataclysmic end in 10 or 12 years, as we are being told today, and in answer to the question “What is the safe top limit of the amount of co2 for Earth?”, it is in short that no one knows the safe upper limit for atmospheric CO2 while the generally accepted maximum safe figure is 350 PPM.
Does that agree with your science?”
Reread your paragraph. Are you seriously comparing the earth’s atmosphere to the inside of your house?? And you talked to a NOAA scientist, a high ranking one at that about that? LOL. Dude, a build up of CO2 in your house is going to leave you prone on your floor or worst dead. A build up of CO2 in the atmosphere causes the acidification of the ocean and warming of the oceans. Along with a host of other things.
Your ending question is silly and it isn’t the issue here. The graph is showing a trend which any reasonable person would understand that if we keep doing what we are doing today that yes, tomorrow the CO2 level will rise.
Paul Plante says
This is the dude I was talking to, tokenny: Climate Science Program Manager at NOAA’s Air Resources Laboratory.
Are you saying I was hoodwinked or duped here?
Is this guy just a janitor, or maybe a “fetch-boy” for some political hack appointee at NOAA?
Personally, I thought the guy was legit, tokenny, but hey, what can I know about such things, nudge, nudge, wink, wink.
He has provided me with a wealth of information including more charts and graphs than you can shake a stick at, tokenny, and silly me, I thought they were the real deal science on this subject.
And you seem to be conflating CO2 with CO, tokenny, as well as demonstrating that you haven’t a clue when it comes to HVAC design which is based on real-deal science, so let’s do a little grade school primer for you on the subject to bring you up to the same speed as my little grand daughter who thinks you could have a real good career with Comedy Central as their science guy.
According to very basic science, tokenny, when we humans exhale, or any animal like your dog or cat, or ocelot if you are into exotic species, we breathe out less oxygen but more carbon dioxide than we inhale.
That is a proven scientific fact, tokenny, but since this is peer review in here, do yourself a favor and check it out for yourself.
Now, here is the important part, since life on earth is based on carbon: the carbon we breathe out as carbon dioxide comes from the carbon in the food we eat.
You catching that, tokenny?
Is that sinking in?
When you eat a potato or broccoli or rice and beans, or a Kelly’s fantabulous bean burger craved and cherished the world over given Cape Charles’ status as a port for world travelers, you are eating sequestered carbon dioxide.
That sequestered carbon dioxide in the form of glucose molecules is then combined with oxygen in the cells of the body in a chemical reaction called “cellular oxidation”.
Now, according to ENGINEERING STANDARDS, CO2 concentrations typical of occupied indoor spaces with good air exchange are in the range of 350-1,000 ppm.
If you don’t accept that, tokenny, that is fine with me, but that is the “science” that I as an engineer go by, which is why we have engineering standards, to Kenny, so we’re not out there winging it and coming up with cock-a-mamie models like the scientists do, because we, tokenny, are personally responsible for all of our judgments, including in a court of law, while scientists are not.
A huge difference, tokenny, as I am sure someone as astute as yourself can readily discern.
A scientist can spout horse**** and gibberish all day long and never be held to account.
Not so and engineer, who has to be able to defend every judgment he makes.
And it is not me, tokenny, that is treating the atmosphere like a room – that is the model the climate scientists use, since they cannot handle all the actual variables there are in the environment, such as adiabatic processes.
The model you and scared little Greta rely on, and by the way, it is now too late, we’re all ****** but good, the oceans are rising three feet and we’re all going to be fried like a chicken wing at an Iowa political bar-b-cue according to the news out this morning, we’re all doomed, assumes that there is no vertical transport in the air, no adiabatic processes, and that the surface of the ocean is flat as a pancake with a thin film on it, because the scientists do not know how to model waves.
They deal with that by having the ocean lie flat for them like a rug, and then they, not me, use the heat transfer calculations that you would use in assessing heat transfer in a room.
It’s bull****, of course, because the ocean doesn’t come to heel for some climate scientists like it was a trained dog, but that is what we have, tokenny, in an age when the words science and horse**** are now synonyms as we can clearly see in the NEWSWEEK article “Donald Trump Mocks 16-year-old Greta Thunberg, Twitter Reacts: ‘She Has More Class in Her Little Finger'” by Shane Croucher on 24 September 2019, to wit:
“While most world leaders at least make an effort to preserve a livable climate for @GretaThunberg’s generation, our climate denier criminal-in-chief instead makes sarcastic comments while doing everything in his power to burn her future away,” tweeted Dana Nuccitelli, a climate scientist.
end quote
“Science” is now hysterical horse**** on TWITTER, which is the refuge for people without the brains to comprehend complete sentences and multi-syllabic words, and there we have a real climate scientist telling us that Trump is doing everything in his power to BURN Greta’s future away, because this really isn’t about science, tokenny, it is now about Greta.
And thanks for the head’s up about that NOAA dude.
Paul Plante says
Paul Plante: Does the “science” in the opinion of the consensus, to your knowledge, support the conclusion that there is going to be a cataclysmic break-down in the environment by 2030 if we don’t stop using fossil fuels right now?
Climate Science Program Manager at NOAA’s Air Resources Laboratory: Frankly, I do not know, what I do know is that left to its present rate we are going to continue getting warmer and seeing a cascading effect of many environmental changes that will probably cause some
serious problems.
Is it cataclysmic in nature – it depends.
If your home island in the Pacific or Indian Ocean disappears to due to sea level rise, then the answer to that question would be yes.
If there is no more sea ice for a polar bear to hunt from in the Arctic, then I would say that it is cataclysmic to polar bears.
If mollusks and other species that depend on carbon to build their shells have issues due to lower pH levels, then I would say that would be cataclysmic to the species as well as to those who depend on those fisheries.
Folks seem to want a binary – is it going to be destructive or not – and my answer again is, it depends.
If your infrastructure is dependent on permafrost or your village in Alaska disappears into the sea, then yeah, cataclysmic.
If precipitation patterns change as they are, then if you flooded out or stuck in a big drought, then yeah, cataclysmic.
If hurricanes continue to get stronger like Michael last year or Dorian this year, and you live in NW Florida of the NW Bahamas, then yeah, cataclysmic.
Category 5 tropical cyclones are becoming disturbingly more common.
Sorin Varzaru says
“Paul Plante: Does the “science” in the opinion of the consensus, to your knowledge, support the conclusion that there is going to be a cataclysmic break-down in the environment by 2030 if we don’t stop using fossil fuels right now?
….
Is it cataclysmic in nature – it depends.
If your home island in the Pacific or Indian Ocean disappears to due to sea level rise, then the answer to that question would be yes.
If there is no more sea ice for a polar bear to hunt from in the Arctic, then I would say that it is cataclysmic to polar bears.
If mollusks and other species that depend on carbon to build their shells have issues due to lower pH levels, then I would say that would be cataclysmic to the species as well as to those who depend on those fisheries.
Folks seem to want a binary – is it going to be destructive or not – and my answer again is, it depends.
If your infrastructure is dependent on permafrost or your village in Alaska disappears into the sea, then yeah, cataclysmic.
If precipitation patterns change as they are, then if you flooded out or stuck in a big drought, then yeah, cataclysmic.
If hurricanes continue to get stronger like Michael last year or Dorian this year, and you live in NW Florida of the NW Bahamas, then yeah, cataclysmic..”
So the guy is telling you all this, you believe him and somehow you think his response proves your point? What the hell is your point? That the world is not going to explode in 2030. That instead it will get miserable for a crap load of people? And that is ok with you because you showed Greta she was wrong?
This is the point where I am getting out of this conversation because frankly is ridiculous.
Paul Plante says
39 Fahrenheit degrees up this way a few days ago, Sorin, and the temperature is going down, not up.
Is it hot somewhere?
Damn right!
Is it real cold somewhere else?
Damn right!
Is the world going to end in 2030?
Of course.
The news is out this morning on that subject and it makes it clear that little Greta was right all along and we are all now truly ****** but good.
So like on the Titantic, tell the band to keep playing and open up the bar and have it be drinks on the house, and let us all go out in style.
Paul Plante says
Sorin, above here you asked me what climate change policy in the United States of America should be based on, and finally, I can give you that answer by directing you to here where there is a message from the world’s acknowledged expert on the subject of climate change that every single person in the United States should be required to hear, including yourself, although that would seem to be a case of singing to the choir:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ULmk8mhiClI
When experts speak with consensus behind them, my goodness, who am I to question anything that is being said here.
But NASA is saying that variations in Earth’s orbit alter the amount of energy Earth receives from the Sun and leads to a cycle of ice ages and warm periods like Earth’s current climate, and that shifts in Earth’s orbit are happening constantly, in predictable cycles, so that in about 30,000 years, Earth’s orbit will have changed enough to reduce sunlight in the Northern Hemisphere to the levels that led to the last ice age, and I got to tell you, Sorin, that scares the crap out of me!
Talk about stealing Greta Thunberg’s future, alright, I think that is the event that is going to cause it right there when the Northern Hemisphere turns into a giant ice cube 30.000 years from now, so my question to you is why aren’t we talking about that?
Why the silence?
What do you think we should be doing about that?
Should we just sit on our hands and wait for it to happen?
Or should we be investing in technology now to prevent that from happening?
Or should we all be moving to the Southern Hemisphere, do you think, while there is still some time left before the end comes for all of us?
Paul Plante says
24 SEPTEMBER 2019
TO: Howard Diamond, PhD, Climate Science Program Manager at NOAA’s Air Resources Laboratory
RE: Panic and hysteria caused by the Climate Science Report
Dear Dr. Diamond:
First let me introduce myself as a licensed professional engineer with a graduate degree in engineering who was inducted into Sigma Xi back in 1975, and who subsequently became qualified as an associate level public health engineer in New York state, where a licensed professional engineer is one who performs professional service wherein the safeguarding of life, health and property is concerned, when such service or work requires the application of engineering principles and data, and a public health engineer is a person who applies engineering principles for the detection, evaluation, control and management of those factors in the environment which influence the public’s health.
My reason for contacting you is that we, all the people in the United States of America have a very serious problem confronting us as a people and as a nation, and that problem is the panic and hysteria being caused by the release to our United States Congress of a so-called “scientific document” on climate science which was handed to our Congress, not by an adult, not by a scientist, whatever on earth that word means anymore, where anybody can call themselves a scientist, but by a hysterical 16-year old girl from Sweden who is convinced that the world is going to come to a cataclysmic end by 2030.
Never in my life have I seen something so irresponsible as this blatantly political stunt, and the panic and hysteria now being sown as a result of this very political action in the name of “science” reminds me of the panic sown on October 30, 1938 by Orson Welles who caused a nationwide panic with his broadcast of “War of the Worlds” — a realistic radio dramatization of a Martian invasion of Earth.
This so-called “science” report, Dr. Diamond, is causing panic among the children of America, to the point that many of them feel their lives are over before they have even begun, while we adults are now being accused of stealing the future of these children.
We have the Guardian newspaper promoting this fear and hysteria to sell newspapers, while advocating for civil disobedience and literal rioting.
This is incredible, and we are met with nothing but silence from the so-called “scientific community” responsible for this document while this panic builds and builds, and scared children are no longer going to go to school because they believe, based on this report given to our Congress by Greta Thunberg, they will all be dead in ten years, which is the conclusion they draw from this report, whether or not it actually says that, or implies that, which is why I am reaching out to you as a respected and responsible member of the scientific community so that hopefully, you can use your position in the scientific community to get somebody to come forth and quell this panic and hysteria caused by this climate report.
And let me say here that it is totally irrelevant as to whether I understand the report, or the “science” that is alleged to underlie it.
My goal as an adult, as a grandfather and as a responsible member of our society that is now being split and divided by the climate report which was introduced in the most political and irresponsible manner possible, to is quell this panic and hysteria as soon as possible, and that is why I am reaching out to you.
Regardless of any professional credentials and scientific knowledge I might possess, I do not have a voice here that is going to be heard by Congress, and in any event, since I did not write that report, I have no basis to tell people what it means for the future.
That is for the ones who have caused this panic and hysteria to do.
Only yesterday, we had mass demonstrations and civil disobedience in this nation with scared children being told by Greta Thunberg, who appeared before the United Nations to say as follows:
“You have stolen my dreams and my childhood with your empty words.”
“And yet I’m one of the lucky ones.”
“People are suffering.”
“People are dying.”
“Entire ecosystems are collapsing.”
“We are in the beginning of a mass extinction, and all you can talk about is money and fairy tales of eternal economic growth.”
“How dare you!
“The popular idea of cutting our emissions in half in 10 years only gives us a 50% chance of staying below 1.5 degrees [Celsius], and the risk of setting off irreversible chain reactions beyond human control.”
“Fifty percent may be acceptable to you.”
“But those numbers do not include tipping points, most feedback loops, additional warming hidden by toxic air pollution or the aspects of equity and climate justice.”
“They also rely on my generation sucking hundreds of billions of tons of your CO2 out of the air with technologies that barely exist.”
“So a 50% risk is simply not acceptable to us — we who have to live with the consequences.”
“To have a 67% chance of staying below a 1.5 degrees global temperature rise – the best odds given by the [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] – the world had 420 gigatons of CO2 left to emit back on Jan. 1st, 2018.”
“Today that figure is already down to less than 350 gigatons.”
“How dare you pretend that this can be solved with just ‘business as usual’ and some technical solutions?”
“With today’s emissions levels, that remaining CO2 budget will be entirely gone within less than 8 1/2 years.”
“You are failing us.”
“But the young people are starting to understand your betrayal.”
“The eyes of all future generations are upon you.”
“And if you choose to fail us, I say: We will never forgive you.”
“We will not let you get away with this.”
end quotes
In a USA TODAY article on the panic and hysteria set off by this climate report entitled “Climate strike: Students protest in San Francisco, Chicago, New York” by Doug Stanglin, Grace Hauck and Janet Wilson on 21 September 2019, we had this, to wit:
“Basically our Earth is dying and if we don’t do something about it, we die,” said A.J. Conermann, a 15-year-old sophomore.
“I want to grow up.”
“I want to have a future.”
end quotes
Now, regardless of what anybody thinks that climate report says, this is how the children of America and the world are interpreting it, so that somebody in a position of professional responsibility for that report now needs to come forward to tell these children that yes, your lives are going to be over because the greedy adults have stolen your future, or “you are over-reacting.”
Thanking you in advance for anything you might be able to do to quell this panic and hysteria caused by that document, I remain
Yours, Paul R. Plante, P.E.
Ray Otton says
What was that about scientific consensus?
https://clintel.nl/brief-clintel-aan-vn-baas-guterres/
The short take –
“A global network of 500 scientists and professionals has prepared this urgent message.
There is no climate emergency”
“Climate science should be less political, while climate policies should be more scientific.
Scientists should openly address the uncertainties and exaggerations in their predictions of global warming, while politicians should dispassionately count the real benefits as well as the imagined costs of adaptation to global warming, and the real costs as well as the imagined benefits of mitigation.”
tokenny says
No it’s not
https://www.desmog.co.uk/topics/climate-intelligence-foundation-clintel
Ray Otton says
Yes it is.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/02/08/refutation-of-the-the-belgian-climate-manifesto-by-the-climate-inteligence-foundation/
Publius Americanus says
Buwahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!! Ray Otton provides a link to an internationally recognized authority, and TokingKenny gives us a link to a biased PR org created to sway small minds!!!
Buwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!!!!!!!
Way to undercut EVERYTHING you say, now and forever.
Paul Plante says
SNIFF! SNIFF! SOB! SOB!
It’s over, Mr. Otton!
We’re all done!
Greta was right, we were wrong!
So it was nice knowing you!
Oh, the humanity!
AP NEWS
‘We’re all in big trouble’: Climate panel sees a dire future”
By SETH BORENSTEIN
September 25, 2019
NEW YORK (AP) — Earth is in more hot water than ever before, and so are we, an expert United Nations climate panel warned in a grim new report Wednesday.
“Climate change is already irreversible,” French climate scientist Valérie Masson-Delmotte, a report lead author, said at a news conference in Monaco, where the document was released.
“Due to the heat uptake in the ocean, we can’t go back.”
Sorin Varzaru says
“The short take –
“A global network of 500 scientists and professionals has prepared this urgent message.”
The even shorter take. Where is their peer reviewed research they base this on? Oh, the guy that signed the thing :
“During his time at Delft University Berkhout was the founder and scientific director of the Delphi Consortium, which does seismic research for a consortium of oil and gas companies.[4]”
Yeah.
Paul Plante says
And here, today, based on what has happened in the last 24 hours, where some dude named Seth Borenstein, a self-professed “science writer” for the ASSOCIATED PRESS, read BULL**** ARTIST PEDDLING HORSE**** SCIENCE, published a sensationalist DOOM-AND GLOOM pulp fiction sci fi article entitled ‘We’re all in big trouble’: Climate panel sees a dire future” (SHUDDER, SHUDDER, BE VERY SCARED AND HOPE SETH CAN SAVE US) which sensationalist story, reminiscent of the headlines surrounding the famous science hoax, the Piltdown Man, in this case, is based on the hysterical ravings of some French woman nobody has ever heard of before named Valérie Masson-Delmotte, someone that Borenstein came up with in his travels, or perhaps created out of whole cloth like Lt. Kije, with her being over in France, of course, so that we Americans interested and knowledgeable about “climate science” have no access to her to question the HORSE**** she is quoted as spewing by Seth Borenstein in his sensationalist article, to wit: “Climate change is already irreversible; due to the heat uptake in the ocean, we can’t go back,” I think we all owe a sincere debt of gratitude to Wayne Creed and the Cape Charles Mirror, both of whom should be awarded “The Right Livelihood Award” or an “Alternative Nobel Prize” for having the courage to step up to the plate and provide a forum for those of us here in America who have been totally excluded from the private Borenstein drama going on over in France which has resulted in that hysterical woman over in France none of us have ever heard of from before becoming the centerpiece of this Borenstein pulp fiction sci fi novelette where Borenstein spins the silly and quite stupid, read, ignorant narrative that “The oceans absorb more than 90% of the excess heat from carbon pollution in the air, as well as much of the carbon dioxide itself” to address that horse**** in a public forum other than the Borenstein spin machine where we dissenters are denied entry.
I’m clueless myself as to what “carbon pollution in the air” is, and being as how Borenstein is telling the frightened children of America that the oceans, our oceans right here on earth which have been the subject of a fantastic National Geographic special on the oceans my little grand daughter loves to watch, absorb more than 90% of the excess heat from that carbon pollution in the air, so I would like to invite Seth Borenstein, the AP SCIENCE WRITER, to come in here and explain to us just exactly what that means in scientific terms we Americans can understand, since we are being told that we in the country now have to sacrifice greatly to save the French from the error of their own ways, heating up their water as they have done, so that it is now heating the oceans, which in turn is killing the coral and fish species and whales, and is causing the ocean to emit CARBON DIOXIDE to the atmosphere as the ocean heats up, thanks to thermal waste from France, which is causing these high CO2 levels we are now seeing, just as science predicted would happen if everyone started using the waters of the earth connected to the ocean as a giant heat sink, a place to send waste heat in the form of thermal energy, which is responsible for the changing climate, as predicted by science.
And bring the hysterical French lady, as well, Seth!
We would love to hear more from her, as well as to have the opportunity to cross-examine her and her evidence before we responsible Americans allow her horse**** from France to come into the minds of children in America to scare them and make them stupid.
Paul Plante says
SCREECH SCREECH SCREECH
MOMMY, I DON’T WANT THE CLIMATE TO CHANGE!
WAH WAH WAH
MAKE IT STOP, MOMMY!
I DON’T WANT IT TO GET COLD!
I WANT IT TO STAY WARM AND BALMY FOREVER LIKE IT IS IN NEVER-NEVER LAND!
AccuWeather
“October to usher in plunging temperatures, frosty episodes in northeastern US”
Alex Sosnowski
27 SEPTEMBER 2019
tokenny says
“A global network of 500 scientists” Doesn’t that strike you as odd? 500? Global?
Bureau of Labor Statistics 2018 Physical Scientists
Chemists 76,540
Environmental scientists and specialists, including health 72,000
Geoscientists, except hydrologists and geographers 27,430
Physical scientists, all other 23,800
Physicists 15,160
Hydrologists 8,360
Materials scientists 7,880
Atmospheric and space scientists 7,050
Astronomers 970
That’s 239,190 scientists in the US. 500 would represent 2% of the total number of Physical Scientist in the US. A global organization? 500 sure sounds like the number of crackpots you could find among more than 239K scientists.
Internationally recognized authority. By who? The 2 scientist who live in Canada and the US? The Mirror can slap on the moniker of Award Winning, Investigative Journalism doesn’t make it true.
Pub, I think I’ll take the recommendation of the majority
Ray Otton says
“I think I’ll take the recommendation of the majority”
On climate change because all the solutions advance socialism but not Presidential elections because…………….we didn’t win.
BTW, there is no such thing as consensus in the scientific field. A thing either is or it isn’t and there’s enough data out there to question whether we should totally disrupt our economy without knowing the effect.
Paul Plante says
Take the recommendations of the majority?
What recommendations?
What majority?
Let’s go back to the sensationalist reporting of Associated Press science fiction writer Seth Borenstein in his sci-fi pulp fiction thriller ‘We’re all in big trouble’: Climate panel sees a dire future” on September 25, 2019, where we have, to wit:
The Nobel Prize-winning IPCC requires that its reports be unanimously approved.
Because of that, its reports tend to show less sea level rise and smaller harm than other scientific studies, outside experts said.
end quotes
Other scientific studies?
HMMMMM!
Going all the way back to Fourier in 1820, in fact, and coming forward in time from there through Arrhenius, to 0ur times today, where we have just been presented with CRACKPOT JUNK SCIENCE by this hyperventilating, hysterical French woman and her small IPPC team of wing nuts and crackpots, who have negated pretty much all of known science to come up with this cock-a-mamie DOOM AND GLOOM GRETA REPORT that how has you peeing in your pants in fright.
What is so transparently STUPID about it, is that it refutes all of the basic science that NOAA teaches to the children of America through its on-line educational program which explains in detail to school children in this country how the earth’s climate is controlled by water, not CO2.
And this is not the first time in earth’s history that CO2 levels have been this high.
That is happy horse**** being put out by AP science fiction writer Seth Borenstein to sow confusion, fear, hysteria and panic so he can sell newspaper to the unwitting, unwary and just plain stupid who believe his horse****.
According to GRADE SCHOOL science here in America, the levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide were this high during the Pliocene Epoch, which extended from about 5.3 million to 2.6 million years ago.
How come you and Seth Borenstein don’t know this?
tokenny says
Paul, my last words on this topic (everyone, please keep the applause down) You have no idea what you are talking about. You go from one topic to another hoping someone makes a connection for you. You have been flat-out wrong in 90% of what you posted under this topic.
“According to GRADE SCHOOL science here in America, the levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide were this high during the Pliocene Epoch, which extended from about 5.3 million to 2.6 million years ago”
Please show me a chart. I have one here for you. It’s the same one I posted a couple of threads up. Maybe this time take a look.
https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/carbon-dioxide/
Look at the second chart on the right hand side. It says you are WRONG. It’s from NOAA (the link is NASA, the source of the chart is NOAA)
You or Ray can’t have an intelligent discussion because you make shit up. Ray thinks the economy is going to tank because that’s what he’s told by the oil lobbyist Actually, because that is what he chooses to believe. He doesn’t think about the boom. Stocks go up and down all the time Ray, it’s not a big deal. Does the ice wagon still come down your street? Probably not because we found a better way of keeping your food cold. Same thing with renewables. Ford’s Model T, doesn’t look anything like a 2020 Ford Mustang. Heck, the 2000 doesn’t compare to the 2020.
And Paul, you just make shit up, can’t stay on point and never offer a solution. You just like to wail for the sake of wailing. Kinda makes you look pretty foolish. The frog is too stupid to jump out of the pot that is slowly warming up. You, as an Engineer, should realize there is a problem and work to find a resolution. You have no idea if that water is going to hit the boiling point in 5, 10, 20 min or never but you need to find a solution while your’e in the pot because you just don’t know if you are going to end up like the frog.
That’s it
Ray Otton says
Make stuff up?
Did you even read any of the FACTS I posted about what it would take in money and resources to do away with fossil fuels?
Rhetorical question because of course you didn’t.
But say there –
Consensus said the world was flat.
Consensus said the Earth was the center of the universe.
Consensus said Cholera came from evil miasma leaking from the ground.
Consensus said that if man traveled faster than a mile a minute he would have a heart attack.
Consensus said man would never fly.
Consensus said Hillary would be president.
Consensus is for cultist.
Don’t be a cultist.
tokenny says
Fact – a thing that is known or proved to be true.
Statement – a definite or clear expression of something in speech or writing.
These are NOT facts:
“Can’t speak for Paul, but this is what Democrat proposals would do if they get their way in getting rid of fossil fuels.:
– Millions of good private sector jobs will be lost.
– Hundreds of billions of dollars in stock value, real estate and bond value will be lost.
– The federal and state government will lose substantial income and Social Security tax revenue.
– State and local governments will lose sales, property and other taxes and fees.
– Severely underfunded public pension plans will become more severely underfunded.
How will the Democrats fill all these gaps? The only way is more taxes, which disproportionately hurt poor Americans.”
Paul Plante says
Consensus still says the bumble bee cannot fly because scientific studies have proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that it is aerodynamically unstable.
And while Pancho needs our prayers, you know, where he bit the dust down in Mexico, we really should save some for tokenny too, who has been reduced in here to the brink of pettifoggery.
And tokenny, if you want an engineer to give you a solution, you must first present the engineer with the problem you want a solution to.
And anyway, I gave you the solution – make Greta Thunberg a dictator over all of us who does not answer to Congress, and the solution to all your problems will be at hand when she does what no other human can do, which is to freeze time and make the climate stand still.
Sorin Varzaru says
Ray and Paul. I’m sorry you guys are so terrified of change. It must be hard to live like that. Progress, new science, social progress is terrifying when you are stuck in the past.
You are not one. When cars were invented people were terrified of the cars, of the jobs lost to cars, etc.
When whale oil was replaced , same panic and fears happened.
Yes, sometimes industries get uppended but life goes on. People get other jobs, and no one wants to go back to the old ways.
Cheers
Paul Plante says
Sorin, that had to be one of the most pathetically stupid and ridiculous comments on the subject of “CLIMATE CHANGE” that I have ever heard, where you mindlessly say “I’m sorry you guys are so terrified of change, it must be hard to live like that, progress, new science, social progress is terrifying when you are stuck in the past.”
First of all, Sorin, just as you say, CHANGE IS INEXORABLE (impossible to stop or prevent), so why would I, an engineer, one who uses the knowledge provided by science to improve people’s lives and is therefore an agent of that very change you talk about be afraid of the change the engineer helps to bring about?
So, just like has always been the case here on earth, 24/7/365, THE TIMES THEY ARE A’ CHANGING, and it is you and tokenny who are peeing in your pants screeching, “MOMMY, MAKE IT STOP, I’M SO SCARED!”
You are the one, Sorin, afraid of change, not myself.
I have known with SCIENTIFIC CERTAINTY since at least 1975 that the end of the world as we once knew it, which is hardly the end of the actual world, although the grossly ignorant are not aware of that subtle difference, assuming it is subtle, was on its way, and would get here while I likely would still be alive, so I started preparing myself for the change.
You instead bought yourself a big truck with a V-8 motor VROOOOM VROOOM and a big boat so you, like the first two, pigs who fed the wolf, could live life large.
And now you are petrified that you are going to have to give that up, while I am comfortably living far in the past, actually, with barely any carbon footprint, not because I think CO2 has the power to do anything, since CO2 does not and cannot create HEAT, which is the result of the movement of tiny particles called atoms, molecules or ions in solids, liquids and gases.
Yes, Sorin, heat energy can be transferred from one object to another, like from the heated ocean to a molecule of CO2, which at 400 parts per million is surrounded by nearly a million other molecules which are not CO2, BUT THE HEAT ENERGY CAME FROM THE WATER, because we humans put it there, in part because of the tremendous amount of waste heat from nuclear power production.
It has not dawned on you, Sorin, that what is known among us engineers as the JIM HANSEN FIX requires EVERYBODY to return to the past where I already have gone to.
The JIM HANSEN FIX is to go back to a time when CO2 levels were around 283 ppm.
You want stasis.
You want the CO2 levels of say, 8,000 years ago, along with all the creature comforts you enjoy today, and that is a pipe dream on your part.
If you want to reduce CO2 levels, Sorin, to what they were in the past, you have to duplicate the conditions which existed AT THAT TIME, so the future is indeed going to be the past.
So yes, Sorin, sometimes industries do get uppended but life goes on, and in this case, people are going to have to get other jobs, because we are headed back to the old ways where I got myself to many years ago.
Like the Galapagos iguanas who decided to learn to swim when they heard the ocean was going to rise instead of whining about it like all these rich dudes with their multi-million dollar beach houses who want us POOR FOLK to have to bend over backwards and lower our low standard of living even lower so the ocean won’t come and take their fancy beach house away.
Cheers!
Paul Plante says
It’s getting cold up here, tokenny, and I have a fire going to keep that water from freezing, not boiling.
Paul Plante says
Speaking of taking the word of the majority, tokenny, and dude, I am with you there on that, what the majority in the scientific community know for a fact based on science is that the Pliocene Epoch, 5.3 to 2.6 million years ago, was a time of global cooling after the warmer Miocene, and yet the CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere were in similar concentration to today.
And as UC Berkeley tells us, over the course of the Pliocene, the global climate became cooler and more arid.
And yet, the CO2 concentrations were as high as today if not higher.
The beginning of the epoch saw numerous fluctuations in temperature, which gave way to the general cooling trend towards the end of the Pliocene.
This long term cooling, actually started in the Eocene and continued up to the ice ages of the Pleistocene.
During the Pliocene, large polar ice caps started to develop and Antarctica became the frozen continent that it is today.
And yet, the CO2 concentrations then were as high as today if not higher, and incidentally, tokenny, there were no humans back then combusting fossil fuels to create all the CO2.
Getting back to science, as opposed to mindless, fear-driven hysteria, it is uncertain what caused this climate cooling during the Pliocene.
Changes in the amount of heat transported by oceans has been suggested as one possible explanation; higher concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere may also have contributed.
That is the CONSENSUS of the MAJORITY, tokenny.
So tell us, tokenny – why did CO2 make it cold during the Pliocene Epoch?
How come polar ice was forming back then with so much CO2 in the atmosphere?
Didn’t it know any better, because nobody had read it the GRETA REPORT which says it should have been otherwise?
Any speculations your brilliant scientific mind can share with us?
And why is Greta’s science exempt from peer review?
What’s up with that, tokenny?
Paul Plante says
GRETA THUNBERG: ‘My message to all the politicians is the same: to just listen to the science and act on the science’
* SCIENCE: the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.
* What is the best definition of science? – Science is the study of the nature and behaviour of natural things and the knowledge that we obtain about them.
* What is the true meaning of science? – The aim of science is to build true and accurate knowledge about how the world works.
* How are engineers and scientists different?
Engineers create useful products and services for the people to use, based on scientific research.
They use the knowledge provided by science to improve people’s lives.
* Engineering is an important and learned profession.
As members of this profession, engineers are expected to exhibit the highest standards of honesty and integrity.
Engineering has a direct and vital impact on the quality of life for all people.
* Climate change has happened many times over the history of the Earth, including the coming and going of ice ages.
For more recent centuries, we have more details.
Since the 1800s, people have recorded the daily temperature.
By about 1850, there were enough places measuring temperature so that scientists could know the global average temperature.
From 1920 to 1940, the temperature got warmer.
From 1940 to 1970, the temperature got slightly cooler.
From 1970 to today, the average temperature for the world has increased by about 1 °C (1.8 ± 0.4 °F).
For most of the past 2000 years the temperature didn’t change much.
There were some times where the temperatures were a little warmer or cooler.
One of the most famous warm times was the Medieval Warm Period and one of the most famous cool times was the Little Ice Age.
* Scientists need to integrate scientific values with other ethical and social values.
Obviously, science can help identify unforeseen consequences or causal relationships where ethical values or principles are relevant.
In addition, individuals need reliable knowledge for making informed decisions.
* Scientists who exercise social responsibility often face ethical dilemmas concerning their obligations to society.
These dilemmas typically arise in three different areas: problem selection, publication and data sharing, and public engagement.
* The role of scientist carries an array of responsibilities.
The most obvious is accurate and reliable research that can be depended upon by fellow researchers.
Scientists also have a responsibility to oppose misuse or abuse in the application of research findings, and to attend to both the limitations and the foreseeable impacts of their work.
In addition, as members of society, scientists have a responsibility to participate in discussions and decisions regarding the appropriate use of science in addressing societal issues and concerns, and to bring their specialized knowledge and expertise to activities and discussions that promote the education of students and fellow citizens, thereby enhancing and facilitating informed decision making and democracy.
Paul Plante says
“Leadership is about doing things before anybody else does them.”
“Leadership is about taking risks.”
“Leadership is about taking decisions when you don’t know 100% what the outcome is going to be.”
– United States Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, THE GUARDIAN, “When Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez met Greta Thunberg: ‘Hope is contagious’ – One is America’s youngest-ever congresswoman, the other a Swedish schoolgirl. Two of the most powerful voices on the climate speak for the first time” by Emma Brockes 29 Jun 2019
Paul Plante says
tokenny can take the rap for stealing Greta Thunberg’s dreams and childhood because I am refusing to.
And since little Greta came over here in her high-tech carbon fiber racing sailboat made for the idle rich with its carbon footprint of at least 20 TONS of CO2, how much bigger a cloud has little Greta caused with all her own traveling around and with the gathering of all these mobs that have come to adulate her as their goddess, a role her famous child actor, millionaire, movie producer father Svante Thunberg has prepared daughter well for, which has some older grandparents up this way wonder whether Svante is parenting Greta, or pimping her.
Does the child know what the lines he has her mouthing really mean?
So, getting back to little Greta’s CO2 cloud she has generated since getting here, first she was in New York, staying of course at an undisclosed location, perhaps upscale, since Greta herself is upscale, a queen, in fact, where she led a mob in chanting over and over again, “HEY, HEY, HO, HO, CLIMATE CHANGE HAS GOT TO GO,” generating clouds of CO2 in the process, and then she was in Washington, D.C., some 221 miles to the south to appear before our Congress, even though she is not an American citizen (all it takes is money and the right political connections like AOC and Obama), to present our Congress with the GRETA REPORT, and then she was back in NYC, 221 miles to the north of DC, to shriek and holler at the UN, which body incidentally has NO LEGAL STANDING to compel us Americans to do a ******* thing, such as blindly accepting the GRETA REPORT as valid science, and then she was up in Montreal, some 372 miles north of NYC, to meet another adoring and adulating mob creating another cloud of poisonous CO2, where little Greta was quoted as saying, “I am very excited to be here and it is going to be very much fun today to once again stand together, people from all around the world for one common cause.”
So for little rich girl Greta, who with one side of her mouth moans about her dreams being stolen, this is really for her just a lark – something she is doing to have “VERY MUCH FUN,” while the rest of us who are not the off-spring of millionaires like little Greta, the hysterical fear-monger, work to make it through our days, especially those of us in the north who are faced with winter coming.
HYPOCRISY, anyone?
Why is it politically correct for little Greta to have such a huge carbon footprint when she is expecting the rest of us to go back to cave man days to please her little highness?
Paul Plante says
But I do have a solution, tokenny, and have all along, if only you were capable of hearing, which you aren’t because you are always shouting, instead.
It is obvious by now, thanks to you and little Greta and Associated Press science fiction writer Seth Borenstein, that unless we declare war on carbon pollution in the atmosphere right exactly now, and go onto a wartime footing as we did during WWII, where control of the domestic economy was put in the hands of what were essentially dictators and czars, we’re all doomed like frogs in a slowly warming kettle of water that somebody in France, where they eat frogs, is slowly boiling them for his or her supper.
So the solution as I see it, the only solution that I can see, actually, is to make Greta Thunberg the CARBON POLLUTION CZAR of America with the dictatorial powers the Romans gave to their dictators in times of war.
Why Greta?
Because of all the people mon the face of the planet, she is the smartest of all, and it is she who of all of us knows all of what has to be done, which is something I gleaned from a Canadian Press article entitled “‘He’s, of course, obviously not doing enough’: Greta Thunberg after meeting Trudeau in Montreal” by Mike Blanchfield on September 27, 2019.
Give her FULL CONTROL over everything, tokenny, and I think with her superior knowledge and organizing skills and skillful use of the social media, we can have this war won by spring!
Now, tokenny, that is a solution to ALL of our societal problems that I am fully on-board with, putting Greta in charge of everything.
WHAT ABOUT YOU?
Ray Otton says
The reply button isn’t showing up in the thread so I’m going to post what Tkenny wrote in the hopes of continuing the discussion.
===========================================================
“Fact – a thing that is known or proved to be true.
Statement – a definite or clear expression of something in speech or writing.
These are NOT facts:
“Can’t speak for Paul, but this is what Democrat proposals would do if they get their way in getting rid of fossil fuels.:
– Millions of good private sector jobs will be lost.
– Hundreds of billions of dollars in stock value, real estate and bond value will be lost.
– The federal and state government will lose substantial income and Social Security tax revenue.
– State and local governments will lose sales, property and other taxes and fees.
– Severely underfunded public pension plans will become more severely underfunded.
How will the Democrats fill all these gaps? The only way is more taxes, which disproportionately hurt poor Americans.”
=========================================================
The fact is, Democrats have stated their intention to do away with coal mining and fracking. They admit that a lot of people are going to lose their jobs “for the good of the environment”.
The fact is, the Democrats are going to force auto makers to switch to electric vehicles and they admit to a desire to take your fossil fuel auto away from you. Well, they call it a “buy back'”but I don’t know who they can buy something back that you didn’t buy from them. Actually, it’s confiscation but that doesn’t poll well.
Fact is, doing away with all those jobs would absolutely lead to lower tax receipts for local, state, and federal coffers as well as lower contributions to pension funds.
Fact is, putting coal mining and fracking companies out of business will devalue their stock all the way to ZERO $.
Fact is, it will take an unprecedented amount of capital to force auto companies to tool up for electric cars thus leading to a massive hit on their bottom line, thus in turn severely depressing their stock prices, thus severely impacting most Americans IRA’s and 401K’s.
Fact is, the monumental hit to our economy if the Democrats get their way will devalue the real estate market. Say goodbye to all those newbies buying up RE in Cape Charles at hair raising prices.
Fact is, SS is already on the brink of insolvency. Reducing contributions because people are out of work will only make that worse.
Fact is, there are no unicorns farting out $$$$.
Fact is, since the government doesn’t create wealth but instead seizes it from the citizens, the only way to replace the lost revenue is…………………….MORE TAXES!!!!!!
And finally, fact is, higher taxes disproportionately hurt poor Americans. You got something against poor Americans?
tokenny says
Ray, again you have no facts. Do you think your scenario happens over night?
“The fact is, Democrats have stated their intention to do away with coal mining and fracking. They admit that a lot of people are going to lose their jobs “for the good of the environment””
Industries come and go. Fact, 1979 there was roughly 255k employed in mining 64k in 2018. Coal mining has been in decline and it has nothing to do with climate change, it’s called technology.
“The fact is, the Democrats are going to force auto makers to switch to electric vehicles and they admit to a desire to take your fossil fuel auto away from you. Well, they call it a “buy back’”but I don’t know who they can buy something back that you didn’t buy from them. Actually, it’s confiscation but that doesn’t poll well.”
Wrong. More and more automakers are expanding their lines into electric cars because that’s were the market is. GM announced that it was going to introduce 20 new electric vehicles by 2023. Try using Google to find all the others
“Fact is, doing away with all those jobs would absolutely lead to lower tax receipts for local, state, and federal coffers as well as lower contributions to pension funds.”
That my friend is not a fact. However what about all the jobs created because of going to renewables. You didn’t think about that at all. So all your hyperventilating about devaluing real estate, taxes and SS is nothing more than stuff made up in your mind
Ray Otton says
“Ray, again you have no facts.”
You keep saying that but over the course of this discussion I gave you fact after fact on the cost to our environment and economy. Points you could easily “Google” if you chose to.
I cited Democrat candidates talking points on their desire to upend our entire economy. Also points you could easily “Google” if you chose to. See further down in this post as I’ve done your work for you on this one.
“Do you think your scenario happens over night?”
In the scheme of things, “12 years until we’re all dead” is overnight.
“Wrong. More and more automakers are expanding their lines into electric cars because that’s were the market is. GM announced that it was going to introduce 20 new electric vehicles by 2023. Try using Google to find all the others”
Here’s a suggestion. Try using Google yourself, but put in different parameters, like say “Jobs lost converting to electric vehicles” –
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/03/15/morgan-stanley-electric-vehicles-will-cost-millions-of-auto-jobs.html
https://www.thedetroitbureau.com/2019/03/rise-of-electric-vehicles-is-a-threat-to-jobs-uaw-says/
And not just in the USA –
https://electrek.co/2018/06/05/electric-cars-labor-efficient-lead-job-loss-new-study/
“what about all the jobs created because of going to renewables. You didn’t think about that at all.”
Actually, I did think about it and I think it’s not that straightforward. It’s a very complex situation that this venue isn’t ideal for discussing. However, if I may attempt to stuff it into a very small nutshell, think of it this way:
Want to create a million clean energy jobs?
Easy. Pay a million people to ride stationary bicycles connected to generators. It’s not a lot of power and very expensive but you made 1 million green jobs, so, yeah!…………………………(Tip of the hat to “Black Mirror” for the analogy).
Look, I spent 40 years in the high tech sector, producing millions and million of those little IC’s that run our lives.
Heck, my chosen hobby is updating the programing in old Flight Sims using hexidecimal (base 16) math.
I could hack your car’s computer so you get better mileage and more HP, so don’t attempt to portray me as some sort of Luddite who is afraid of technology and argues from emotion, not facts. If you can’t do that, then we’re done here.
Now then.
My concerns and millions of other every day folks are two fold:
One is the uncontrolled approach that Democrats want to impose on us by mandating the switch to renewables in a very short time period based on claims that we’re all going to die in 12, no sorry, it’s 11 1/2 years now. This after 40 years worth of claims that we’ve got 5 years to clean up our act. At what point do we stop running to the little boy guarding the sheep?
Two is that every solution they put forward adds another layer of government intrusion into our lives ( Dare I say Socialism?)
Think I’m being overly dramatic?
I’m not.
Comments from the Democrat debates:
– Kamala Harris would use executive privilege to do away with the Senate filibuster to pass the New Green Deal. She would also use an executive order to ban fracking. She can’t do either of those thing but boy, it sure sounds good to you guys.
– Bernie Sanders said he’d promote abortion to curb population growth that is a blight on the planet. Would the abortions be expanded up from just after birth as Northam suggested to, say 800 months, so as to include people who oppose this nut?
– Andrew Yang wants to spread acid rain to cool the planet. Oh yeah THAT won’t have unintended consequences. And wasn’t acid rain an environmental disaster about 30 years ago. So he wants to BRING BACK a disaster to fight another disaster? M’kay.
– Amy Klobuchar wants to force power companies to shame neighbors by saying what they’re paying for power. What next? New power meters that not only record your power use but also can LIMIT your power use? Have you seen A&N’s new meters yet? Do you know what’s inside them?
– Joe Biden wants a carbon tax. Ah, Joe, never met a tax he didn’t like.
– Elizabeth Warren wants utility companies out of business by 2035. So the government will producing all our power? Imagine power distribution handled by the same folks running the DMV.
– Kamala Harris says she’d use the government to force you to give up eating meat. heh………hehe…….hoho……….ha. ha. ha. ha. ha. Right, give up meat. I guess all the cattle farmers, meat packers and butchers are going to learn to code.
– Andrew Yang says that Americans might be forced to drive electric vehicles after the government “buys back” their fossil fuel cars. FYI, buying something back that the consumer didn’t purchase from you is confiscation.
– Pete Buttigieg claims the fight against climate change will be tougher than World War II. No, convincing 1/2 the population of the US that these people are batshit crazy is going to be tougher than WW II.
In fact, most of them admit that a lot of people would lose their jobs if these environments schemes are put in place.
Meaning, we deporables are expendable.
Paul Plante says
You are talking to a wall, Mr. Otton!
As for the Democrats, here is what they have to offer us in terms of direction forward:
“Leadership is about taking decisions when you don’t know 100% what the outcome is going to be.”
That is the same as “If you don’t know where you are going any road can take you there.”
That is who tokenny wants us to follow – somebody who hasn’t a clue as to where they are going, which is something only liberal socialist humans would do.
The geese up this way are now flocking as the climate changes and heads colder, and in all the time I have been watching them geese head south, I notice they always seem to select as a leader a goose who actually knows not only where south is, but how to survive the trip to actually get there, because if Carolina is only on your mind when the cold weather comes, you’re done!
But oh my goodness, I’m scaring the children aren’t I with harsh talk like that.
So let tokenny follow the children’s crusade with AOC and Greta at the lead.
And simply say ADIOS!
Ray Otton says
Paul,
I don’t expect to convince the climate ideologues of anything. I’m not a cult de-programmer.
I use them as a platform to expose their extreme position on a whole host of issues.
We put out our version of the world, they put out theirs and the readers can decide for themselves whose got the better ideas.
Sorin Varzaru says
“Here’s a suggestion. Try using Google yourself, but put in different parameters, like say “Jobs lost converting to electric vehicles” –”
That sounds familiar, I wonder where I heard this before. I remember, in a documentary about the time when cars displaced horse drawn carriages.
Ray, you no doubt understand that higher productivity technologies will cause disruption. Sure some people will loose their jobs. So, what, too bad we invented computers because all the accountants of the day were displaced?
It’s ridiculous from a self proclaimed technologist to dismiss a field (electric cars) because it would produce the same result (vehicles, which incidentally are more efficient at converting energy into mechanical power) with less workers. What, we stop promoting productivity increases so we “protect” the workers?
Ray Otton says
Uh, you were right Paul, like talking to a wall.
Long story short.
I have no problem what so ever with technological advancements, as long as they are actual advancements, not half measures.
For instance, Lithium is NOT the answer to the battery storage problem.
Disposing of windmill blades and solar panels is a BIG problem.
Going completely renewable is simply not possible at the present time due to limited resources, dollars and manpower.
Will we eventually solve these problems?
OF COURSE!!!!!
The problem is “in the mean time”, which will be anywhere from a decade to a quarter century before the technologies mature.
And this is where the disagreement comes in.
I and many people like me have a problem with the chaotic nature of the Democrat proposals foisted upon us in a very debatable time frame as well as the need to mandate these proposals through government edict.
Paul Plante says
Speaking of the Democrats, Mr. Otton, and bringing this back to reality, right now, the Democrats and Republicans did a deal to suspend the debt ceiling until after the 2020 elections, which makes for winner takes all for whomever wins the oval office.
Barmy Bernie Sanders, if elected, intends to jack the national debt up by some $13.5 TRILLION, which he can do with that suspended debt ceiling limit.
So this is why the hysteria being spread by the little Swedish girl is so important to the Democrats, which is why she had the interview with Obama.
I can well imagine him telling her that she is the best little soldier the Democrats have in their arsenal, and keep them scared and off-balance, Greta, until November 2020 and the elections are over.
As to where we are, the dissenting side whose voice does not get to be heard here, this is a response I just sent to a high United States government official regarding the model used in the GRETA REPORT she delivered to our Congress recently, to wit:
Dear government official:
You did send that before (the GRETA REPORT), and it is as clear as mud, and that is not because of cognitive problems on my part, and yes, I have been involved in atmospheric modeling, which is how I became a member of Sigma Xi, passing the high bar to become a member of that organization, whatever you and the Academy of Sciences might think of it.
According to that model you have presented me with, the IR my body emits should interact with the CO2 I exhale to somehow cause me to become warmer like it is warming the ocean, and I should never get cold because I have that comforting blanket of warm CO2 always surrounding me.
However, to accept that, which runs counter to my 70+ years of living on earth, I have had to suspend disbelief, along with rationality and sanity, itself.
And I am an engineer.
I had my chance to go the scientist route, and I chose reality in the real world where people are, instead, as an engineer.
As to what was instilled in me as the aim of science, it was to build true and accurate knowledge about how the world works, not to confuse.
And what differentiates an engineer from a scientist is that the engineer uses the knowledge provided by science to improve people’s lives, which is exactly what this is all about, and after reading all of what you have sent me, I can discern no really useful knowledge in there that I could use to improve people’s lives, and that is why I thought we were having this conversation.
What is any of this doing for society at large besides scaring half of them while stirring contempt for science in the other by people who swear global warming is caused by the ozone hole or some such as that.
I in fact was just confronted with that theory yesterday, and when I attempted to correct the person holding the theory, he got quite hostile and told me I was stupid because I went to college.
So there is your public discussion on this subject, and believe me, it is going downhill fast.
Yours, Paul Plante
Paul Plante says
You simply do not get it, do you, Sorin?
The problem is not with CO2.
The problem is the generation of heat by a highly entropic society.
Entropy is not conserved but increases in all real processes.
That, Sorin, whether you or tokenny or AOC or little Greta like it or not, is a NATURAL LAW that try as you might, you can’t evade.
CO2 DOES NOT CREATE HEAT!
That is another law of nature.
The heat “trapped” by greenhouse gases has to be generated by something else.
Every single nano-meter of the surface of the earth, including human bodies, emits long-wave radiation which is governed by the Stefan-Boltzmann law, a fundamental law of physics, which explains the relationship between an object’s temperature and the amount of radiation that it emits.
An object, Sorin, includes everything on earth, including you, the hood of your big V-8 powered truck when the engine is running, and the Missouri River, and Lake Ontario and the lower Hudson River, and all those over-heated rivers in Europe, and the ice in Antarctica, which emits IR radiation, all of which is being trapped by the 410 ppm of CO2 now in the atmosphere.
And Sorin, I grew up with greenhouses in a cold part of the country, and they need to be HEATED inside because the sun coming through the pane of glass doesn’t cut it, just the same way a greenhouse gas in the atmosphere doesn’t create heat, which in thermodynamics, means energy which is moved between two things when one of them is hotter than the other, as in the surface of Lake Ontario or the Missouri River is hotter than the air above it.
So as long as you continue generating heat, Sorin, and yes, electric cars generate heat, you are going to be like a poor frog in some Frenchman’s kettle trying to get back out while you feel that heat rising all around you.
And the tipping point was really as far back as 1975.
Once passed in the real world, there is no going back.
tokenny, dude, how long can you tread water?
Paul Plante says
Nothing to say to that but amen and let the games begin!
And let me say that I have been doing what a true scientist should be doing here, which is conducting as extensive a literature search as possible to see what has been said on this subject, so that I can do exactly that, Mr. Otton, act out of a responsibility to participate in discussions and decisions regarding the appropriate use of science in addressing societal issues and concerns, which this clearly is in here, and to bring my specialized knowledge and expertise to activities and discussions that promote the education of students and fellow citizens, thereby enhancing and facilitating informed decision making and democracy.
AND THERE IS THE ISSUE!
No democracy!
Science by fiat of secret committee.
Anyone who does not kowtow is DEEMED of insufficient mental capacity to have their opinion considered, as we can see from this response to me from a high-ranking United States scientist, to wit:
As for both sides of the issue, yes, that might be the case in the popular media, but frankly from a scientific view it is not.
That humans are causing global warming is the position of the Academies of Science from 80 countries plus many scientific organizations that study climate science.
More specifically, around 95% of active climate researchers actively publishing climate papers endorse the consensus position.
There have been several studies of the literature concerning climate science and depending on exactly how you measure the expert consensus, it’s somewhere between 90% and 100% that agree humans are responsible for climate change, with most of our studies finding 97%consensus among publishing climate scientists; and one of those studies, Cook et al (2016) is attached here FYI.
The greater the climate expertise among those surveyed, the higher the consensus on human-caused global warming; and so as for “both sides of the debate”, from a scientific standpoint, there simply are not two sides, and to teach students that would simply be wrong.
end quotes
That. Mr. Otton, is the United States government speaking and in this debate, which isn’t a debate, there is only one point of view allowed, which is the point of view of the United States government, which is why it is no longer a debate.
We now need to do what the Commies did to their children, and teach our children to not think at all, to not question, to only obey.
Sorin Varzaru says
“So as long as you continue generating heat, Sorin, and yes, electric cars generate heat,”
I know. What I also know that gasoline powered engine is about 30% efficient at converting the energy in gas to motion. An electric motor is over 90%. So, an electric car puts out significantly less heat for the same mechanical motion it produces.
Paul Plante says
Ah, yes, but then, as it has a limited “gas tank,” like the sun, which thankfully was equipped with saddle tanks, elsewise it would have burned out back in the 60s, the electric car has to be recharged, and there is where your entropic losses come in, which means heat, Sorin.
And heat is the issue, given that the CO2 now in the atmosphere is going to stay there for quite a while.
Just the other day, Young Andy Cuomo, Chris Cuomo’s brother who is governor of New York had his Department of Environmental Conservation tell us thusly:
Carbon dioxide and other potent greenhouse gases remain in the atmosphere for decades or even centuries, guaranteeing ongoing change even as we reduce emissions.
end quotes
So you see what I am saying there, Sorin?
Unless you stop producing waste heat, you are totally screwed.
And your consumer society can’t stop producing waste heat because it needs to keep making carbon fiber sailboats for rich little girls like Greta at 20 tons of CO2 per ton of carbon fiber, and cheap plastic **** for the other consumers who can’t afford the sailboat, or there will be riots.
How much entropy is produced making an electric car?
As to carbon emissions associated with electric car manufacture, we have this as our guide:
“Tesla Details CO2 Emissions in First Environmental Report”
April 19, 2019 by Alyssa Danigelis
Tesla published its first ever Impact Report this week.
The Palo Alto, California-based automotive and energy company shared self-reported carbon dioxide emissions data from their global operations in 2017.
That year, Tesla established a baseline global carbon footprint across manufacturing, retail, distribution, sales, Supercharger, energy, warehouse, and office facilities.
The company focused on tracking electricity and natural gas usage for their sites, the report said.
The report showed direct emissions from sources owned or controlled by Tesla as well as indirect emissions that are a consequence of the company’s activities but occurring at sources owned or controlled by other entities.
In 2017, the Supercharger network produced 64,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide.
Sales, service, and delivery were responsible for 39,000 metric tons while energy operations produced 33,000.
Facilities produced the most carbon dioxide emissions that year: 146,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide.
Added together, Tesla’s operations released 282,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide, directly and indirectly, that year.
end quotes
GO GREEN AND KEEP THE AIR CLEAN!
As to the ubiquitous cell-phone you find stuck in the palm of everybody in America below the age of 40, according to public statistics as easily available to you and tokenny and little Greta and AOC and all their little cell phone addicted friends who are doing all the complaining about CO2 as they are to me, 1.9 billion mobile phones were projected to be sold in 2018.
Approximately 60 per second.
Their total carbon footprint in manufacture is at least equal to the Philippines’ annual carbon emissions, a country of over 100 million people.
And when they do all the controls for this “SMART GRID,” that number is going to keep on going up, so that who really is responsible for the CO2 mess is all the Greta Kids and the millennials with their cell phones and Teslas and carbon-fiber sailboats.
See, Sorin, this is the difference between a scientist and an engineer.
The scientist theorizes, while the engineer questions!
Sorin Varzaru says
“Ah, yes, but then, as it has a limited “gas tank,” like the sun, which thankfully was equipped with saddle tanks, elsewise it would have burned out back in the 60s, the electric car has to be recharged, and there is where your entropic losses come in, which means heat, Sorin.”
Paul, I wonder if you are capable of writing a single post without mentioning Greta. This girl really did a number on you.
As far as the efficiency of the entire chain for electric cars and gasoline cars, there is math out there that shows the electric cars are more efficient when everything is considered (making the cars, making the battery, charging the battery, and running the cars) versus the gasoline cars (extracting the oil, transporting the oil, refining the gas, transporting the gas, making the cars and burning the gas). I have no time or desire to try to put numbers here because you’re either going to ignore them or claim they are false.
Paul Plante says
Sorin, you have some great cop-outs that keep you from ever having to debate REALITY, as opposed to little charts and graphs of which I now have enough of to paper over half the world, it would seem, all of them proving beyond a shadow of a doubt that the Second Law of Thermodynamics does not apply to the physics of climate change, which totally ends any further discussion in here because that is too bizarre to believe, that a natural system governed by thermodynamics, which is why engineers call the earth’s atmosphere a
“thermodynamic engine,” is not in fact governed by thermodynamics, at all, so says the Academy of Sciences, the consensus, and the United States government, to wit:
Your three questions no doubt are related to those who believe (and this is a pretty common counter argument) that the 2nd law of thermodynamics somehow contradicts greenhouse theory.
Well, the short answer is that it does not.
So, yes, IR is emitted around the surface of the earth, including from human bodies, and so what.
The sun warms the Earth.
The Earth and its atmosphere radiate heat away into space.
They radiate most of the heat that is received from the sun, so the average temperature of the Earth stays more or less constant.
Greenhouse gases trap some of the escaping heat closer to the Earth’s surface, making it harder for it to shed that heat, so the Earth warms up in order to radiate the heat more effectively.
So the greenhouse gases make the Earth warmer – like a blanket conserving body heat – and there in a nutshell is global warming.
end quotes
That is the full weight of the United States government and the Church of Science coming down on me there, Sorin, so there is no more for any of us to say, so that like little Greta, and AOC and the Democrats, and the IPPwhatever report, all of that is now IMMATERIAL, because as the United States Government and the Academy of Sciences and the consensus make incandescently clear here, the threat is HEAT.
It is HEAT that matters, Sorin, because however the 410 ppm of CO2 got there, that blanket the CO2 molecules form over our heads, which is now quite a bit thicker, which means more goose down to make it nice and snuggy, now is holding in a huge amount of heat, just as science has predicted going back in time to at least the 1600s.
Like the difference between a fat dude under one blanket, and a skinny dude under another.
We once were the skinny dude, in terms of heat output, but now, we’re the fatty.
Same analogy holds, Sorin, and that is according to the United States government, the Academy of Sciences and the consensus, so right now, Sorin, science says that you are slowly getting cooked by the earth beneath your feet, and all you can do about it is to dither and make foolish arguments with no basis in fact.
And all of that anyway is immaterial because the climate began to change back before 1970, just as was predicted by earth climate modeling back around 1960, and the tipping point or point of no reversibility was passed at high speed say around 1975, so that it is dishonest for anyone of any age to be telling anyone else that we can stop what has now been in motion and building since probably WWII.
Now, here in America, we have weather records going back hundreds of years, and coming forward in time, we find in New York State that because of modern heat emissions, that the annual average temperature statewide has risen about 2.4°F since 1970, with winter warming exceeding 4.4°F.
Now, notice the date, Sorin, and ask yourself the question of why the jump then?
And to cure your confusion, Sorin, because you are clearly confused, temperature is a measure of the average kinetic energy of the particles of a substance, in this case, the earth’s surface.
The higher the temperature of an object, in this case, the earth’s surface, the higher is its kinetic energy.
Kinetic energy is a type of energy associated with motion.
So you can see, Sorin, that a change in temperature must need mean that sufficient energy has been put into the surface of the earth to increase its kinetic energy, elsewise there could be no change in temperature, given what temperature is a measure of.
And that boost in the energy came from releasing the potential energy of carbon based fuels and radioactive materials to create heat with which to do work.
And once that potential energy has been released as heat energy, it cannot be taken back, just as you cannot pull perfume molecules back out of the air once they have been released, and haven’t you encountered situations in a small room somewhere where you would wish that you could do just that?
So you blather on about CO2 as if it meant something, when CO2 is now immaterial – it is there and in place regardless of how it got there and you can’t make it go away, even if you whip the living **** out of it with a motorcycle primary chain as some are suggesting the way Zerxes punished the Hellespont by whipping it 300 times to teach it to not **** with him.
You’ve got to figure out a way to stop producing heat, Sorin, or you are going to end up like a bar-b-cued chicken wing at a Democrat meet-and-greet out in Iowa.
In the meantime, I’m heading for a place called Galt’s Gulch.
Heard its a land of opportunity for those who are not indoctrinated so they can no longer think.
And Sorin, air conditioners create waste heat, so dude, you got yourself a real conundrum to solve, don’t you!
Sorin Varzaru says
“You’ve got to figure out a way to stop producing heat, Sorin, or you are going to end up like a bar-b-cued chicken wing at a Democrat meet-and-greet out in Iowa.”
If you spent less time writing about Greta and a bit more paying attention to the words I typed, you might have noticed that my point was electric cars, as a whole system are more EFFICIENT then gasoline cars. As such, they produce LESS HEAT to create the same mechanical motion. CO2 aside, using less energy to create the same mechanical power produces less heat. I promise, this is completely unrelated to Greta, the US government, or the martians. It’s primary school physics, may want to brush up on it maybe?
OK, I’ll try to help you out a bit. Electric cars today recover the kinetic energy when braking and charge the batteries. Gasoline cars, they convert that energy to heat. The combustion engine converts about 30% of the energy the gas contains to mechanical motion. The rest is heat. There is more, but before i can have a reasonable expectation that you actually read and comprehend what I am saying, I am not going to waste my time.
Paul Plante says
Which is yet another awesome cop-out so that you never have to present proof of a word you say, and anyway, Sorin, the climate HAS changed.
The oceans have risen.
The glaciers have melted.
And the temperature up this way is plummeting after being balmy today.
Headed down toward freezing at the end of the week.
Go figure.
Sorin Varzaru says
“Which is yet another awesome cop-out so that you never have to present proof of a word you say, and anyway, Sorin, the climate HAS changed.
The oceans have risen.
The glaciers have melted.
And the temperature up this way is plummeting after being balmy today.
Headed down toward freezing at the end of the week.
Go figure.”
I’m proud of you, you managed a whole reply without mentioning Greta.
I would present proof Paul, but it’s just a google search away. Besides you are an engineer, you know the efficiency of electric motors, CI motors, can factor in energy recovery from braking, loss of charge, etc and you can arrive to the same conclusions pretty much everyone else did, including the EPA. Electric cars are roughly 2.5 times more efficient then gasoline cars, all things included.
Paul Plante says
And yes, Sorin, I AM an engineer, certified as such by the people of the State of New York after having first educated myself as an engineer, and then after passing a comprehensive exam on fundamentals of engineering, and then getting an advanced degree that was paid for by the people of the United States of America through an EPA fellowship so that unlike the Commie and socialist countries, the people of America would not have some seedy party apparatchik pretending to be an engineer (HO HO HO, see the Sonia Sotomayor Slight), and then getting four more years of qualified experience, and then taking another comprehensive test on principles and practices of engineering, which included a full analysis, including cost-benefit analysis, of options for power generation for a certain size community, which factored in ALL the inefficiencies of generation and transmission, including Joule Heat losses, so yes, Sorin, I have been there, possibly before you were born.
An electric motor itself is somewhere near 90% efficient, which is something we engineers have known for decades, at a minimum.
And as an engineer, I am neither for nor against electric cars.
As a person, I am not going to shell out $24,200 for a stripped down Prius, but that is just me.
I also am not going to shell out over $20,000 for an IC-powered model either, so there we go.
So exactly what point are you trying to make beyond the fact that you think I am stupid and unqualified to be an engineer?
You are the one with the serious problem, Sorin, not me.
I am like the third pig, the one who didn’t get eaten by the wolf.
Knowing there are always wolves about, instead of partying, which is the pastime of modern America, which is why we need party towns like Miami and Cape Charles, I took care to hunker down, plan for the future, which for many people, could well prove to be bleak, but you know what, Sorin, to those of us who were born poor in this country, the environment has always been harsh, uncaring as to whether we live or not and unforgiving of fools, and we have adapted by living with nature, as opposed to living against it, and we are content.
Back to you.
Sorin Varzaru says
“So exactly what point are you trying to make beyond the fact that you think I am stupid and unqualified to be an engineer?”
I don’t think you are stupid Paul. I know you know exactly what point I am making, but if you acknowledge that, you would have to admit you are wrong.
You were writing on how the heat we’re producing is the problem and we need to find ways to reduce it. I agree, that is A problem. An obvious way to reduce heat produced to accomplish a task is to increase the efficiency of the device accomplishing the task. By using electric cars, which are at this point 2.5 TIMES more efficient (including power production, delivery, etc), we can get the same work done and reduce the losses (heat byproduct) accordingly.
Paul Plante says
Sorin, why do you need my endorsement for something that people are already doing without my endorsement because in America, they don’t need my endorsement for them to build and buy electric cars, as if that were somehow a new idea, which it is not:
1832-1839 – Scottish inventor Robert Anderson invents the first crude electric carriage powered by non-rechargeable primary cells.
1835 – American Thomas Davenport is credited with building the first practical electric vehicle — a small locomotive.
1859 – French physicist Gaston Planté invents the rechargeable lead-acid storage battery. In 1881, his countryman Camille Faure will improve the storage battery’s ability to supply current and invent the basic lead-acid battery used in automobiles.
1891 – William Morrison of Des Moines, Iowa builds the first successful electric automobile in the United States.
A handful of different makes and models of electric cars are exhibited in Chicago.
1897 – The first electric taxis hit the streets of New York City early in the year. The Pope Manufacturing Company of Connecticut becomes the first large-scale American electric automobile manufacturer.
1899 – Believing that electricity will run autos in the future, Thomas Alva Edison begins his mission to create a long-lasting, powerful battery for commercial automobiles. Though his research yields some improvements to the alkaline battery, he ultimately abandons his quest a decade later.
1900 – The electric automobile is in its heyday. Of the 4,192 cars produced in the United States 28 percent are powered by electricity, and electric autos represent about one-third of all cars found on the roads of New York City, Boston, and Chicago.
That is all American schoolboy/schoolgirl history, Sorin.
As a free people, we are expected to know important stuff like that as young adults learning how to become responsible, productive citizens who are improving upon the wheel as opposed to being stupid and having to re-invent the wheel every day, and so we don’t sound real stupid and ignorant when we are talking to people in other countries who might be better educated than we are.
But Sorin, let me say that I am glad you are bringing these points up, because it then gives me a chance to demonstrate just how ******* LOUSY a job our high school system is doing in educating children as opposed to indoctrinating them to accept without question the absolute horse**** apparatchiks in the guise of “scientists” are peddling them.
And with that said, Sorin, if you were to ask me my engineer’s opinion about this IPP crowd’s report based on what I have today from the “consensus” as their point of view that we are all to blindly accept without question, which is bull**** in a nation that lives by rule of law, I would say it very much appears to be something commissioned by the nuclear industry (GO NUKE, AMERICA, BE LIKE FRANCE!) as a transparent white-wash and cover-up of environmental harm caused by waste heat emissions from nuclear power generating facilities by throwing CO2 and fossil fuels under the bus as the VILLAIN (BOOO HISS!).
Sorin Varzaru says
“Sorin, why do you need my endorsement for something that people are already doing without my endorsement because in America, they don’t need my endorsement for them to build and buy electric cars, as if that were somehow a new idea, which it is not:”
I don’t need your endorsement. I was responding to your call to reduce the heat emissions. Electric cars do that.
This whole thing started when Wayne criticized the plan to ban the sale of new IC cars by 2035 (among other things). While that particular year is somewhat arbitrary, I support the idea of such a ban. Without it, it would take longer to do it and the technology would be improved at a lower pace. I also support a plan of a orderly disbanding of IC car production so displaced workers can be re-trained and the human cost of the transition is reduced.
Under that plan, you can drive you IC car until the cows come home. And you can buy used IC cars until they come home again. You just can’t produce any NEW IC cars after 2035.
I don’t care if you believe in climate change. Wasting energy is bad in any system of reference. We now have an alternative that is 2.5 times more efficient. And if conservatives are wrong, and CO2 emissions are harming us, it will help with that as well.
Paul Plante says
This whole thing started when Wayne criticized the plan to ban the sale of new IC cars by 2035 among other things?
Okay, but no, Sorin, actually if you go back and re-read the first line of the OP, it didn’t!
This whole thing started when Wayne Creed said as follows:
CNN and the field of Democratic Candidates proved once again that we are indeed living in clown world.
For seven hours, the brainy individuals engaged in a forum discussing climate change and the coming end of the world.
The big takeaway: stop eating meat and we all must drive electric cars.
end quotes
That Sorin, is really where this whole thing got started, and that was on September 8, 2019, almost a month ago now, and as can be seen by a review of all the comments here, a lot of water has gone over the dam since Wayne Creed threw that sentiment that CNN and the field of Democratic Candidates proved once again that we are indeed living in clown world out for public discussion.
So, are we living in clown world, Sorin?
Or are we not?
Since I do not wish to become inconsistent in here, I would call it BIZARRO-VILLE instead of clown world, although I truly think they share the same zip code and area code as well, so that if somebody does call it clown world, it translates well and of course I know just what he meant, as can be seen by going back in time to September 8, 2019, where we had as follows to put some further definition as to where we have gotten to since we left there getting to here, to wit:
Viola Mears says @ September 8, 2019 at 2:06 pm:
My God, that picture of the brain-washed child is disturbing.
Paul Plante says @ September 8, 2019 at 5:48 pm:
Whether or not the “child” is brain-washed remains a matter of conjecture, but the picture is meant to be disturbing.
If that picture is 16-year old Greta Thunberg from Sweden, who just made a movie about herself starring herself as a modern-day heroine sailing the mighty Atlantic Ocean in her hi-tech, carbon fibre racing yacht that only the richest of us can afford to battle “climate change” by “communicating the science,” and who was cheered for her blunt message at the World Economic Forum in Switzerland this year, when she told government and business leaders: “I want you to panic, I want you to feel the fear I feel every day,” I would say that she obviously has some serious issues like persistent paranoia she needs to confront if she thinks adults should panic because she feels “fear” every day.
Surprisingly, very few adults have stepped up to the plate to inform this hysterical and possibly manipulative 16-year old that they don’t do panic just because a 16-year old girl is demanding it of them, or she will hold her breath and turn blue in the face and throw herself down on the ground in a fierce temper tantrum if she doesn’t get her way, as we adults can see from a TWITTER post she made on 23 December 2018, where she TWEETED to her TWIBE of TWITTERATI, as follows:
“We have to understand the emergency of the situation.”
“Our leadership has failed us.”
“Young people must hold older generations accountable for the mess they have created.”
“We need to get angry, and transform that anger into action.”
end quotes
Now, is that a girl who is brain-washed?
Or is that a manipulative girl trying to brain-wash others?
For example, her statement “We have to understand the emergency of the situation.”
Okay, Greta, I’m on, so explain it to me.
But she can’t, because that statement is nothing more than a soundbite to scare ign0rant children who can’t read and so, have to get their news and what it is they are supposed to think and say if they want to be popular, from TWEETS on TWITTER.
As to scaring children, on 13 December 2018, young, frightened Greta, and let me say here that I am a grandfather with granddaughters who are not scared every day, because they have been taught from young to think for themselves, had this to say to the world, to wit:
“We are about to sacrifice our civilization for the opportunity of a very small number of people to continue to make enormous amounts of money.”
“But it is the sufferings of the many which pay for the luxuries of the few.”
“You say that you love your children above everything else.”
“And yet you are stealing their future.”
end quotes
Well, Greta, let me say that as a grandfather here in America that I love my children and my grandchildren, and I and their parents are not “stealing” their future as you accuse us of doing, with no evidence whatsoever to support your thesis; to the contrary, their parents are providing a future for them by teaching them responsibility and discipline and critical thinking, and by feeding them, and by putting a roof over their heads and clothes on their backs, which is why I am standing up in here to tell you, Greta, to stop lying to them and trying to make them hysterical so they can’t think straight, so you can make them your tools, which takes us to this from our Greta, who has the luxury of a very expensive high-tech, carbon-fiber racing yacht only the very wealthy can afford, which is a whiff of hypocrisy on her part, as follows:
“We cannot solve a crisis without treating it as a crisis.”
“And if solutions within the system are so impossible to find, then maybe we should change the system itself?”
“We have not come here to beg world leaders to care.”
“You have ignored us in the past and you will ignore us again.”
“You’ve run out of excuses and we’re running out of time.”
“We’ve come here to let you know that change is coming, whether you like it or not.”
“The real power belongs to the people.”
end quotes
Yes, Greta, it does, and I am one of them, and Greta, I am calling your cards!
Put your facts, not your empty TWEET soundbites, on the table and show us what this “crisis” really is, because we adults who love our children and who don’t ignore them would truly like to know.
end quotes
That, Sorin, is where it all began.
And of course I believe in climate change.
Wouldn’t I be a fool to think it was otherwise, especially when it is headed down towards freezing tonight with the wind blowing straight out of the north?
I was out getting in the carbon dioxide I’ve been sequestering all summer so I have something to eat this winter and I’m pyrolyzing some other sequestered carbon dioxide that I have been gathering in to keep me warm this winter, so let the wind blow, ain’t it?
Paul Plante says
Sorin, the conservatives know no more about what CO2 is doing to us or to anything than do the liberals, the independents, the Buddhists, the Jains, the congressional Democrats and all the climate scientists in the world.
Don’t be suckered into believing anyone can control the cycles of the earth, or tell you what an atmospheric phenomenon like CO2 at 410 PPM means to life on earth in the future.
They, like me, and you and Wayne Creed and all the rest can only ponder and surmise.
MEMO TO TOP-RANKING UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT SCIENTIST:
Dr. Diamond, let me first assure you that I am considering carefully every word you have written, and I take them and you quite seriously, just as I do my standing as an engineer with a duty to society to separate fact from fill so as to avoid hysteria.
And by hysteria, I mean young Greta Thunberg publicly saying “I mean, we are striking to disrupt the system,” and “(Y)oung people must hold older generations accountable for the mess they have created,” and that is bomb-throwing, not science and not an attempt at dialogue.
That sounds very much like what you would expect to hear from one of Mao’s Red Guards, or a member of the Hitler Youth.
And I grew up in the countryside in a cold place with greenhouses, and Dr. Diamond, they had to be heated in the winter from inside, lest everything freeze.
Yours, Paul Plante
Paul Plante says
And of course little Greta got to me, Sorin!
My goodness, how could it be otherwise?
What do you mistake me for in here, Sorin – someone without a heart?
I’m a grandfather, Sorin, and it literally and truly rips the heart out of my chest when I am forced to have to consider what that poor little girl has had to go through in her young life, with her dream of life in what was supposed to be a socialist worker’s paradise being stolen from her when she realized that all that talk about the socialist worker’s paradise was horse****, which then unhinged the poor child, so that she now lives each day of her life in fear, as opposed to my American grandchildren, who because of my efforts to keep socialism and communism out of here, with their indoctrination of young minds to teach them to obey, not question, live in hope, instead.
Speaking of the socialist worker’s paradise lost, here is what poor little Greta had to say about just recently, to wit:
Many people, especially in the US, see countries like Sweden or Norway or Finland as role models – we have such a clean energy sector, and so on.
That may be true, but we are not role models.
Sweden is one of the top 10 countries in the world when it comes to the highest ecological footprints, according to the WWF – if you count the consumer index, then we are among the worst per capita.
end quotes
You see what I am saying, Sorin?
So how can you then be so heartless as to not feel compassion for this lost little child?
Paul Plante says
Well, Sorin, and tokenny, I have been going over the science quite diligently here, and what it looks like to me is that America’s highly entropic consumer-driven economy is pretty much ******, because there are now 410 ppm of CO2 in the air which is taking us back to the earth’s Pliocene era, 2 million to 4.6 million years ago, when sea levels were 60 to 80 feet higher than today, because that 20 tons of CO2 emitted into OUR earth’s atmosphere so a spoiled little rich girl in Sweden who throws tantrums when she doesn’t get her way could have a high-tech carbon fiber racing sailboat to flit about on the earth’s oceans pushed us past the tipping point, and there is now nothing we can do to get that frivolous emission of CO2 so the little rich girl could have her pleasure and fun while putting more frivolous emissions of CO2 into OUR atmosphere, which the little rich girl thinks is hers to pollute because she is rich and privileged, back out of the atmosphere.
Thanks to that spoiled little rich girl and her frivolous CO2 emissions, the molecules of which will remain in the atmosphere for hundreds or years or more, life for the rest of us on earth who aren’t spoiled, privileged little Swedish rich girls is going to become kind of dicey and not at all certain as all that water vapor put into the atmosphere by our highly entropic society to maintain the rich in this country in the style they have grown accustomed to, think that LARD-ASS in the golf cart who was terrorizing the Cape Charles beach not that long ago, comes down on our heads in torrents.
Better fuel up the big boat, Sorin, make sure you have plenty of food aboard!
And HOW DARE YOU, tokenny, accusing me in one mouthful of yours of doing nothing, while in another mouthful of yours, you drag in what you call the “SONIA SOTOMAYOR SLIGHT,” which was a case of judicial character assassination to guarantee that I would not be able to do anything, because people like you don’t like regulations or people like me who try to enforce them to protect and safeguard life, health and property.
If you don’t like the way things are now, tokenny, you brought it on yourself cheering Sotomayor’s slight.
So suck it up and don’t ask me for assistance, because as you will recall, I was chopped down by Sotomayor for daring to make that effort.
Paul Plante says
As to the “SONIA SOTOMAYOR SLIGHT,” which indeed is very relevant to this discussion where science by fiat is being inflicted on us, it starts right here, to wit:
“DEVELOPERS SEE A ZEALOT IN NEW COUNTY HEALTH OFFICER”
By Laurie Anderson, Albany, New York Times Union
10 JANUARY 1988
Some developers have complained that Plante’s attention to detail has gotten out of control.
Plante is the focus of a political controversy fueled by the Democratic majority in the county legislature, including chairman Joseph Manupella, who said he’s concerned many developers may not be getting a fair shake and may start looking outside the county.
Plante contended that, unlike some of his predecessors, he knows the regulations well and will not bend the state health laws.
He contended some developers are upset because they are no longer “free and loose” to do what they want in Rensselaer County.
“There was a game that was played out here too long,” he said, adding too many county residents already have problems with cracked foundations, raw sewage runoff and tainted water.
Plante is involved in several fierce feuds with developers, the most public of which involves Anderson, who is attempting to rally the county legislature, Buono, and the state Health Department to make Plante more compliant.
end quotes
Read the word “compliant” to mean they wanted a whore who would take bribes and look the other way, and to not question the bogus science they were basing their development plans on.
When it became clear that I wasn’t going to be a whore, I was crushed instead, and when I appealed to the courts for relief, Sonia Sotomayor told me to my face to “**** off, A-HOLE,” which is what tokenny refers to as a “slight.”
Thanks to Sonia Sotomayor, we now are buried in FRAUD that passes for science.
tokenny is cool with that; I’m not.
That is why I think Sotomayor should be impeached and removed from the bench because a federal judge who upholds fraud and corruption is worthless to a free people.
Paul Plante says
And should there be anyone out there who is more interested in “science,” which has become a mockable term, as opposed to all the HYSTERICAL HYP being forced down our throats today by sensationalists such as AP science fiction writer Seth Borenstein, and the GRETA GUARDS (“Gee-Gee’s”) and AOC and the hysterical Democrats, google this paper, which is readily comprehensible with some informative and easily understood charts showing Antarctic ice over the last 8,000 years or so, which serves to refute some of this BULL**** we are hearing about CO2 today:
Investigation of the Natural Carbon Cycle since 6000 BC using an Intermediate Complexity Model: The Role of Southern Ocean Ventilation and Marine Ice Shelves
Christopher T. Simmons, Lawrence A. Mysak and H. Damon Matthews
Earth System Modelling Group, Department of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences, McGill University, Montréal, Quebec, Canada
Department ofGeography and Urban Planning, Concordia University, Montréal, Quebec, Canada
Paul Plante says
Sorin, sea levels along New York’s coast have already risen more than a foot since 1900.
That is one hundred nineteen years ago, Sorin.
You see what I am saying about being past the tipping point?
According to young Andy Cuomo who would know this kind of stuff if anybody would, New York’s rate of sea-level rise, about 1.2 in per decade, is almost twice the observed global rate over the same period.
By the 2050s, Sorin, sea level is expected to be as much as 30 inches (2.5 feet) higher in New York’s coastal area, as compared with sea level averaged for 2000-2004 and by 2100, New York’s coast could see up to 6 feet of sea-level rise, all because of the heat energy released into the atmosphere to provide you with the standard of living you think you are entitled to.
Maybe you should be advocating for electric boats, instead.
And seriously, Sorin, if Miami, Florida and New York City were to sink beneath the sea, would that really discommode you all that much down in Cape Charles, Virginia, where life is perfect all the time?
Would you even know they were gone, and all the CO2 they produce with them?
Sorin Varzaru says
“And seriously, Sorin, if Miami, Florida and New York City were to sink beneath the sea, would that really discommode you all that much down in Cape Charles, Virginia, where life is perfect all the time?”
Umm, you do understand that the Miami and NYC are not sinking right? The water level is rising, same water we have here at the beach. Cape Charles will be under water way before most of NYC will.
Paul Plante says
BOO HOO HOO, then, Sorin, you know what I am saying?
BIG WATER COMING!
We who live close to the earth knew that a long time ago, and so, while some of us decided to learn how to swim and surf and live life large in Surf City where there are two girls for every boy and everybody drives a solar-powered Woodie, others of us like me headed for higher ground.
I’m at 479 feet above sea level, so it has a ways to go up before I go under.
And this conversation reminds me of Page 82 of “Roughing It” by Mark Twain, to wit, as a lesson in just how much it is that human nature doesn’t change and a tendency to be stupid is handed down from generation to generation to wit:
We walked out, after supper, and visited a small Indian camp in the vicinity.
The Indians were in a great hurry about something, and were packing up and getting away as fast as they could.
In their broken English they said, “By’m-by, heap water!” and by the help of signs made us understand that in their opinion a flood was coming.
The weather was perfectly clear, and this was not the rainy season.
There was about a foot of water in the insignificant river — or maybe two feet; the stream was not wider than a back alley in a village, and its banks were scarcely higher than a man’s head.
So, where was the flood to come from?
We canvassed the subject awhile and then concluded it was a ruse, and that the Indians had some better reason for leaving in a hurry than fears of a flood in such an exceedingly dry time.
At seven in the evening we went to bed in the second story — with our clothes on, as usual, and all three in the same bed, for every available space on the floors, chairs, etc., was in request, and even then there was barely room for the housing of the inn’s guests.
An hour later we were awakened by a great turmoil, and springing out of bed we picked our way nimbly among the ranks of snoring teamsters on the floor and got to the front windows of the long room.
A glance revealed a strange spectacle, under the moonlight.
The crooked Carson was full to the brim, and its waters were raging and foaming in the wildest way — sweeping around the sharp bends at a furious speed, and bearing on their surface a chaos of logs, brush and all sorts of rubbish.
A depression, where its bed had once been, in other times, was already filling, and in one or two places the water was beginning to wash over the main bank.
Men were flying hither and thither, bringing cattle and wagons close up to the house, for the spot of high ground on which it stood extended only some thirty feet in front and about a hundred in the rear.
Close to the old river bed just spoken of, stood a little log stable, and in this our horses were lodged.
While we looked, the waters increased so fast in this place that in a few minutes a torrent was roaring by the little stable and its margin encroaching steadily on the logs.
We suddenly realized that this flood was not a mere holiday spectacle, but meant damage — and not only to the small log stable but to the Overland buildings close to the main river, for the waves had now come ashore and were creeping about the foundations and invading the great hay-corral adjoining.
We ran down and joined the crowd of excited men and frightened animals.
We waded knee-deep into the log stable, unfastened the horses and waded out almost waist-deep, so fast the waters increased.
Then the crowd rushed in a body to the hay-corral and began to tumble down the huge stacks of baled hay and roll the bales up on the high ground by the house.
Meantime it was discovered that Owens, an overland driver, was missing, and a man ran to the large stable, and wading in, boot-top deep, discovered him asleep in his bed, awoke him, and waded out again.
But Owens was drowsy and resumed his nap; but only for a minute or two, for presently he turned in his bed, his hand dropped over the side and came in contact with the cold water!
It was up level with the mattress!
He waded out, breast-deep, almost, and the next moment the sun-burned bricks melted down like sugar and the big building crumbled to a ruin and was washed away in a twinkling.
At eleven o’clock only the roof of the little log stable was out of water, and our inn was on an island in mid-ocean.
As far as the eye could reach, in the moonlight, there was no desert visible, but only a level waste of shining water.
The Indians were true prophets, but how did they get their information?
I am not able to answer the question.
We remained cooped up eight days and nights with that curious crew.
Sorin Varzaru says
“I’m at 479 feet above sea level, so it has a ways to go up before I go under.”
Paul is safe, I’ll put the word out to stop all efforts to stem the raise of the oceans.
Paul Plante says
“Safe” is a relative term, Sorin, and if I am truly safe, which I never take for granted, it is because I wasn’t stupid and made myself that way, which in a non-Communist or no-socialist nation is the responsibility of the citizen, at least as far as I have understood it all my life.
Country boy can survive!
I know that freaks out the socialist Europeans when they hear us Americans talking like that, not being dependent upon the state as they are, but such it is, Sorin.
So knowing many years ago what was coming, I took pains to get prepared.
And my goodness, Sorin, why do you think this business with the oceans rising is new?
Don’t the Commies tell anybody about that over there where they are?
Here in America, we were taught as children that global sea level has been rising over the past century, because it has, and in our times today, just as it was modeled to do way back in the 60s, the rate has increased in recent decades so that in 2014, global sea level was 2.6 inches above the 1993 average—the highest annual average in the satellite record (1993-present) and sea level continues to rise at a rate of about one-eighth of an inch per year, all of which is OLD NEWS.
So, given that everybody knew the sea was rising and was going to keep rising, why would I have been as stupid as all those other people and put my efforts into building something the ocean would take back in my lifetime, versus building something on higher ground?
And Sorin, no matter how much you and all those other people out there chant your little hearts out, screaming over and over, “HEY, HEY, HO, HO, CLIMATE CHANGE HAS GOT TO GO,” and no matter how many times Froggie over there in France (GO NUKE AND COOK YOURSELF LIKE A BOILED FROG) plunks her magic twanger, you are not going to stop the earth’s oceans from rising, because that, Sorin, is a natural cycle that Froggie in France with her magic twanger to stop climate change has no control over.
By the way, in Europe, France is the largest producer of electricity by nuclear generation, which is why they have a serious heat issue over there, that they are trying to cover over by blaming CO2 for the problems they have created with waste heat.
Liabilities, don’t you know?
Blame-shifting.
Nuclear is innocent – Froggie and her IPP crowd say so, end of story – CO2 is guilty.
As to the “science,” Sorin, to observe a Holocene environment, simply look around you!
The Holocene is the name given to the last 11,700 years of the Earth’s history — the time since the end of the last major glacial epoch, or “ice age.”
Since then, there have been small-scale climate shifts — notably the “Little Ice Age” between about 1200 and 1700 A.D. — but in general, the Holocene has been a relatively warm period in between ice ages.
That, Sorin, is why the ice is melting!
The ice age never ended – to the contrary, it is still ending, and the climate is changing as a result and Sorin, that is something that used to be taught to American children in the fourth grade, so how come people are so stupid today as to think this is something that just started yesterday?
And with respect to the Holocene, Sorin, consider this, which also used to be taught to children in America, before the education system started making children stupid so they don’t know how to discern and question the lies they are told, to wit:
The Holocene has witnessed all of humanity’s recorded history and the rise and fall of all its civilizations.
end quotes
Those who use a mirror of brass can see to set their cap, whereas those who use the mirror of antiquity know to not build a house on the seashore then the ocean is rising.
Paul Plante says
A hard freeze last night, Sorin.
The sky was clear, so as I thought as I watched the sky yesterday, there was sufficient radiational cooling to bring it down below freezing.
Radiational cooling is the cooling of the earth’s surface and adjacent air, primarily at night, caused by a loss of heat due to surface emission of infrared radiation.
If the global warming theory was correct, that IR should have banged hard into that blanket layer of CO2 now hanging above our heads and it should have radiated back down to keep it as balmy here as it is in Disneyland and Cape Charles, instead of radiating off into space as it did.
So I was out there this morning scraping ice off my windshield wondering whether people like yourself ever stop to consider how hard it is to convince people like myself who are out there scraping ice that the climate is really getting warmer, which makes us have to stop and wonder where the ice on our windshields came from then.
Publius Americanus says
I vould ask Commisar Varazu vat elses ve can ban-for the good of the Volk, of course- to create zis perfekt vorld?
Jawhol, Mein Varazu…….ve shall all dance to YOUR drummer, sir of course or else off with our heads like every other good little totalitarian would, jah?
Scratch a liberal and reveal the totalitarian. Every. Single. Time.
Sorin Varzaru says
“I vould ask Commisar Varazu vat elses ve can ban-for the good of the Volk, of course- to create zis perfekt vorld?
Jawhol, Mein Varazu…….ve shall all dance to YOUR drummer, sir of course or else off with our heads like every other good little totalitarian would, jah?
Scratch a liberal and reveal the totalitarian. Every. Single. Time.”
Wow, that is a remarkably well articulated argument. Coming from someone who hides under a pseudonym no less. Fantastic job, I guess you don’t have the courage to sign your name under this jewel of creative writing?
Paul Plante says
Publius Americanus, Sorin, was the set of dudes who wrote what are now called collectively “THE FEDERALIST PAPERS,” originally a set of political essays addressed specifically to the People of the State of New York wherein was explained to us in minute detail what the federal government in this country, the United States of America, and not some Commie country in Europe, or crowd of groveling forelock-tuggers bowing and scraping to nobility like the socialist Swedes, was to be, and more importantly, was not to be, and why that all was to be, giving us the history leading up to the moment of those essays and thus, their purpose, which was to educate, and what the states were to be, and what they were not to be, and what the president was supposed to be, and not, along with the House of Representatives, the Senate, and the federal courts so when somebody down the road, some seedy party apparatchik came along and tried to hand us some BULL****, we AMERICANS would know the difference, and we would then keep the BALANCE by standing up to whichever corner of the federal government the BULL**** was coming from.
And there is where we Americans are today – faced with a torrent of BULL**** in the name of “science” from people in Europe we do not know and are being denied the right to question.
As Publius Americanus (“America’s watchdog, in the sense of Cuculain in Ireland) makes incandescently clear, to an American, that imposition of foreign “science” on us by FIAT is the definition of TYRANNY, and by allowing that foreign “science” to come into this country without question or challenge at the federal congressional level so that without challenge by We, the American people in a hearing where we have the right to question as witnesses the top scientists who produced this IPP report, this foreign report is now the official basis and thus, only allowable basis, which in turn affects our national public policy dialogue here in the United States of America where it is we who are the citizens, not the scientists over there in France trying to impose this report on us as a sort of rule of law, just as it is doing in here with yourself and the venerable and indomitable and most often just dead wrong but feisty about it nonetheless tokenny treating the IPP report as the word of an infallible oracle or even God him or herself, while we Americans treat it as the science-defying hogwash that it is, which unchallenged hogwash is already having an impact on our 2020 presidential election by this foreign interference which forms a plank of the Democrat presidential platform, and thus, it impacts directly on our economic future as a people and as a nation, which is despotism, plain and simple, and the only newspaper worthy of the name that has the guts to stand up and put out a public challenge to this foreign scientific bull**** that defies reason and requires suspension of disbelief to believe is the Cape Charles Mirror, for which it should be awarded an ALTERNATE NOBEL PRIZE, and I would like you Sorin, to use whatever considerable influence you have with the Cape Charles Town Board and Congresswoman Luria to get that ball rolling, pronto.
And thank you from a grateful nation for that, and welcome to America where we don’t suck eggs because some French scientist told us we had to!
Publius Americanus says
Mike Kuzma, Jr.
So, totalitarian, what else do we ban, on YOUR orders?
Sorin Varzaru says
“Mike Kuzma, Jr.
So, totalitarian, what else do we ban, on YOUR orders?”
Hi Mike.
I was part of the movement that overturned communism in Romania. Not a fan of totalitarian regimes. I am a fan however of science, education, common sense and people seeing beyond their own immediate needs.
But, I am a little tired about this conversation. I think I’ll take a break for now.
Cheers
Paul Plante says
Sorin, I think just about everybody in America is sick and tired of hearing over and over and over about climate change, as if we could actually all get together and stop it, or change it, or even affect it.
The earth’s climate changes, period.
CO2 levels go up and down in natural cycles.
And what has happened is that it has become very politicized, which is what really gets people angry, as we see from this CNN article entitled “Greta Thunberg, 16-year-old climate activist, tells Congress to listen to the scientists and take real action” by Leah Asmelash on 18 September 2019, to wit:
Greta Thunberg has had a busy week.
On Wednesday, the Swedish 16-year-old climate activist appeared in front of Congress before a hearing on climate change, just days after she met with former President Barack Obama.
Thunberg, though, told Congress she didn’t have any prepared remarks.
Instead, she said she was attaching her testimony — the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s special report on global warming, which reported a temperature increase of 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels.
“I am submitting this report as my testimony because I don’t want you to listen to me, I want you to listen to the scientists,” she said.
“And I want you to unite behind the science.”
“And then I want you to take real action.”
end quotes
And there is where it all goes south in a hurry, Sorin.
You say you are a fan of science, education, common sense and people seeing beyond their own immediate needs, and you know what, so are MILLIONS of other people here in America, including myself, and by the way, thanks for standing up to the Commies, that is appreciated as they’re a bad lot any way you look at it.
Which brings us to the present moment, because we do not have the “science” to prove anything, other than the earth has a variable climate, which we already knew.
Consider the NOAA educational paper entitled “Mid-Holocene Warm Period – About 6,000 Years Ago” which informs the school children of America as follows:
Paleoclimatologists have long suspected that the “middle Holocene,” a period roughly from 7,000 to 5,000 years ago, was warmer than the present day.
Terms like the Altithermal or Hypsithermal or Climatic Optimum have all been used to refer to this warm period that marked the middle of the current interglacial period.
Today, however, we know that these terms are obsolete and that the truth of the Holocene is more complicated than originally believed.
What is most remarkable about the mid-Holocene is that we now have a good understanding of both the global patterns of temperature change during that period and what caused them.
It appears clear that changes in Earth’s orbit have operated slowly over thousands and millions of years to change the amount of solar radiation reaching each latitudinal band of Earth during each month.
These orbital changes can be easily calculated and predict that the Northern Hemisphere should have been warmer than today during the mid-Holocene in the summer and colder in the winter.
The combination of warmer summers and colder winters is apparent for some regions in the proxy records and model simulations.
There are some important exceptions to this pattern, however, including colder summers in the monsoon regions of Africa and Asia due to stronger monsoons with associated increased cloud cover during the mid-Holocene, and warmer winters at high latitudes due to reduction of winter sea ice cover caused by more summer melting.
In summary, the mid-Holocene, roughly 6,000 years ago, was generally warmer than today during summer in the Northern Hemisphere.
end quotes
You see what is happening here, Sorin?
In one breath, we are told how the earth really works, and then, in another breath, everything in history has been caused by CO2, which is balderdash.
So between little Greta and AOC and the Democrats and the IPPC crowd, who are political, the term “science” has been rendered a term of contempt.
Is that good for our society, do you think?
Publius Americanus says
Well, if you were integral in deposing Caesescu(sic?) then I am surprised you do not see the parallels between your behavior and his.
IMO, we have far too many empty lamp posts in America, and DC specifically.
Paul Plante says
Ah, yes, totalitarianism and the sensationalist and alarmist media reporting required to make it happen as we can see from this article in the Guardian entitled “US to stage its largest ever climate strike: ‘Somebody must sound the alarm'” by Oliver Milman in New York on 20 September 2019, as follows:
The US is set to stage its largest ever day of protest over the climate crisis, with tens of thousands of students joined by adults in abandoning schools and workplaces for a wave of strikes across the country.
end quotes
Now, here we have a real good example of the “doom-and-gloom” hysteria-mongering by the media to make people scared, and therefore, off-balance, which makes them all the more readily manipulated, and especially the children who are unable to think for themselves when confronted with the term “CLIMATE CRISIS,” which has the children thinking that life on earth is about to end and unless we cede power to the Democrats, we are all doomed.
But what is the “CLIMATE CRISIS?”
And the answer is – nobody, starting with the consensus, really knows.
Getting back to the hysteria-mongering of the Guardian, we have:
The young strikers’ totemic figure, the Swedish climate activist Greta Thunberg, will take part in the New York walkout and will speak to massed protesters in Manhattan.
Authorities in New York City have announced that its student population of 1.1 million is able to skip school in order to attend the strikes.
end quotes
New York City, of course, is PROGRESSIVE DEMOCRAT territory, so it should not come as a surprise to anyone that the authorities in New York City would be purposefully and shamefully exploiting these children for partisan political gain.
Getting back to the Guardian:
Hundreds of doctors have written medical notes to excuse students from their classes due to the threat posed by the climate crisis.
end quotes
What can anyone say to that other than incredible, which takes us back to the Guardian, as follows:
“This is going to be the largest mobilization for climate action in history,” said Alexandria Villaseñor, a 14-year-old who has been protesting outside the UN headquarters over climate every Friday since December.
“World leaders can either listen now or listen later because our voice is only going to get louder as the climate crisis gets more urgent.”
“Adults need to step up and support us.”
“Civil disobedience breaks the system and once it’s broken it’s an amazing opportunity to make things better.”
end quotes
That is what those doctors and the New York City authorities are promoting – civil disobedience which plays right into the hands of the Democrats.
“BREAK THE SYSTEM, AND WE DEMOCRATS WILL LEAD YOU INTO THE BRAVE NEW WORLD,” as we can see from the following in that Guardian article, to wit:
“We are excited to disrupt business as usual, to demand a Green New Deal,” Audrey Maurine Xin Lin, an 18-year-old organizer in Boston, in reference to the resolution put forward by progressive Democrats to enact a second world war-style economic mobilization to eliminate greenhouse gas emissions.
end quotes
Yes, we need to go on a war footing in this “WAR AGAINST CLIMATE CHANGE” as we did in WWII, with our war economy being overseen by war councils comprised of Democrats as a supreme body to subsume military and civilian organizations and to direct the vast war economy.
To actually be able to win this war to make the climate stop changing, we need to re-create a number of preparedness agencies including an Office for Emergency Management headed up by either AOC, or more properly, since she is the most prepared, Greta Thunberg, who can come in and hit the ground running as we shift mover to a full war-time economy as we do battle with the earth’s climate, itself.
And of course, we would also then need a National Defense Advisory Commission; an Office of Production Management; and a Supply Priorities Allocation Board.
We would also need a War Production Board, placed under the direction of the Democrats and Greta Thunberg,
And finally, we need an Office of War Mobilization if we are going to make a serious effort as a nation and as a people to actually lick climate change for once and for all, so Greta doesn’t have to feel fear each day, and we don’t have to panic.
And all it takes to make all that happen, which would give the Democrats total control over every aspect of our lives is for enough people to be made afraid.
Sorin Varzaru says
“Well, if you were integral in deposing Caesescu(sic?) then I am surprised you do not see the parallels between your behavior and his.”
That only tells me how clueless you are on what socialism/communism and dictators really were/are. Banning IC cars when we have a better alternative is common sense, if such sense was as common as the name implies.
We banned CFCs when we discovered it was poking a hole in the ozone. Glad we did, because if we didn’t we’d be a lot more tanned … (and dead). We banned lead in paint, lead in gasoline. I am sure that at that point in time, there were people like you who didn’t believe in the science, let’s hope common sense prevails this time a well.
By the way, I do however see a striking similarity between Ceausescu’s personality and Trump’s.
Publius Americanus says
“Banning personal ownership of property is the better alternative, surrender all to the communal”
Stalin, and now Varazu.
And I’m the one who is historically ignorant!!!!! Buwhahahahahahahaha.
Sorin Varzaru says
It’s banning production not ownership, are you dense or you are pretending to be?
Paul Plante says
Well, Sorin, let me say that it is good that you are still here in this very important conversation adding your important voice to what is going to be an issue in the 2020 United States presidential election, pushing the science as you are doing, as opposed to the hype from the Guardian and the Democrats which we are all working collectively in here to debunk.
As to CFC’s, Sorin, while they might have been banned, what replaced them was far worse as far as climate change, this according a Los Angeles Times article entitled “It helped save the ozone layer. Now the refrigerant is being phased out as a culprit in global warming” by William Yardley on Oct. 15, 2016, to wit:
First they were a solution.
Then they were a problem.
Now they are being phased out.
Hydrofluorocarbons seemed like a straightforward remedy to a pressing environmental crisis of the 1980s: the depletion of the ozone layer caused by a worldwide rise in emissions of chemicals used in air conditioning and refrigeration.
Because the new compounds could do everything the old ones did — but without damaging the ozone — global policymakers turned to them as the perfect substitute.
The swap was formalized in the 1987 Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer.
In time, the protocol would be viewed as one of the most effective international environmental agreements in history.
But the new chemicals were far from perfect.
The ozone layer, which protects against the sun’s harmful rays, has recovered dramatically.
But climate change is much worse, and hydrofluorocarbons, or HFCs, are partly to blame.
“HFCs may be safer for the ozone, but they are exceptionally potent drivers of climate change itself,” Secretary of State John F. Kerry, who helped the protocol pass in the Senate three decades ago, said recently.
And so the policymakers went back to work.
On Saturday, at a meeting in Kigali, Rwanda, leaders from nearly 200 nations reached what they hope will be another historic agreement — a global pact to dramatically reduce emissions of HFCs.
HFCs are far more potent than carbon dioxide, the most important cause of global warming.
They are also the world’s fastest-growing greenhouse gases, with emission increasing by about 10% each year, according to the United Nations.
end quotes
So we see the solution these world leaders who want to save the planet gave us to one problem is now causing another more serious problem which is being instead blamed on CO2, that being global warming caused by CFC’s and HFC’s.
And while CFC’s might have been banned, there are still CFC molecules in the atmosphere and will be there for years to come.
As to CFC’s and HFC’s as a potent green-house gas, this is what the scientists are saying, to wit:
Greenhouse Gases
You have already learned that Earth’s atmosphere is composed primarily of nitrogen and oxygen.
These gases are transparent to incoming solar radiation.
They are also transparent to outgoing infrared radiation, which means that they do not absorb or emit solar or infrared radiation.
However, there are other gases in Earth’s atmosphere that do absorb infrared radiation.
These gases are known as greenhouse gases.
Below are the most important greenhouse gases that influence Earth’s climate system.
They include chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), which are man-made gases commonly used in refrigerators and air conditioners.
Concentrations of CFC gases in the atmosphere are the highest of any of the halocarbons, and they can absorb more infrared radiation than any other greenhouse gas.
The impact of 1 molecule of a CFC gas is equivalent to 10,000 molecules of carbon dioxide.
end quotes
There is what the scientists are saying, so that if the Democrats in our Congress heed little Greta’s poignant and plaintive plea to “listen to the scientists,” that is what they will hear them saying.
So, given the major-league ****-up there regarding HFC’s being worse for the atmosphere and planet than the CFC’s they replaced, why should we trust these same scientists and world leaders to get it right this time?
Sorin Varzaru says
Maybe because if we didn’t ban the cfc, we wouldn’t be here arguing about climate change, being too busy trying to avoid being roasted by uv.
Paul Plante says
Arguing about “climate change” is just the same as arguing about the changing phases of the moon, or the tides changing.
THE EARTH’S CLIMATE CHANGES!
THE EARTH’S CLIMATE HAS CHANGED!
THE EARTH’S CLIMATE IS IN A STATE OF CONTINUAL CHANGE!
That is what the “science” says.
That is what the scientists say.
Can human beings make the earth’s temperature stay at any given value?
YES?
Or NO?
Do human beings have that power over the earth that they can literally control what temperature it remains at, and what weather we will get as a result?
YES?
Or NO?
Very simple questions, Sorin.
And you are very big on “we banned this” and “we banned that” and “we banned the other thing, too,” as if you were personally out there enforcing those “bans,” and as if the word “ban” here in the United States of America meant anything, at all, especially to the politicians who use those “bans” as toll gates to raise some “political contributions” to the politician’s “war chest,” which policy is protected by Obama supreme court justice Sonia Sotomayor who has ruled that if you won’t lie and commit fraud, you can’t be an engineer in Democrat-controlled New York state.
So, in truth, you didn’t ban doodley-squat, because you weren’t out there trying to enforce the bans, and you have no knowledge whatsoever that those bans were enforced in terms of releases of CFC’s to the atmosphere.
And we are talking about “climate change” as if it were something new because of little Greta, the young queen of socialist Sweden who wants us to panic so we can all know just how scared the poor little girl is every day of her life, that tomarrow might have different weather than today, which has resulted in the theft of her dreams, and her childhood, because little queens should be able to have the weather just the way they like it, every day of their lives, or what is the sense of being a queen in the first place, if you can’t get your own way on everything, including the weather?
And that is the only reason we are discussing the fact that for millennia, the earth has been changing its climate to suit its own needs of the moment, and not ours, as if the earth were a well-trained circus animal like those little dogs that turn tricks in the center ring for the amusement of the paying customers, because the little queen of Sweden wants the weather just so every day, and it is our responsibility as her serfs and churls to make sure that every day, the earth’s climate is just what the little Swedish queen desires it to be.
But we are Americans, Sorin, not indoctrinated commies or socialists like they are over in the OLD COUNTRY, where benighted ignorance still prevails, so we do not jump when some little Swedish queen tells us to, and unlike the Europeans, we are also not stupid, so it is hard for rags like the Guardian and AP sensationalist science fiction writers like Seth Borenstein to make us feel scared so we can be manipulated into doing what the little queen wants us to do, which is to put the Democrats in charge of America, because they will do her bidding.
And it is very intellectually dishonest for high-ranking NOAA “scientists” to be talking about things like sea-level rise as if it were something new, when in the last several thousand years, which is but a blink of an eye in geological time, the seas were nine feet above where they are now, as a result of the earth’s normal processes, over which we have no control whatsoever.
Consider the Younger Dryas, a subject for high school earth science which does not require a “pile it higher and deeper” degree to understand.
The “Younger Dryas” was a period of rapid cooling in the late Pleistocene 12,800 to 11,500 calendar years ago.
It followed closely on the heels of a dramatically abrupt warming that brought the last Ice Age to a close (17,500 calendar years ago), lasted for about 1,300 years, then ended as abruptly as it started.
Explain that if you will, Sorin, because we would like to hear how you deal with that “abrupt” warming and then “rapid” cooling in a time of low CO2.
According to the “consensus,” around 7,000 years before present, the climate of northern Europe was a so-called Atlantic climate, which is to say it was a mild and humid coastal climate with summer temperatures 2-3 degrees higher than today.
But how could that possibly be, given that the CO2 was lower then than it is now?
During the Holocene Optimum, the world’s northernmost ice sheet melted completely away and was only restored when the climate became colder about 4,500 years ago, and since less water was bound at the poles as inland ice than nowadays, the World Sea surface level at that time was 3 meters above today’s sea surface level.
Do you comprehend the meaning of the words “the world’s northernmost ice sheet melted completely away?”
Who made that happen, Sorin?
And how come nobody else lifted a finger to stop them?
And how come we today in here are talking about that same phenomenon as if it were something new?
Sorin Varzaru says
“Arguing about “climate change” is just the same as arguing about the changing phases of the moon, or the tides changing.”
With you, yes, I agree. So, let’s not do that anymore. If you ever want to have a conversation in person, let me know, I’m done with taking about this here.
Paul Plante says
Sorin, with all due respect to you, there really can’t be a conversation or discussion on this subject in person because you are so conditioned to believe a lie being told to you by the “government,” and your conditioning is so strong that you are unable to resist the lie you are being told, which is that “world leaders” have literal control over the earth’s climate to the point that they can actually make it be a certain temperature eighty years out into the future, if only all of us in America would submit to them, this body of world leaders who control the earth’s weather and climate, and do exactly what they tell us to do.
I on the other hand see the lie for exactly what it is – a hornswoggle.
And you can’t accept that, because you are incapable of overcoming your conditioning to be able to question what the “government” is demanding that you believe, namely, that they have control over the weather and the earth’s climate, which is malarkey and balderdash.
And what will happen eighty years from now, do you think, when we all find out that what we are being asked to believe today, that these people can keep the earth’s temperature from rising more than 2 degrees, was a load of horse****?
And why should the children of America be asked to believe these lies, Sorin?
What are your thoughts on that?
Sorin Varzaru says
“Sorin, with all due respect to you, there really can’t be a conversation or discussion on this subject in person because you are so conditioned to believe a lie being told to you by the “government,”
Then I don’t see how we can have a conversation here either. Have a good weekend Paul.
Paul Plante says
Sorin, let me say in response to your assertion that because I said, “Sorin, with all due respect to you, there really can’t be a conversation or discussion on this subject IN PERSON because you are so conditioned to believe a lie being told to you by the ‘government’,” that we can’t have a conversation here either, that in the latter part of that assertion, you are highly mistaken on several essential levels, starting with the very important fact that we in fact have been having a very fruitful discussion in here on a host of vital issues which you make clear to the reader with your set of arguments so that to an American, and there are still some left out there, although they are becoming a decided minority, for that reason that your voice is being raised in here in defense of your ideas, whether I agree with them or not, this discussion in here is the PUREST form of democracy that you will ever encounter on the face of this earth, and you are as much a part of that democracy, as am I, and the world is a witness to this exercise in PURE DEMOCRACY, which is what PURE DEMOCRACY is truly all about, all voices, including those of the poor, old and weak which are normally ignored and excluded as they are in this case by the congressional Democrats, get heard, especially on a subject of great importance to not only ourselves, but to our grandchildren and their children on down the line who face the imminent threat of another IRON CURTAIN coming down, this time right here in the United States of America, if the Democratic Socialists can get enough people scared that the world is going to come to an end because of climate change, which it actually has for many people many times in the past, for reasons of its own that to date, it hasn’t bothered to inform humans about, that people will then en masse flock to the polls in November of 2020 to sweep their political proxies, the Democrats, whose skin they walk in, into power in all three branches of our federal government, and both houses of the legislative branch, which would then give the Democratic Socialists a virtual monopoly on our federal government and its policies and programs, and more importantly to them, it would give them control of our federal government at a time when there is no cap on federal spending, which means for them a huge financial windfall coupled with immense political power over the lives of each and every one of us, all based on THE LIE that the Democratic Socialists are possessed of supernatural powers that let them control the earth’s climate out eighty years into the future, which makes them gods or demi-gods at the minimum, and the scary thing is that people are so credulous as to believe that they do possess this virtual power over nature.
That, Sorin, is why you are so vital to this discussion, to talk about why you believe that lie and I don’t.
What’s up with that?
Concerned Americans need to know for the sake of our true democracy, which is not the one-sided “democracy” of the so-called DEMOCRATS in this country who are anything but democratic!
As to DEMOCRACY, Sorin, which we Americans feel we are being deprived of by the Congressional Democrats in this matter of the world coming to an end because of CO2, and so that anyone just dropping by wondering what all the excitement is all about can follow along, we’re first dropping back in time to a Washington Examiner article entitled “Democrats invite teen climate change activist Greta Thunberg to testify before Congress” by Josh Siegel on September 12, 2019, where we American citizens who feel ourselves excluded from the process and thus deni8ed democracy by the Democrats, which is something they are well known for, stifling dissent, even if violence and/or fraud are needed, were informed as follows:
Swedish climate change activist Greta Thunberg, 16, is testifying before Congress next week at the invitation of House Democrats.
end quotes
Pardon me, Sorin but what the **** is up with that, besides politics and blatant manipulation and exploitation of this troubled child?
How does an under-age Swedish girl get to testify to our Congress about matters impacting on our futures with us not being allowed an opportunity to be heard?
What kind of bull**** democracy is that, Sorin?
Isn’t that the kind of bull**** you would expect to find in a repressive government like what they had in Rumania?
Getting back to that news, we had:
Thunberg will appear Sept. 18 before a joint hearing of a House Foreign Affairs subcommittee and the Select Committee on the Climate Crisis.
“We’re at the point where an entire generation has grown up in the climate crisis,” said Democratic Rep. Kathy Castor of Florida, chairwoman of the Select Climate Crisis Committee.
“They know the science, they know the stakes and they know how to rise to the challenge.”
“We need to rise with them.”
end quotes
AND WHOA, Kathy Castor!
They know the science?
Who says?
And we adults who don’t believe that these children “know the science” DEMAND an opportunity to ourselves review this “science,” because from what I have heard of it, it is ignorant, one-sided HORSE****.
And you, Kathy Castor, do not have the right to bind us adults in this country to a course of action based on the word of an emotionally-troubled young girl from Sweden who thinks we Americans have stolen her dreams and should be held to account.
WE DEMAND A HEARING that is open for us to cross-examine this supposed evidence the little Swedish girl presented to Congress regarding the reasons that the climate of earth over the last several thousand years since the Holocene Optimum has been highly variable, with rapid warm-ups and cool-downs along with temperatures higher than they are today, with sea levels much higher and polar ice melted.
As to who the hell Kathy Castor is, and where she gets this dictatorial power over our lives that allows her to decide whose voices get heard, and whose get suppressed, we go back to an article in the Brit publication The Guardian entitled “Kathy Castor named to lead restored House panel on climate change; Nancy Pelosi revives special committee axed by Republicans;
Progressive Democrats have pushed for a ‘Green New Deal’” by Associated Press in Washington on 29 Dec 2018, to wit:
The House Democratic leader, Nancy Pelosi, has appointed the Florida representative Kathy Castor to lead a special committee on climate change that will be reinstated in the new Congress.
The climate panel is similar to one that Pelosi created when Democrats last controlled the House, from 2007 to 2011.
It was eliminated when Republicans took the majority.
Pelosi, the likely House speaker, said Castor brings experience, energy and “urgency to the existential threat of the climate crisis” facing the US and the world.
end quotes
BA-DOOM CLIMATE CRISIS BA-DOOM CLIMATE CRISIS BA-DOOM CLIMATE CRISIS!
BE SCARED!
BE VERY SCARED!
VOTE DEMOCRAT AND WE SHALL BE YOUR SAVIOR!
Getting back to The Guardian, which is hyping this “CLIMATE CRISIS” big time, because let’s be charitable here, they are in the business of selling news, and sensationalist news sells best, especially if it is about a disaster that is going to happen far enough out into the future that it can be milked for all it is worth, we have:
“Congresswoman Castor is a proven champion for public health and green infrastructure, who deeply understands the scope and seriousness of this threat.”
“Her decades of experience in this fight, both in Florida and in the Congress, will be vital,” Pelosi said.
Castor said in a statement that she was honored to lead the panel and pledged to “act with urgency to reduce carbon pollution” and “unleash” American ingenuity to create clean-energy jobs.
end quotes
And there is another meaningless “scare” term the Democrats and Guardian like to toss around to scare people with – “CARBON POLLUTION!”
EGADS!
Don’t let any carbon pollution get on you for I hear it will literally rot your skin!
But don’t fear, people, Nancy Pelosi has Kathy Castor on the job of protecting us from having our skin being rotted off by contact with carbon pollution, and we should all feel warm and gushy inside as a result of this sign of just how much Mother Nancy Pelosi loves us and cares about us that she would set Kathy Castor over us like that as our Leviathan, which takes us back to The Guardian for another dose of Kathy Castor, as follows:
“The costs of the changing climate and extreme weather events pose greater risks every day to American families, businesses and our way of life,” Castor said.
end quotes
Ah, yes, our way of life, people!
If the weather changes from sunny every day to cloudy, our American way of life will come to an end, which is why we need a CLIMATE CZAR like Kathy Castor to keep us safe, especially from ourselves,
And here we come to the underlying POLITICS of this game the Democrats are playing with us here, to wit:
The membership and exact scope of the panel remain to be determined, but Pelosi said it would play a key role in shaping how Congress responds to the threat of global warming while creating good-paying, “green” jobs.
The Maryland representative Steny Hoyer, the incoming House majority leader, said last week the climate committee would probably not have legal authority to demand documents under subpoena.
But he added that he did not think the panel would need subpoena authority, since experts will be “dying to come before them”.
Climate scientists and other experts “are going to want to testify”, Hoyer said.
“I think they’ll want to give the best information as it relates to the crisis.”
The Democratic representative-elect Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York, and other progressives, have pushed for a “Green New Deal” that includes thousands of jobs in renewable energy such as wind and solar power.
She and other leaders say the climate panel is a key platform to advance the green agenda.
end quotes
And that last sentence tells it all, which is why our voices are being excluded here but for the Cape Charles Mirror, the last bastion of TRUE DEMOCRACY here in America.
And truthfully, Sorin, don’t you find yourself somewhat chagrined to find that after going to all that trouble to get away from the Commies in Rumania, you get here only to find that they got here ahead of you and mare on the ascendant in this country, which has you jumping out of a frying pan right back into another frying pan, this one surrounded by an even bigger fire?
The curious candid world would like to know.
And now we pause for a word from our sponsors as we take a break for station identification.
Sorin Varzaru says
“And truthfully, Sorin, don’t you find yourself somewhat chagrined to find that after going to all that trouble to get away from the Commies in Rumania, you get here only to find that they got here ahead of you”
I find that a significant proportion of the US population was brainwashed into seeing communists everywhere. The fact that you confuse “democratic socialism” with the eastern europe style socialism and the entire effort of the republican party to frighten their members into thinking that democrats are “commies” is good evidence.
Unlike nearly all of you, I actually KNOW from personal experience how real communists behave, what they think, what they want, etc. So, I’m not scared of the social policies of the democratic party, because NONE of those are the hallmarks of communism. In fact, many make sense, and most of the word figured this out already, some for hundreds of years.
But the main reason I am tired of this, is because I doubt anyone but you, Mike and Ray are reading this, and all of you were so indoctrinated by the republican party that you are incapable of hearing anything that contradicts the doctrine. So, I feel like I am wasting my time. I also don’t enjoy being on the computer more then i need to, so there is that.
Paul Plante says
And there is also the fact, Sorin, that:
A. I am NOT a REPUBLICAN;
B. I DO NOT suck Republican eggs because I am not an egg-sucking dog for the Republicans, which is a matter of public record in several thousand pages of sworn testimony plus exhibits;
C. I am hardly indoctrinated by the Republicans, having been taught since young that as an American, my duty was to duty, honor and country, not person nor party.
So that dodge of yours goes out the window with respect to myself, anyway, who am as independent as all get-out.
As to whether anyone is reading this besides three of us, I would point you down to the bottom of the page where right now, this topic is trending second, and it has been trending since it became a topic, which indicates more than three people are interested in it.
Everybody in America should not only be interested in it, but should be required as citizens to read every word of it, and especially the children of America who are being indoctrinated, not taught, by a supposed “education” system that is giving them **** for brains, not education as it once was here in the United States of America.
And your comment that the Democrats are not closet Commies is just plain ludicrous, given that the Democrats have been closet Commies in this Country since the first RED SCARE back in the 1920s.
Of course, not having been here, you would be ignorant of all that, which I certainly do not hold against you.
And I was alive, Sorin, looking at it from the outside as the IRON CURTAIN came down in Europe, with poor children such as yourself caught on the inside, and I remember well when the Hungarians got CRUSHED, so I too have been a serious student of COMMUNISM since I was young, given that I was taught to resist COMMUMNISM with all my might and all my will as a free person who wished to remain free.
That wasn’t being “brain-washed” to see Commies everywhere, Sorin, unless you are implying that what we thought we saw going on in Hungary was really being staged by Ronald Regan out there in Adam Schiff’s Hollywood – that was seeing Commies in action.
Of course, hey, maybe that never really happened.
And hey, good old Kim Philby – now there was a dude, alright.
As COMMIE as COMMIE could possibly be, unless that was all made up as well to brainwash us into thinking the COMMIES really were here.
As to the COMMIES being here long ago, certainly before you got here, a Gallup poll of October 1940 found a prevailing view of American youth as “a flabby, pacifistic, yellow, cynical, discouraged, and leftist lot.”
Why work, Sorin, when in the Communist Socialist Worker’s Paradise, it is two girls for every boy, everybody gets a free Woodie, you can surf all day and YOU NEVER HAVE TO WORK, nor do you ever have to want for anything, since the NANNY STATE shall provide you with all your needs which happens to be the political platform of barmy Democrat Bernie Sanders, and AOC and the progressive Democrats like Young Andy Cuomo in the Soviet Socialist Republic of New York and the Democratic Socialists, Sorin, who by the language of their manifesto, aim to transform American society completely, including changing our present form of government by decree, which means repression and suppression, Sorin, just like over there in Romania.
As to the policy of the Democrats, we have this from their 2016 Manifesto as follows:
2016 was a game changing year for leftists and progressives.
We are finally reemerging as a vital and powerful force after an extended period of stagnation and demoralization, and we face a political landscape more favorable than perhaps at any time since the 1960s.
end quotes
That, Sorin, sounds like the beginnings of an IDEOLOGICAL STRUGGLE to me, anyway, right here in America, and focus mon the words “powerful force,” which takes me back to the 1950s and 1960s and the Cuban Missile Crisis, and the Iron Curtain and the crushing of the Hungarians, unless that never really happened, and Kruschev taking off his shoe and pounding the podium with it, back when the COMMIES in this country, and of course we knew who they were, because they never kept it a secret, especially after the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Commies in Yates v. United States, Decided: June 17, 1957, to wit:
The 14 petitioners, leaders of the Communist Party in California, were indicated in 1951 in a Federal District Court under 3 of the Smith Act and 18 U.S.C. 371 for conspiring (1) to advocate and teach the duty and necessity of overthrowing the Government of the United States by force and violence, and (2) to organize, as the Communist Party of the United States, a society of persons who so advocate and teach, all with the intent of causing the overthrow of the Government by force and violence as speedily as circumstances would permit.
The indictment charged that the conspiracy originated in 1940 and continued down to the date of the indictment and that, in carrying it out, petitioners and their co-conspirators would (a) become members and officers of the Communist Party, with knowledge of its unlawful purposes, and assume leadership in carrying out its policies and activities, (b) cause to be organized units of the Party in California and elsewhere, (c) write and publish articles on such advocacy and teaching, (d) conduct schools for the indoctrination of Party members in such advocacy and teaching, and (e) recruit new Party members, particularly from among persons employed in the key industries of the Nation.
It also alleged 23 overt acts in furtherance of the conspiracy.
Petitioners were convicted after a jury trial, and their convictions were sustained by the Court of Appeals.
Held: The convictions are reversed and the cause is remanded to the District Court with directions to enter judgments of acquittal as to five of the petitioners and to grant a new trial as to the others.
end quotes
The convictions were reversed for the following reason:
The Smith Act does not prohibit advocacy and teaching of forcible overthrow of the Government as an abstract principle, divorced from any effort to instigate action to that end; the trial court’s charge to the jury furnished wholly inadequate guidance on this central point in the case; and the conviction cannot be allowed to stand.
end quotes
So, do you think we were brainwashed there, Sorin, into seeing Commies everywhere, when in fact there were Commies already plainly in sight promising everybody the SOCIALIST WORKER’S PARADISE just like they had in Russia and Romania and yes, Hungary, too?
You said elsewhere that you have been here for 22 years, and welcome to America, Sorin, glad you were able to get out of that ****hole over in Europe to make it to be here where you are free to select what model truck you want and whether you want the V-8 and supercharged V-10 churning out a full thousand, count’em folks, a full thousand horsepower at your command at the touch of the throttle, VROOM, VROOM, so what I am talking about happened before you got here, which is why you are ignorant of it, which is not your fault, at all.
But we in this country who are my age know about the history of Rumania, from WWI onwards, since we as Americans were expected to know European history as well as our own, to wit:
Rumania, as far as statistics went, emerged from the (first) World War a European state of importance, her area doubled by the annexation of Transylvania, Bukovina, Bessarabia, and a large part of the Banat of Temesvar.
She was even larger in size than Italy!
But beneath the surface, there was discord.
Minorities were more troublesome in Rumania than in Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia; Magyars, Jews, Germans, Ukrainians, Russians and Bulgarians comprised a good quarter of the population; the peasantry, close to Russia and subjected to Communist propaganda, demanded the splitting up of the great landed estates.
end quotes
We had that same Communist propaganda here, Sorin, long before you got to here, so, sorry, but we were not being indoctrinated by the Republicans to see Commies, everywhere, as the Commies were and still here in plain sight, doing what the Commies have always been good at, which is biding their time and gathering there power, as the Democrats are doing right now in anticipation of a full sweep in 2020, then the glove comes off the IRON FIST, to wit:
Given the profound and sustained defeats suffered by the Left and progressive movements during this period, by the mid- 2000s socialists and progressives in the United States and Europe could boast of virtually no examples of successful resistance to neoliberalism.
Many turned their eyes to South America, which during this time was practically the only democratic leftist political stronghold in the world.
Only a few short years later, however, the situation in Europe and the United States looked completely different: the Left had finally galvanized significant support in the electoral arena, and had pulled the terms of political debate significantly leftward through creative social movement organizing.
To name but a few electoral examples, in Greece the left-wing Syriza party came to power in 2014, in Spain the left-wing Podemos party emerged from antiausterity protests in 2014 and only two years later it was the third largest party in the country.
Even more surprising were the rise of Jeremy Corbyn to the leadership of the British Labor Party in 2015 and the phenomenal success of Bernie Sanders’ “political revolution” during the 2016 United States’ presidential election.
These electoral successes have been paralleled by, and to a large degree made possible by, the rise of a new generation of progressive social movements committed both to thoroughgoing critiques of capitalism, racism, sexism, xenophobia and other forms of oppression, as well as to the creation of an ecologically sustainable, democratic and egalitarian future.
end quotes
Yes, Sorin, the Democrats are going to create an ecologically sustainable, democratic and egalitarian future for themselves by decree.
As to the rest of us who are not Democrats:
While a new wave of social movement organizing appears to be underway, and while younger people especially are increasingly open to radical alternatives, the Left and progressive movements remain weak.
Today we celebrate more the possibility of political openings than the achievement of significant concrete gains.
Beyond our relative lack of resources, the structural barriers placed in our path by the nature of the U.S. political system and the extraordinary power of individualist ideology to undermine collective action.
end quote
And OMG, but there, where they talk about the extraordinary power of individualist ideology, which is very much an American trait, to undermine collective action which is the basis of Communism, they are talking about people like Ray and Publius and Wayne Creed and myself, which makes us bad people indeed, does it not, because unlike what people all over the world in places like Zimbabwe, and Uganda and the Congo and Venezuela and Cuba and Kenya have figured out already, some for hundreds of years, we actually dare to stand up and go against that flow here in America, which brings us to this very ideological struggle we are talking about in here, where the Democrats are using Communist tactics of exploiting and manipulating children as political pawns to steal the 2020 presidential elections.
As to the Democratic Socialists, their political pedigree goes back to the Communist International (Comintern), known also as the Third International (1919–1943), which was an international organization that advocated world communism.
The Comintern resolved at its Second Congress to “struggle by all available means, including armed force, for the overthrow of the international bourgeoisie and the creation of an international Soviet republic as a transition stage to the complete abolition of the state”.
As to the true indoctrination of children, the Young Communist International was the parallel international youth organization affiliated with the Communist International (Comintern).
After failed efforts to form an international association of socialist youth organizations in 1889 and 1904, in May 1907 a conference in Stuttgart, Germany convened to form the International Union of Socialist Youth Organisations (the Internationale Verbindung Sozialistischer Jugendorganisationen, abbreviated IVSJO).
IVSJO maintained its headquarters in Vienna and functioned as the youth section of the Second International.
Perhaps the most important issue determined during the first years of the Young Communist International dealt with the relationship of the youth movement with the emerging communist parties of various countries.
This matter had been tenaciously discussed at the 1919 Berlin Conference, with the Russian delegate, Lazar Shatskin, advancing the position that the various national youth groups should be under the immediate direction and control of the corresponding adult parties.
This position was opposed by others from the Western European socialist tradition, which envisioned an independent vanguard role for the communist youth movement.
At Berlin a compromise was reached, in which it was agreed that the YCI would not be considered a “sister” organization to the Communist International, but rather a “part” of the Comintern.
National youth organizations were obligated to follow either the political program of “that party or faction in their country which is a member of the Third International” or the program of the Comintern itself.
end quotes
Now, as children here in America, Sorin, the supposed “land of the free,” we were aware of all of that going on when we were young American adults at the age of five, and it was instilled in us that we had an affirmative duty to society in this country to not become a member of those COMMIE children’s groups, so our minds did not get warped and twisted as are the minds of children in America today.
And when in 1968, the U.S. Army Soldier’s Handbook stated, “Today, Communism is the major threat to our Nation,” based on history, we knew exactly what those words meant, se we are still able to recognize that threat today, and it is the GREAT SHINING LIE, Sorin.
THE DEMOCRATS CAN CONTROL THE CLIMATE!
ONLY THE DEMOCRATS CAN SAVE YOUR LIVES BY CONTROLLING THE EARTH’S WEATHER!
VOTE DEMOCRAT!
And Sorin, yes, I can understand your reasons for leaving, and I am cool with them, and I hope you have not only a wonderful day, but wonderful weekend, as well.
And by the way, talk about a climate crisis, out in North Dakota, there is a raging blizzard going on with record snowfall for this time of year.
So much for global warming, ain’t it?
Paul Plante says
And while we are on the subject of Democrat party apparatchiks posing as “scientists” and the associated Democrat horse**** we Americans who don’t drink either Democrat Kool-Aid or Republican Kool-Aid are strenuously objecting to, let’s go back to that article in the Brit publication The Guardian entitled “Kathy Castor named to lead restored House panel on climate change; Nancy Pelosi revives special committee axed by Republicans; Progressive Democrats have pushed for a ‘Green New Deal’” by Associated Press in Washington on 29 Dec 2018, to wit:
The House Democratic leader, Nancy Pelosi, has appointed the Florida representative Kathy Castor to lead a special committee on climate change that will be reinstated in the new Congress.
The climate panel is similar to one that Pelosi created when Democrats last controlled the House, from 2007 to 2011.
It was eliminated when Republicans took the majority.
Pelosi, the likely House speaker, said Castor brings experience, energy and “urgency to the existential threat of the climate crisis” facing the US and the world.
end quotes
Now, first of all, notice the date of that article which is a Saturday leading into New Year’s Day when nobody is paying any real attention to the news, and especially what is being printed by the Brits, so that story sailed right under the radar over here, as was intended.
But more importantly is the horse**** spewing forth from the ever-running mouth of Nancy Pelosi, where she tells us, to wit:
Pelosi, the likely House speaker, said Castor brings experience, energy and “urgency to the existential threat of the climate crisis” facing the US and the world.
end quotes
Oh, really, Nancy, are you being serious, or are you joshing with us, because that is just plain horsecrap you are spewing there, Nancy, as if you thought we were so stupid we would not know the difference.
According to her published bio, Kathy Castor holds a bachelor’s degree in political science from Emory University (1988), which degree is essentially worthless in the best of times and has absolutely nothing to do with the science of climate change, which is actually very well developed, having been the subject of a comprehensive study entitled “CLIMATE, HISTORY AND THE MODERN WORLD,” Second edition by H.H. Lamb, where we have the science I go by, regardless of what the Republicans or Democrats have to say about anything, to wit:
We live in a world that is increasingly vulnerable to climatic shocks.
After some decades in which it seemed that technological advance had conferred on mankind a considerable degree of immunity to the harvest failures and famines that afflicted our forefathers, population pressure and some other features of the modern world have changed the situation.
In the years since about 1960, moreover, the climate has behaved less obligingly than we had become used to earlier in the century.
And there is alarm about how man’s activities might inadvertently upset the familiar climatic regime and therefore disrupt the food production which is geared to it.
This concern has in recent years largely replaced the debate which had begun earlier about the possibilities of deliberate action to change world climate so as to increase the total cultivable area.
Serious anxieties have been aroused by respected scientists, acknowledged as experts in the field, warning of dire perils: that the next ice age may be now due to begin, and could come upon us very quickly, or that the side-effects of man’s activities and their ever-growing scale may soon tip the balance of world climate the other way and for a few centuries produce a climate warm enough to melt the Greenland and Antarctic ice-caps, raising the sea level and drowning most of the world’s great cities.
This book examines what we know about climate, and its impact on human affairs now and in the historical and prehistoric past, and how we may better understand the problem of climatic fluctuations and changes.
Climatic forecasting in the strict sense may be far off, though premature claims are made from many sides.
But much has been learnt about the laws which govern the behaviour of climate.
We are already in a much better position than previous generations to understand the past and assess our present situation, so as to make more rational provision for the future than our forefathers could.
Many parts of the world have experienced more extremes of weather of various kinds in the last fifteen to twenty-five years than for a long time past and have suffered losses, which have affected political decisions and managerial decisions in industry and land-use.
Energy problems are also involved.
In these and other ways climate and our understanding of it are very much part of the problems of the modern world.
The writer hopes that this book may serve as a guide to the present state of knowledge and the potential capacity of science in these matters, and also that it may provide some helpful insights now to those on whom the burden of weighty decisions falls — affecting practical matters in agriculture and industry, government and international trade, not to mention human health and happiness.
– H.H. Lamb September 1981
end quotes
Does Democrat Kathy Castor understand any of that with her political science degree and her J.D. from Florida State University College of Law (1991) and her membership in Delta Delta Delta sorority?
According to her own statements about her having to depend on the children of America for “the science,” it is quite obvious that Democrat Kathy Castor is herself as ignorant as a box of rocks when it comes to knowledge of the earth’s ever-changing climate since about 8,000 BC, which ever-changing climate included periods when the earth’s climate was much warmer than it is today, including the Roman Warm Period, all of which is based on sound science.
Which takes us to an interesting article entitled “A Warm Period by Any Other Name – The Climatic Optimum” on July 31, 2016 by a gentleman named Dr. Tim Ball, to wit:
There is frustration and reward when an article appears on the same topic of an article you are completing – in this case the Holocene.
Such was the case this week with Andy May’s article “A Review of temperature reconstructions.”
Andy points out the basic problems of reconstruction using proxy data for the most recent half of the Holocene – an issue central to historical climate and climate change studies.
His paper did not alter my paper except as it reinforces some arguments.
This article examines the entire Holocene and illustrates the history that influenced the studies.
There are two distinct parts to the studies, the pre and post Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
The former is a genuine scientific struggle with issues of terminology and reconstruction, and the latter a scientific struggle to impose a political perspective regardless of the evidence.
Because of the damage done to climatology by the proponents of anthropogenic global warming (AGW), both parts require explanation.
end quotes
So, to recap, we have, as the good doctor says, on the one hand, where I sit, a genuine scientific struggle with issues of terminology and reconstruction, and on the other, where Kathy Castor sits, a scientific struggle to impose a political perspective regardless of the evidence.
There, stated quite clearly, is what is really at stake here in this discussion which started on
September 8, 2019 when Wayne Creed posted as follows:
CNN and the field of Democratic Candidates proved once again that we are indeed living in clown world.
For seven hours, the brainy individuals engaged in a forum discussing climate change and the coming end of the world.
end quotes
Everything stated since, including this post, goes back to that statement about us now indeed living in clown world where nothing, starting with science, can any longer be taken seriously.
As Dr. Ball states above, “(B)ecause of the damage done to climatology by the proponents of anthropogenic global warming (AGW), both parts require explanation,” and people, that is what is not happening.
One part of the “explanation,” that which is based on climate records going back to antiquity, plus studies of where humans have been, and what has grown in certain areas over time, all true indicators of what the earth’s ever-changing climate has been over time, is being essentially erased from the record because it disproves the CO2 theory, and when the CO2 theory is disproved, the Democrats lose political leverage they need going into the 2020 presidential elections.
Is there actually anybody out there who claims to be in their right mind who thinks that having the Democrats scare children for political gain by making them think the world is coming to an end is somehow good for the future of this nation?
Paul Plante says
Sorin, before you are completely gone from here, with respect to your above statement that you are not scared of the social policies of the democratic party, because NONE of those are the hallmarks of communism and in fact, many make sense, and most of the world figured this out already, some for hundreds of years, could you name for us some or all of those places on the world outside of the USA where those people have figured out that the social policies of the democratic party make sense, and then explain to us benighted Americans why it is if that is the case, that people are not flocking to those countries in droves instead of coming here to tell us that how we live is all wrong and that we have to change to coin form to the rest of the world.
If that is the case, Sorin, then why did you waste time coming here, where we obviously are little more than a backwards race of lost souls, when it would have obviously been better for you in terms of social policies in one of those other countries that saw the virtue of Democrat social policies up to over a hundred years ago?
Sorin Varzaru says
“could you name for us some or all of those places on the world outside of the USA where those people have figured out that the social policies of the democratic party make sense”
You seem to be quite competent in using search engines, I am sure you can look it up if you were so inclined.
“If that is the case, Sorin, then why did you waste time coming here, where we obviously are little more than a backwards race of lost souls, when it would have obviously been better for you in terms of social policies in one of those other countries that saw the virtue of Democrat social policies up to over a hundred years ago?”
I was 27 years old. Like most 27 year old, I was naive and seduced by all the movies and books about US. Also since I spoke English it was a practical choice to go to an English speaking country. Am I sorry I came here? Sometimes. More so in the last couple of years, when Trump made it OK for people to openly display their stupidity, ignorance and xenophobia. Why do stay? In part is inertia and the lack of a desire to make another massive change in my life. But I have dual citizenship and the Romanian one does allow me to live/work anywhere in the EU, so if things continue to go downhill, I do have a way out.
As a US citizen I do feel an obligation to try to educate people living here on these topics, because ignorance makes people shoot themselves in the foot. In addition, this particular topic, climate change has global implications.
Paul Plante says
Sorin, if you read actual climate history records going back THOUSANDS of years, then you know two things for certain:
A. The earth’s climate is in a continual state of change and it cares less what humans might think of it; and
B. While the earth’s climate is always changing, given that it is in a continual state of flux, it does not and has not changed everywhere equally, which is precisely why climate change has had global implications since time immemorial.
Children here in America used to know that cold when I was young, as it was basic need-to-know information about the world we lived on and depended on for our survival, which is why there is such a thing in America as the Farmer’s Almanac.
And now, as you say, so very correctly, people in America and especially in the media and the worthless Congress are openly and seemingly proudly displaying their stupidity and gross, ignorance, and like you, as a US citizen I to feel an obligation to try to educate people living here on these topics, because just as you so correctly say, ignorance makes people shoot themselves in the foot.
And once again, Sorin, welcome to America.
And thanks for your valuable insights brought forth in this discussion.
And I did look up those other countries and what I came up with was Uganda, Ethiopia, Somalia, Kenya, the Congo, Zimbabwe, Venezuela and Cuba.
Did I miss any?
Paul Plante says
Pube, dude, let me first say that I appreciate all the effort you dudes put into the Federalist Papers, but you know what?
It was all in vain, because what you said we were supposed to have, we don’t, and everything you said we wouldn’t have is what we do have, which is why we are having a serious conversation in here about CNN (the Cuomo News Network) and the field of Democratic Candidates proving once again that we are indeed living in clown world.
We weren’t supposed to have clown world according to the Federalist Papers, and here we find ourselves surrounded on all sides by it, as was evidenced by the fact that on CNN, for seven interminable hours, the brainy individuals who comprise the Democrats presidential contenders (Pray for the nation, people) engaged in a forum discussing climate change and the coming end of the world with the big takeaways being to stop eating meat and we all must drive electric cars.
And that takes us to totalitarianism, which label I don’t think can be rightfully pinned on Sorin, who has actually experienced Communism and socialism to the point that he like us would rather be free.
For a glimpse at the direction totalitarianism is going to come from, as if we did not already know, we need go no further than a PRESS RELEASE from the Democrat governor of Pennsylvania entitled “Governor Wolf Takes Executive Action to Combat Climate Change, Carbon Emissions” on October 03, 2019, as follows:
Harrisburg, PA – Governor Tom Wolf today took executive action instructing the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) to join the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI), a market-based collaboration among nine Northeast and Mid-Atlantic states to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and combat climate change while generating economic growth.
“Climate change is the most critical environmental threat confronting the world, and power generation is one of the biggest contributors to greenhouse gas emissions,” said Governor Wolf.
“Given the urgency of the climate crisis facing Pennsylvania and the entire planet, the commonwealth must continue to take concrete, economically sound and immediate steps to reduce emissions.”
“Joining RGGI will give us that opportunity to better protect the health and safety of our citizens.”
end quotes
Are executive orders a form of tyranny here in the United State of America as in this case where the Democrat governor of Pennsylvania appears to be setting himself up as a dictator?
The Democrat press release then continues as follows:
“This initiative represents a unique opportunity for Pennsylvania to become a leader in combatting climate change and grow our economy by partnering with neighboring states,” said Patrick McDonnell, secretary of the Department of Environmental Protection.
Pennsylvania exports nearly a third of the electricity it produces, and the cost of RGGI compliance for exported electricity will be paid by electric customers in the states where that electricity is ultimately used.
end quotes
Or is it more a case of where Pennsylvania is using this climate change hysteria being generated by AOC and little Greta to gouge people and make some extra money off the suckers?
And then we get over to the professional shuck-and-jive that you would expect from a Democrat politician, to wit:
“The conversation we’ve begun over the past year needs to continue if we are going to craft regulations that fit Pennsylvania’s unique energy mix, while making sure that the transition to a cleaner energy mix doesn’t leave behind workers and communities our state has relied on for decades to produce its power,” said Gov. Wolf.
end quotes
And that conversation, which is really going on in here, is going to be strung out and milked for political benefits for the Democrats as long as they can, because it is a good issue that they can use to gain the political power they need in order to be able to tap the federal treasury for trillions of dollars that will keep them in power forever.
And then we get to the politics of it all, to wit:
“And it will take buy in from the legislature to ensure we’re protecting Pennsylvanians from the increasing effects of the climate crisis.”
end quotes
Ah, yes, the “climate crisis,” but what exactly is it?
The long answer as well as the short answer is NOBODY KNOWS, and the use of the term “climate crisis” is alarmism and sensationalism for partisan political gain.
To talk about ice melting at an alarming rate is sensationalism and alarmism because nobody living on earth right now, and this includes all the climate scientists, and AOC and little Greta with her huge cloud of toxic CO2 following her around on her “LITTLE GRETA IS JUST THE GREATEST” world tour, and all the Democrats and all the king’s horses and all the king’s men, know what the ice is supposed to be doing, given that Antarctica used to be ice-free until about 34 million years ago, so why couldn’t the earth on its own make it ice-free again today?
Because it will discommode some humans who wanted to own the ocean beaches and keep them all for themselves?
As to what the scientists actually do know, we know that the earth is currently in an interglacial, and the last glacial period ended about 10,000 years ago, so that all that remains of the continental ice sheets are the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets and smaller glaciers such as on Baffin Island, and those are still melting because in an interglacial, that is precisely what they do – they melt.
And Democrat Tom Wolf of Pennsylvania is going to use his executive powers as governor of Pennsylvania to make those melting glaciers stop melting, because it is upsetting Greta Thunberg, the little princess from socialist Sweden who wants us all to panic so we can know what it is like for her to be afraid of the natural processes of the earth we all live on, although Greta and Tom Wolf seem to think it is theirs instead, so they can dictate terms to us we have to live by, without a whimper of protest on our part, and that is totalitarianism.
Getting back to the Wolf Press Release:
The scientific consensus is the planet is experiencing climate change in real time, and the impacts are felt everywhere.
end quotes
Which is a total horse**** statement equivalent to gibberish because the only time climate change can occur in is real time, there is no other time that it can occur in, and since we have known for over a hundred years that the planet is experiencing climate change in real time, of course that is the scientific consensus, because it can’t be otherwise, or the scientists would look pretty stupid trying to argue against school kids who know better that the earth’s climate is stuck frozen in one place, never to change again, which is what Democrats like this Tom Wolf want us to believe, that they have the power to literally stop time itself and make the climate on earth be just right for everybody, as it should be in a democracy, if only we would give them the political power and money to accomplish that goal.
As to how long Pennsylvania has known that the planet was experiencing climate change in real time, we have as follows from the Wolf Press Release, to wit:
In 2015, the Pennsylvania Climate Impacts Assessment Update found that Pennsylvania has undergone a long-term warming over the prior 110 years, and that current warming trends are expected to increase at an accelerated rate with average temperatures projected to increase an additional 5.4 degrees by 2050.
Average annual precipitation has also increased by approximately 10 percent over the past 100 years and, by 2050, is expected to increase by an additional 8 percent.
end quotes
And that of course is a continuation of the melting trend that began some 10,000 years ago, and for all we know right now, will continue far into our future until it swings back the other way and the earth again experiences another ice age, which brings us back to the Wolf Press Release one more time as follows, to wit:
Last year was the wettest year on record in the commonwealth, and these increases in rainfall resulted in extreme weather events and flooding throughout the state costing residents an estimated $144 million in reported damages, and at least $125 million in state-maintained road and bridges damage throughout the state
“We are seeing the immediate and devastating impact of climate change right here in Pennsylvania, with more intense rain storms leading to flooding occurring outside flood zones, and dry conditions that can increase the threat of fire in our wooded areas,” said Randy Padfield, director of the Pennsylvania Emergency Management Agency.
end quotes
All as was predicted long ago.
And I wonder, still I wonder, can Democrat Governor of Pennsylvania Tom Wolf really stop the rain?
Paul Plante says
So, people, recapping here, IF the aim of science is to build true and accurate knowledge about how the world works, do we, the American people have that “true and accurate knowledge” in the IPPC report young Swedish citizen Greta Thunberg presented to our United States Congress on 18 September 2019 when the 16-year-old climate activist appeared in front of Congress before a hearing on climate change, just days after she met with former Democrat President Barack Obama to discuss Democrat political strategy leading up to the 2020 presidential elections here in America that Obama is trying to influence using little Greta as a political tool, where Greta told Congress, even though she is not an American citizen, that she didn’t have any prepared remarks but instead, she was attaching as her testimony (where and how she got the right as a foreign citizen to have an audience before our Congress on the subject of climate change remains unclear as of this moment, but it is a sure thing that somewhere, money changed hands to secure the privilege) the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s special report on global warming, which reported a temperature increase of 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels.
“I am submitting this report as my testimony because I don’t want you to listen to me, I want you to listen to the scientists,” she said.
“And I want you to unite behind the science.”
“And then I want you to take real action.”
end quotes
“Unite behind the science!”
My, but that has a nice ring to it, does it not?
And how patriotic it sounds.
But seriously, people, what “science” is it that we are supposed to be uniting behind, given that the aim of science is to build true and accurate knowledge about how the world works and science itself is the study of the nature and behaviour of natural things and the knowledge that we obtain about them?
And what real action is this 16-year old Swedish citizen demanding of our Congress, as if she were their queen, and they were her jarls and thegns?
Consider for the moment the MARKETWATCH article “Students around the world skip class to organize climate change protests” by Associated Press published Mar. 15, 2019, to wit:
In 2015, world leaders agreed in Paris to a goal of keeping the Earth’s global temperature rise by the end of the century well below 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit).
end quotes
Can anyone possibly be missing the implications of what is being stated there, which is as follows:
In 2015, world leaders agreed in Paris that they now collectively have the power over the earth and its weather to keep the Earth’s global temperature rise by the end of the century, which is some eighty (80) years in the future, well below 2 degrees Celsius or 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit.
Can you imagine it, people?
Are these world leaders who can now control the temperature of the earth 80 years into the future great shamans?
Are they wizards?
Certainly whatever they are, with that claim, they are claiming supernatural powers which are kind of scary, when you think about it, world leaders of uncertain mental capacity having such control over our lives as they would if they could truly control earth’s weather 80 years out into the future.
What a tool for extortion that would be, would it not?
If the people of America will not come to heel and lick the boots of its masters over in Paris, they are going to turn off our weather, and what a lesson that will teach us, alright, and let us face it, that is what we deserve for being independent as opposed to a member of the one-world government.
Publius Americanus says
“It’s banning production not ownership, are you dense or you are pretending to be?”
Oh dear God, did you actually say that?
Sir, you learned NOTHING in Romania. Not. A. Thing.
Those who sacrifice Liberty for Safety deserve neither.
Sorin Varzaru says
““It’s banning production not ownership, are you dense or you are pretending to be?”
Oh dear God, did you actually say that?
Sir, you learned NOTHING in Romania. Not. A. Thing.
Those who sacrifice Liberty for Safety deserve neither.”
You know what else we ban? Making vehicles that need leaded gas, making AC units that use CFCs, making paint that has lead, etc,
Here is a list of things the government currently bans on regulates.
https://www.cpsc.gov/Regulations-Laws–Standards/Regulations-Mandatory-Standards-Bans
I guess you’d like to remove all that too in the name of “liberty”?
What about my liberty to have unpolluted air/water/food?
Paul Plante says
In the United States of America, Sorin, there is no such thing as your liberty to have unpolluted air/water/food,
Theoretically, you would have the right in the United States of America to have unpolluted air/water/food, but who is going to enforce that right for you, or said a different way, in light of all the outbreaks of food borne diseases in the country, how are you going to get that right enforced?
Because if you can’t enforce it, and nobody else is going to, you don’t have that right, at all, which means it is not a right, but a desire, and desires are not enforceable in a court of law here in America, unless you have the money to buy the judge, and then, they are.
And that takes us to the FRAUD facing us all right in the face here, to wit:
In 2015, world leaders agreed in Paris to a goal of keeping the Earth’s global temperature rise by the end of the century well below 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit).
end quotes
That is a fraud precisely because all of those “world leaders,” each standing on each others shoulders and howling and baying at the moon in unison as they are doing, in something resembling a crude version of three-part harmony, no matter how hard they try, they cannot make the earth’s weather, temperature and climate dance to their tune, and what we Americans are strenuously objecting to is the Democrats basing public policy here in the United States of America on that very FRAUD.
I’m surprised that you cannot grasp that, Sorin.
Publius Americanus says
And you celebrate the banning. Totalitarian.
Enjoy your chains.
Ray Otton says
Move to California, things are going swimmingly there with power cut off to 800K for upwards of a WEEK, with barely a day’s notice, no exception for essential services like hospitals and such.
Say what you will about the sky falling, California is turning into a third-world country right before our eyes due to Liberal policies on the environment, immigration and well, just about every other damn thing.
Oh, if you do go, remember to get your shots, ‘cuz all the big diseases are making a comeback.
Funny thing is, Californians keep electing these people so I guess they like the 18th century with all it’s wonders.
The rest of us rubes? We’ll take the 21st century, thanks.
Paul Plante says
If it were about science, Mr. Otton, as opposed to the climate hysteria movement, which is not about science, but politics, it would be led by scientists rather than by politicians and an emotionally-troubled Swedish child who is being exploited by her parents and by the international left.
That is the plain and simple of it, period.
We are being gamed here and are having our emotions tweaked by AOC and the Democrats so they can impose their socialistic GREEN NEW DEAL on us, which will give us California in all fifty states as the Democrats take us back to the stone age.
And yes, what is going on out in the Soviet Socialist Republic of California under Democrat control with the power shut off to northern California is a very good example of the chaos and confusion and incompetence that we can expect from the Democrats should they be able to scare and anger enough of us for them to gain control of all three branches of our federal government.
And it is important to note that if all the power generation in California had been “green,” this shut-down still would have happened, because the concern was HEAT from the distribution system, which is separate and apart from power generation.
So the GREEN NEW DEAL and the SMART GRID would not have solved this problem, because the GREEN NEW DEAL is instead focused on power generation.
It doesn’t recognize Joule Heating as an issue or problem, because it doesn’t know what it is, or understand power grids, for that matter.
Just the other day, on the news, I heard some official out in California remarking that they now live in a state in America that is a third-world country when it comes to their electrical power distribution infrastructure.
They want it to be everything goes out there, a sanctuary from the law, sanity and reason itself, so that everybody out there can feel good about themselves and warm and squishy inside while they celebrate each other’s lives and diversity, and they are getting a chance to do that by candlelight.
How romantic.
And this troubling exploitation and manipulation of children by the Democrats as political pawns to help them get the GREEN NEW DEAL in place has striking similarities to such youth groups as “The Union of Communist Youth,” a Romanian Communist Party’s youth organization that Sorin may well have first hand experience with.
Like many Young Communist organisations, it was modelled after the Soviet Komsomol, and it aimed to cultivate young cadres into the party, as well as to help create the “new man” envisioned by communist ideologues.
Having essentially the same organizational structure as the Romanian Communist Party (PCR, from 1965), the UTC was both a youth political party and a mass organization.
Its mission was to indoctrinate young people in the spirit of communism and mobilize them, under the guidance of the PCR, for the building of socialism.
Yes, indeed, the BRAVE NEW WORLD awaits us!
Vote Democrat and there we will be!
And just before you cast your vote, study up on the Holodomor, the Great Leap Forward and Mao’s Red Guards, so you will better understand what it is you are voting for.
Paul Plante says
The national low temperature Friday morning, 11 October 2019, was 9 degrees below zero, in West Yellowstone, Montana, the weather service said.
HEY, HEY, Nancy Pelosi!
HO, HO, Kathy Castor!
This damn freezing weather has got to go!
We want it to be like Disneyland all year round, so please, if we vote for you the next election, will you give us what we want?
Ray Otton says
For some reason your comments don’t allow a direct response. Normally I’d let this go but there’s a vitally important principle that needs to be addressed.
To quote you –
“But the main reason I am tired of this, is because I doubt anyone but you, Mike and Ray are reading this, and all of you were so indoctrinated by the republican party that you are incapable of hearing anything that contradicts the doctrine. So, I feel like I am wasting my time. I also don’t enjoy being on the computer more then i need to, so there is that.”
Just like a socialist to accuse others of that which you are guilty.
Just like a socialist to hurl a drive by insult and then run away.
Nice try but no.
Ask yourself:
1 – If socialism is so great why is it mandatory?
2 – Why do the military in socialist countries point their weapons into their own country?
3 – If socialism works, why do people subjected to it abandon it for capitalistic destinations?
The problem for proponents of socialism is that people vote with their feet whenever they can. This applies equally to international and interstate migration patterns within America.
For instance, Venezuelans are fleeing their country in droves amid the chaos. Less than 20 years ago, Venezuela stood as South America’s most prosperous nation. Now however, socialism has relegated it to the ash heap of failed leftist experiments.
Ah, but defenders of “democratic socialism” respond that Venezuela doesn’t represent “true democratic socialism”.
Unfortunately for them, reality dispels this fallback position. Namely, even European socialist democracies whose model they praise witness the same dynamic.
Let’s look at empirical data. The results of that Pew Research Center annual data on global migration are harsh for advocates of “democratic socialism.”
For example, right now 50,000 Swedes live in the US but only 20,000 Americans live in Sweden.
30,000 Norwegians live in the US but only 20,000 Americans live in Norway.
30,000 Danes live in the US but only 10,000 Americans live in Denmark.
890,000 Canadians live in the US but only 300,000 Americans live in Canada.
Keep in mind that all of these nations possess populations far smaller than the U.S., so the disparities become even more vivid after a per capita adjustment.
If Scandinavian style socialism offers such a superior model, with its plethora of benefits and generous leave policies, why would that be the case?
If you look worldwide, 150 million people would move to the US if they could.
How is that possible with the inherent benefits of socialism touted by Leftists?
The same dynamic applies within the US.
North American Moving Services annual US Migration Report based on household moves from one US state to another indicate that the top five inbound US states were:
Arizona, Idaho, North Carolina, South Carolina and Tennessee.
The top five outbound US states were:
Illinois, Connecticut, New Jersey, California and Michigan.
Notice any pattern?
The unavoidable fact is that people vote with their feet, and they consistently flee socialistic locales in favor of places offering greater degrees of individual freedom.
In fact, for whatever reason, didn’t YOU do the same thing?
And now espouse the very ideology you left?
tokenny says
LOL.
“Let’s look at empirical data. The results of that Pew Research Center annual data on global migration are harsh for advocates of “democratic socialism.”
For example, right now 50,000 Swedes live in the US but only 20,000 Americans live in Sweden.
30,000 Norwegians live in the US but only 20,000 Americans live in Norway.
30,000 Danes live in the US but only 10,000 Americans live in Denmark.
890,000 Canadians live in the US but only 300,000 Americans live in Canada.”
That’s it, they left because of political reasons. Please help me off the floor. You should be arrested for misuse of data but then again you just copied the argument from some other wacko website.
Ray Otton says
Pssst, your totalitarian nature is showing with cries to arrest and jail people with different opinions.
It’s the nature of the beast and I guess you just can’t help yourselves can you?
tokenny says
Actually it’s call being honest. In order to have a conversation or a dialog there has to be a baseline of honesty, if not, it’s called propaganda. You bellied up to the propaganda buffet and had a feast.
Are you such a pin-head that you actually believe that “democratic socialism” is a driving force in migration from those countries? As I have said before everyone is entitled to their view but when you start quoting shit
Oh, the answer to your other question: “The top five outbound US states were:
Illinois, Connecticut, New Jersey, California and Michigan.
Notice any pattern?”
Umm, TAXES . You’re seeing things that aren’t. More so, being told things that you don’t question.
Ray Otton says
Pinhead? You don’t even know my hat size.
And thanks for inadvertently making my point with your snarky “Taxes” comment. You are so inflamed that I might be right that you wrote one of the dopiest comments I’ve ever read on the entire internet.
Of course, the same metric that measures population loss from states with socialistic tendencies can be applied to taxes.
You could check it out yourself but your so inculcated in the the “Liberal way” that you’d rather throw, well as you put it, SHIT.
Publius Americanus says
“In order to have a conversation or a dialog there has to be a baseline of honesty”
Dialogue.
Also necessary, a baseline of literacy.
Paul Plante says
Mr. Otton, you seem to have forgotten that this thread is an excursion and a real deep dive into the ascension of CLOWN WORLD here in the former United States of America so you cannot expect to engage in anything resembling rational dialogue with tokenny concerning the implications and ramifications of living in a CLOWN WORLD, where absolutely nothing makes any sense whatsoever, and everything you ever learned about pretty much anything, and especially how the earth functions, has to be thrown out the window to be replaced with a toxic mix of balderdash and bull****.
People I know who have left California have left because the cost of living out there has skyrocketed while the quality of living has plummeted.
California is becoming very much a third-world country, so people with any sense are getting out of that ****hole while they can.
The same with New York, where I myself have encouraged young people to get out of this third-world ****hole with its massive corruption and unresponsive government fueled by high taxes that buy nothing, in essence, especially the school taxes, which filter through the political system to make the teacher’s union a more powerful force in state politics than we, the people are.
Again, low quality of life with a real high price tag.
tokenny, who sees the surface of things, is unaware of any of that reality, and so is like somebody who has never left America telling you all about Paris, a city he has never seen and knows absolutely nothing about, other than what was printed in a travel brochure.
And it comes down, as Sorin mentioned above to public policy in a REPUBLIC, versus public policy in a Commie or socialist ****hole.
In the Commie and socialist ****holes, of which the world has many, a small group of people, like the Democrats in this country who represent only one-third of the population on the best of days, make public policy for everyone, by fiat or decree, which is minority rule, or tyranny of the minority.
And what characterizes the people who live in those ****holes is apathy and acceptance.
The ruling party or junta or clique has ruled, and unless you want some violence visited on yourself and your family, you acquiesce without question, and if you are going to mumble and grumble, do it where you can’t be overheard, lest you get turned in for being a dissident and thereafter end up in a gulag for some re-education at hard labor.
In the United States of America, it was supposed to be different, and that has earned us the enmity of all those people who live in those ****holes.
Because they grovel, we are supposed to grovel.
Because they crawl, we are supposed to crawl.
When told by a “state scientist” that this is the way things are, even when the gibberish of the state scientist makes no sense, theirs is not to question, but obey.
And so that we have true democracy on the earth, where everybody is equal to the biggest idiots and fools that can be found in the world, we are supposed to accept the Democrats and their state scientists as our overlords.
Period.
ALL debate is over – the state scientists of the ****holes of the world have spoken, and that is that.
We are now in a state of war against carbon pollution, which requires everyone in America to throw away their independent thinking and stop questioning, and to instead, since we are now on a war footing, OBEY higher authority, and the very highest authority right now, outside of the Democrats, a minority in America blessed with all the brains and intelligence, are the state scientists of these ****holes who are blaming their problems and failures on us.
We are guilty, Mr. Otton, those of us who are not Democrats, of stealing the childhood dreams of the little queen of Sweden, and tell me, what more heinous crime is there in the world, but that?
Sorin Varzaru says
“1 – If socialism is so great why is it mandatory?
2 – Why do the military in socialist countries point their weapons into their own country?
3 – If socialism works, why do people subjected to it abandon it for capitalistic destinations?’
I don’t support socialism as defined by the dictionary, “community or government owned production and distribution means”. That system ignores the main driver of economy, greed. I support capitalism, which recognizes that reality, but I’d like it tempered by social needs, like protection of the environment and the weak, because unrestricted capitalism will destroy everything in pursuit of money and power.
Listen, if I had any hope that you can hear anything I have to say, I’d continue this “conversation” but this seems futile, you’ll twist anything I say to fit your view of the world.
Ray Otton says
“if I had any hope that you can hear anything I have to say, I’d continue this “conversation” but this seems futile, you’ll twist anything I say to fit your view of the world.”
Same here.
And I’d just like to point out you didn’t answer any one of the three questions.
Sorin Varzaru says
“And I’d just like to point out you didn’t answer any one of the three questions.”
I have never supported socialism, as I stated many times, but once again, all you are interested is throwing mud. So, knock yourself out. Go fight for your rights to pollute the air, water, food, the right to be killed in schools by gun toting maniacs, for the right to die because you don’t have money to pay for medicine, because you are so afraid of “commies” you see them everywhere where they are not.
Ray Otton says
Your post is the perfect example of why we can’t have a discussion with Leftists on just about anything.
How do you get from my opposition to socialism to claiming:
– I want the total destruction of the environment, an environment in which I presently reside.
– I approve of killing kids, from the people who’ve overseen the killing of 30 million kids since 1973
– That I want people dying in the streets because they can’t get healthcare, though Mick Jagger came HERE to fix his heart problem.
But never mind, it was a rhetorical question.
We know how.
It’s because you don’t have valid arguments that support your position so you MUST descend into attacks on my character.
Or in the case of your fellow traveler, Tkenny, to have me arrested and jailed for the temerity to have a different political opinion.
You know, we seen these actions time and time again for over a century……………….from communists.
Sorin Varzaru says
“– I want the total destruction of the environment, an environment in which I presently reside.
– I approve of killing kids, from the people who’ve overseen the killing of 30 million kids since 1973
– That I want people dying in the streets because they can’t get healthcare, though Mick Jagger came HERE to fix his heart problem.”
Do I think you want all of this?
No. I think you are blinded by your rage against what you perceive to be “commies” to see how your opposition to any sensible regulation hurts you. America leads the world in school shootings yet what are your pals doing right after a school shooting? They go buy more guns. We want to limit air pollution? no, let’s roll back as many regulations that protect the environment we we can dig for more oil to burn. Want to mandate a minimum MPG for new cars? No, we don’t wan’t any regulation. Except when it suits your agenda. Sure, Mike Jagger is probably happy with his healthcare. 45000 die every year in US because of lack of access to healthcare? Who cares?
But hey, you gotta fight the commies.
Paul Plante says
Well, Sorin, let me say as a participant in this vital discussion on exactly who it is that gets to decide “PUBLIC POLICY” in the UNITED STAES OF AMERICA, that I am glad to see you hanging in there, presenting and defending your points as you are doing, and let me say sincerely that your candor above about learning about America through books and movies was I think a most valuable contribution to the discussion, so that people here in America get a chance to see America through the eyes of someone who has come from a repressive European society to here.
And because you actually came from a repressive society, as opposed to reading about it in a book, of all of us, you are the best placed to enlighten us as to what a true repressive society looks like when looking at it from inside the IRON CURTAIN, as opposed to from outside, and truthfully Sorin, this is first-hand knowledge insular America needs to hear.
You have been using the word “COMMIE” quite freely above as a term to mock us provincials who see a COMMIE under every bed, and smiling up at you when you lift the toilet seat to answer nature’s call, and you know what, Sorin, maybe we are really just yokels and serfs and churls, and the COMMIES are just phantasms, with the result that life is good!
And wouldn’t that be nice?
But, Sorin, COMMIES are a distraction.
Right now, Sorin, this isn’t about the COMMIES, at all!
Right now, whether or not they are all closet COMMIES, or just some of them, this is about the Congressional Democrats unilaterally deciding and decreeing PUBLIC POLICY in the United State of America based on nothing more than the whims of a 16-year old girl from Sweden who thinks she can come here to OUR country (no, I’m not a nationalist; I am an American citizen) and stamp her little foot and shake her little fist and order our Congress around like they were her parents, as opposed to our supposed representatives, and we are supposed to lie there like cringing dogs and take it, to which I say, LIKE HELL!
In America, Sorin, and this part is never in the books or the movies, science is not by decree, and we don’t take orders regarding our lives, health and property from scientists, no matter how many Ph.D’s they are flashing at us, especially individuals like myself who are LICENSED by the state after rigorous examinations to protect and safeguard life, health and property.
I am not in any way, here in America, “outranked” by a scientist in France, nor am I “outranked” by a scientist in this country, no matter how exalted they are in the Church of Science.
So, here in America, when some 16-year old girl from Sweden waltzes into OUR United States Congress and hands them her marching orders in the form of the IPPC report, which is politicized science such as was the case in the Soviet Union, to wit:
When studying the inner workings of Soviet society and government, one cannot but notice the intricate weaving between ideology and reality.
end quotes
This is an American looking in, Sorin, so this is how we see things today with respect to these state scientists that the Democrats want to put in control of our lives, no matter what name you want to put on it beyond tyranny and despotism.
Getting back to Soviet-style science, which is what we American scientists are seeing here, and objecting to, because it requires us to reject everything we know about how climate functions, to accept BULL**** indicting internal combustion engines while exonerating nuclear, we have:
This phenomenon is not only observed during the course of the Soviet Union’s existence, but it became part of how the system worked.
In the Soviet Union, science and technology served as an important part of national politics, practices, and identity.
end quotes
And those of us older than you, Sorin, who know the difference, are seeing that happening here, even if you are unaware of it yourself.
And that brings us in a timely manner thanks to yourself and your questioning to an article entitled “Politicized Science” by David Randall, director of research at the National Association of Scholars, 420 Madison Avenue, 7th Floor, New York, NY 10017; randall@nas.org., Summer 2019, to wit:
Civil society’s debate about science continues as a stalemate.
end quotes
And boy, isn’t this thread just the living proof of that statement about a stalemate?
Getting back to that essay:
The scientific “Establishment,” operating from redoubts such as the National Academy of Sciences, remains committed to dubious policy advocacy, but dissenters retain sufficient intellectual freedom that they can publicize errors and spur honest scientists to withdraw false claims.
end quotes
And you know what, Sorin, that is exactly what you and I are mon about in here, in a grand American tradition of questioning what we happen to think in BULL**** and balderdash, and yes, Sorin, regardless of what they do elsewhere, in America, Ph.D.’s do tell lies and do misrepresent data, and for a time, as an engineer, I was deconstructing that BULL**** science based on lies right and left, which is what led to what tokenny calls the “SONIA SOTOMAYOR SLIGHT,” which resulted in the destruction of my career as a professional engineer safeguarding life, health and property, which by the way renders highly suspect your assertion that I or we in here want to pollute the earth and your air and water, which would make me a professional sell-out, would it not?
And getting back to that essay:
To be sure, there is far too much policy advocacy from scientists, but when they trumpet bad science the public still has opportunities to discern the truth.
end quotes
The public has opportunities to discern the truth THANKS to the Cape Charles Mirror and this thread.
Which takes us back to reality as follows:
Climate studies continues as the most politicized science, whose gatekeeping professionals advocate unprofessionally for climate alarmism.
end quotes
And isn’t that what persons like myself are talking about in here – gatekeeping professionals advocating unprofessionally for climate alarmism?
And my goodness, of course we are, which takes us back once more to the essay, to wit:
Far too many climate researchers take apocalyptic climate change to be an unfalsifiable paradigm.
The ‘gold standard journals’ Nature and Science, above all, promote the artificial “consensus” of nigh-apocalyptic climate change.
The alarmism of the scientific journals meets its match in the popular press, as well as at the universities, where assent to alarmist conclusions is a near-universal requirement.
The Next Generation Science Standards have injected climate alarmism into K-12 science education in almost every state.
Social media companies censor climate skepticism.
Professors publish articles calling for the formal abrogation of freedom of speech for climate skeptics.
Climate alarmists progressively undermine the climate of freedom necessary to sustain scientific inquiry.
Yet even climate studies remains open to correction.
A pair of Swedish scientists published a report in Science in 2016 on microplastic pollution in the Baltic — and aroused suspicion from their colleagues that they had made up their research data.
Science was slow to respond to these suspicions, but the article ultimately was withdrawn and the scientists censured by Uppsala University for scientific misconduct.
A 2018 report on increasing rates of warming in the oceans was immediately taken apart by a climate warming skeptic — and the lead scientist withdrew his headline claim.
end quotes
So, Sorin, as you can clearly see, this is not about the COMMIES, at all.
It is about whether public policy in the United States of America should be based on Soviet-style politicized “science,” which isn’t science at all.
And thanks for giving me the opportunity in here to make that necessary distinction!
Sorin Varzaru says
“Congressional Democrats unilaterally deciding and decreeing PUBLIC POLICY in the United State of America based on nothing more than the whims of a 16-year old girl from Sweden”
Don’t be silly Paul, no one is deciding policy based on what Greta is saying. Both republicans and democrats are political animals, they will use what they can to get ahead. democrats probably banked on using greta to get younger folks politically engaged.
But for me Paul, this is just noise. I don’t give a f&^k on WHY we decide to make an effort to reduce burning fossil fuel (as a policy, not individual actions). Even if tomorrow someone found 100% uncontroversial evidence that climate change has nothing to do with burning oil, I would still support the “ban production of new IC cars in 2035” goal, because 1) electric cars are 2.5 times more efficient then IC cars and 2) oil IS A FINITE RESOURCE, it makes sense to make the most of it.
Paul Plante says
Thanks for that response, Sorin, it is appreciated!
I’m glad to see that you are not caught up in and swept away by the Greta thing, and yes, both the Republicans, who are a minority in this country, and the Democrats, who are likewise a minority in this country, are political animals who act like animals, and they will use whomever however they wish to secure their political aims, which revolve around money and power, just as is the case with politics all over the world in whatever century you want to consider, and with respect to what is going on in this country right now reminds me very much of Rome in the time of Tiberius Gracchus, to give you an idea of where I think the future is heading.
So of course they are using Greta as a political tool – because she is there to be used, poor thing.
As to banning IC engines, go ahead.
As an engineer, I truly would be quite curious to see how that experiment would play out in real life, given the role IC engines now play in maintain life here in the United States of America.
Have you ever considered how you will make the roads for those electric cars to run on, Sorin, without IC engines?
And there is no way to ban the production of IC engines, Sorin.
Yes, you can say that after a date, no new car produced in America can be produced with an IC engine, but that is hardly a ban.
That is merely an end to production by certain entities.
In the meantime, scads of internal combustion engines will still exist and will still be in operation so long as there is fuel for them.
What will you do about them?
As I say, as an engineer, I find this all to be pretty exciting, watching a society addicted to oil and plastic, which is made from oil, Sorin, a huge waste of the resource, especially cell phones for children, wean itself off its addictions cold turkey.
Can it be done?
Hey, I’m willing to take the gamble!
And yes, Sorin, like you, I am interested in sensible solutions to problems.
Have we had any that you are aware of yet?
Paul Plante says
Sorin, with all due respect to yourself here, I can see where your problems in the above post come from – you do not have an understanding of how government works here in the United States of America, where we have a federal government that is supposed to deal with matters between the states, and between the United States and other nations, and we then have state governments which are there for matters within the state, such as your public health and your air pollution control.
The federal government under Trump cannot come into the Commonwealth of Virginia where you are and tell the state health department to ignore your public health needs by letting your water become contaminated or your air polluted, and when you state or imply that Trump has such power, all you are doing is showing how ignorant you are of how government functions here in America, which I turn raises the question of how you ever gained citizenship over here, when you know nothing mat all about how American government is supposed to function,
I personally think you are a nice person, Sorin, so I hate to see you walking face first into making a fool of yourself in here with your comments above to Mr. Otton that he is so blinded by rage against what he perceives to be “commies” to see how opposition to any sensible regulation hurts him.
I have not seen where Mr. Otton is opposed to any SENSIBLE regulation.
I’m passing by America leading the world in school shootings because that is a complex problem all its own which is nothing more than a distraction and diversion in here, and moving to your statement “We want to limit air pollution?”
And you know what, Sorin, before you were born, if I have the math right, and certainly before you got here, in 1970, we Americans got passed the National Environmental Protection Act so we could limit air and water pollution in the United States of America today.
And in the Commonwealth of Virginia, the people, not the Democrats, created the Virginia DEQ, to wit:
The Department Environmental Quality (DEQ) administers state and federal laws and regulations for air quality, water quality, water supply and land protection.
In addition, other programs cover a variety of environmental activities, such as improving the ability of businesses and local governments to protect the environment and prevent pollution.
The agency provides technical and financial assistance for air and water quality improvements, coastal zone management and remediation of contaminated land and water.
Through its six regional offices, DEQ issues permits, conducts inspections and monitoring, and enforces regulations and permits.
end quotes
So, if anybody is allowing your air and water to be polluted, it is the Democrat-controlled Virginia DEQ, not the Trump administration.
As to protection of your public health in the Commonwealth of Virginia, as opposed to Rumania, in 1780, the first permanent city board of health in the United States was created in Petersburg, Virginia, and the State Board of Health was created in 1872.
The first health department was the Richmond City health department in 1906, followed by Norfolk health department in 1907.
As to the Virginia Department of Health (VDH), it is dedicated to protecting and promoting the health of Virginians, and the 13-member State Board of Health is appointed by the Governor to provide leadership in planning and policy development for the Commonwealth and the Virginia Department of Health.
So again, we can see that the Trump administration and the Republicans have no ability to hurt your health in Virginia.
But the Democrats do, since it is their show down there, so if you are going to throw rocks, Sorin, please, know your proper target before you hurl, not after the rock is in flight.
As to Democrats and GREEN GRAFT, google Solyndra and the Buffalo Billion Corruption in the Democrat-controlled Soviet Socialist Republic of New York, and you will see why it is the Democrats are saying so vociferously “GO GREEN!”
Because it is a huge, as-of-yet untapped source of GRAFT for them, and if you study American history, Sorin, you will see that going back to the 1800s, tapping into sources of GRAFT is what it has been all about for the Democrats.
Sorin Varzaru says
“federal government that is supposed to deal with matters between the states, and between the United States and other nations, and we then have state governments which are there for matters within the state, such as your public health and your air pollution control.”
Sorry Paul but that is silly. Air and water don’t care about state borders. So, letting states deal with that just means that they will push their problem onto someone else. The feds should regulate emissions, because if one state poisons the air, we’re all affected.
Paul Plante says
Sorin, I said that we here in America had a NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT in place in 1970, which is a long time ago, for exactly the reasons you are stating.
So ask yourself, Sorin, why it is all these years later that we still have all these same problems when we clearly had put in place laws and regulations to have it be otherwise.
Paul Plante says
Sorin, you know what is truly silly and quite tedious?
What is truly silly and quite tedious is you telling me, “Sorry Paul but that is silly, air and water don’t care about state borders, so, letting states deal with that just means that they will push their problem onto someone else, the feds should regulate emissions, because if one state poisons the air, we’re all affected,” right after I sent you a post quoting from the Virginia DEQ website and informing you, a resident of the Commonwealth, that, “(T)he (Virginia) Department Environmental Quality (DEQ) administers state and federal laws and regulations for air quality, water quality, water supply and land protection.”
Seriously, Sorin, is your command of the English language so poor that when you read the words “(T)he (Virginia) Department Environmental Quality (DEQ) administers state and federal laws and regulations for air quality, water quality, water supply and land protection,” you have no comprehension of what the words mean when they say “administers state and federal laws and regulations for air quality, water quality, water supply and land protection?”
If the Virginia Department Environmental Quality (DEQ) administers state and federal laws and regulations for air quality, water quality, water supply and land protection, Sorin, then exactly what problems is Virginia pushing problem onto someone else?
And why?
And who besides your Democrat governor would be responsible for that GROSS ******* NEGLIGENCE on the part of your DEQ?
You say the feds should regulate emissions, because if one state poisons the air, we’re all affected, and that is exactly what I am showing you here, how that is accomplished in America, which is not and does not want to be Zimbabwe, Rumania, or Kenya or Somalia or The Congo or Chad or Venezuela or Sweden, or any other ****hole, thank you very much, we’re content being Americans and if the rest of the world doesn’t like that, **** them.
What else is both silly and quite stupid is this German dude named Volker Quaschning, an alleged professor of engineering at Berlin’s University of Applied Sciences, one of more than 23,000 German-speaking scientists to sign a letter of support saying Germany should aim to fully “decarbonize” by 2040, telling us, to wit:
“If we do nothing then parts of this planet could become uninhabitable by the end of the century.”
end quotes
That is both silly and stupid because the earth has in recorded history always had parts that were uninhabitable, which is a matter of high school science and history, which is an indication of just how stupid a person can be and still get a job in Germany as an alleged professor of engineering at Berlin’s University of Applied Sciences!
Go to a school children’s website on basic earth facts, and you will be told that only 71 percent of Earth’s land surface is defined as habitable; the remaining 29 percent comprises of glaciers and barren land.
And of that 71 percent, that is hardly a static situation, where day after day after day, the same land never changes.
Somebody that ignorant should not be teaching engineering to anyone, Sorin!
Sorin Varzaru says
>Sorin, you know what is truly silly and quite tedious?
I do, this thread. I’m done. Have fun.
Ray Otton says
Again I’m not able to reply to directly to your comment. Maybe the comment system here only allows a certain number of direct replies, I don’t know.
However, what I do know is that you are clearly outraged that I hold a different opinion on how to solve the problems we face.
To quote you –
“I think you are blinded by your rage against what you perceive to be “commies” to see how your opposition to any sensible regulation hurts you.
America leads the world in school shootings yet what are your pals doing right after a school shooting? They go buy more guns. We want to limit air pollution? no, let’s roll back as many regulations that protect the environment we we can dig for more oil to burn. Want to mandate a minimum MPG for new cars? No, we don’t wan’t any regulation. Except when it suits your agenda. Sure, Mike Jagger is probably happy with his healthcare. 45000 die every year in US because of lack of access to healthcare? Who cares?
But hey, you gotta fight the commies.”
Indeed I, and millions more normal folk, do want to fight socialism, seeing as this ideology was responsible for over 100 million deaths last century and, if we take you and Tkenny as current representatives of this ideology, seems likely we’ll have to continue in THIS century……………………………in this country.
See, the basic problem is your hatred. You’ve resorted to accusing me of wanting kids killed, destruction of our Earth and gleefully watching people die in the streets for lack of healthcare.
There’s only two possibilities when you make such inflammatory accusations. You either believe in your heart that I want these things to happen or you don’t believe it but have run out of rational arguments so must resort to this line of attack. There is no third option.
The thing is, every day on social media I encounter people who think like you. They believe they are morally superior because they support Liberal values.
These people go on and on about how they are the only civil people left while they call Trump supporters all manner of names, support press secretaries being chased form restaurants and say nothing when left wing terrorists attack peaceful Trump supporters at political rallies.
Heck, it’s not necessary to go any further than this thread for proof.
Sadly, it is a sickness that resides in you. You are not morally superior because you support a certain ideology. If you think you are, you need to seriously evaluate your mental and moral health.
If you really want to contribute to healthy discourse, stop acting like and thinking people who disagree with you are subhuman. And stop pretending you want good discourse with offers to sit down for a beer, because it’s obvious to even the casual reader here that you do not.
FWIW, the Liberal bubble you live in doesn’t help matters.
When all you hear is that Trump voters are Nazi loving hicks, you eventually start believing it. And once someone is a Nazi, well, it’s perfectly OK to punch them in the face.
Sorin Varzaru says
“However, what I do know is that you are clearly outraged that I hold a different opinion on how to solve the problems we face.
I haven’t heard any opinions on how to solve the issues we face from the conservative folk. I have not even heard an acknowledgment that we have a problem. Global warming doesn’t exist, gun violence is not caused by guns, it caused by … what? We don’t have a problem with healthcare, etc. And outrage is not what i feel, I feel sadness.
“Indeed I, and millions more normal folk, do want to fight socialism, seeing as this ideology was responsible for over 100 million deaths last century and, if we take you and Tkenny as current representatives of this ideology, seems likely we’ll have to continue in THIS century……………………………in this country.”
Oh give me a break, get off your high horse there. I’m not advocating for socialism as I stated many times before. Learn the different between social programs and socialism.
“See, the basic problem is your hatred. ”
I don’t hate you Ray, I feel sorry for you. You are the product of years of brainwashing by conservative media, who’s only way to keep people in line is to make people so fearful so they look for commies under each bed. I can’t speak for other people, but I am quite fine with capitalism. It acknowledges the main driver of economy which is greed. I just believe that it needs to be tempered with rules and regulation, otherwise greed will destroy everything in pursuit of profit.
“There’s only two possibilities when you make such inflammatory accusations. You either believe in your heart that I want these things to happen or you don’t believe it but have run out of rational arguments so must resort to this line of attack. There is no third option.”
Of course there is a third option. At that particular time I ran out of patience and was exasperated. Of course I don’t believe you want kids to die by guns or lack of healthcare.
“The thing is, every day on social media I encounter people who think like you. They believe they are morally superior because they support Liberal values.”
I don’t think I am morally superior, I think I have a better perspective. I lived in “pure” socialism. I am living now in US which is almost in the other extreme. I spent time in countries where they are in the middle (France, Germany). Like with most things in life, extremes prove to be bad in the end and middle ground is usually the best.
“These people go on and on about how they are the only civil people left while they call Trump supporters all manner of names, support press secretaries being chased form restaurants and say nothing when left wing terrorists attack peaceful Trump supporters at political rallies.”
Extremists are idiots no matter on what side of the political spectrum they reside in.
“If you really want to contribute to healthy discourse, stop acting like and thinking people who disagree with you are subhuman. And stop pretending you want good discourse with offers to sit down for a beer, because it’s obvious to even the casual reader here that you do not.”
Oh, pray tell, what is my evil hidden reasoning for offering to buy beers and discuss things in person.
“FWIW, the Liberal bubble you live in doesn’t help matters. When all you hear is that Trump voters are Nazi loving hicks, you eventually start believing it. And once someone is a Nazi, well, it’s perfectly OK to punch them in the face.”
Right back at you. When you live in the conservative bubble you live in, it’s easy to see commies everywhere.
The question is, how do you bridge the gap. Because getting together and sharing a beer seems to be out of the question.
Ray Otton says
Let’s unpack this post, one by one.
“I haven’t heard any opinions on how to solve the issues we face from the conservative folk.”
Plenty of opinions and facts from Paul, Mike and me. As usual with Liberals, opinions you don’t agree with are considered invalid.
“I have not even heard an acknowledgment that we have a problem.”
Scroll back through this long, tedious thread and you will find I never said we didn’t have a problem. I said there are a lot of factors that defy easy solutions and presented a ton of facts, none of which you even addressed. I also said I don’t agree with your solutions. Again. just because you don’t agree with me doesn’t make my opinion invalid.
“Global warming doesn’t exist”
We didn’t say it didn’t exist, we disagree with the cause and we are opposed to your top down edicts that may or may not be effective solutions. Again, not invalid arguments just because you don’t like them.
“Gun violence is not caused by guns, it caused by … what”
By the degradation of our society. 40 years ago, gun handling was taught in our schools and there were negligible school shooting incidents. What happened? We handed over responsibility for teaching our kids to Liberals.
Did you know that all rifles account for one death per day in the US?
Did you know that texting while driving accounts for 18 deaths per day?
Did you know that abortion kills over 3000 babies a day?
Do you know what the term “low hanging fruit” means? You really want to save lives, ban abortions and cell phones.
“We don’t have a problem with healthcare”.
We don’t have a problem with healthcare. We have a problem with health costs, driven by the powerful ($$$$$) insurance and drug lobbies. That was my point when I brought up Mr. Jagger. He lives in England, where they suffer from serious heathcare shortages due to the national health system.
“And outrage is not what I feel, I feel sadness”
Nope sorry, you were clearly outraged in your last couple of posts. Sounds like you’re fishing for sympathy.
“Oh give me a break, get off your high horse there. I’m not advocating for socialism as I stated many times before. Learn the different between social programs and socialism”
I don’t ride horses, they scare me. You don’t even seem aware that indeed you did advocate for socialist totalitarianism:
Here –
” I think we should put massive resources into refining solar, wind, wave energy production, battery storage, electric vehicles, advanced nuclear reactors, hopefully fusion. I propose we pay for it by adding a surcharge on anything that burns gas/coal/oil, like the gasoline tax.”
( Taxing what you don’t like is one of the hallmarks of a totalitarian )
Here –
“This whole thing started when Wayne criticized the plan to ban the sale of new IC cars by 2035 (among other things). While that particular year is somewhat arbitrary, I support the idea of such a ban.”
( Banning things you don’t like is another hallmark of a totalitarian )
Here –
“I’m not scared of the social policies of the democratic party, because NONE of those are the hallmarks of communism. In fact, many make sense.”
( NONE of their social polices make sense, from multiple sexes, to post-birth abortion, to banning guns. If you think they make sense, you are a totalitarian. Don’t deny it, embrace it.)
“I feel sorry for you.”
Reread my last post. I pointed out that you don’t hold the moral high ground which is exactly what you are attempting to claim. Talk about a lack of self-awareness.
“You are the product of years of brainwashing by conservative media”
I don’t read conservative media. I do my own research from numerous sources, from New Yorker magazine to the NRA’s monthly publications. You should try it.
“Of course there is a third option. At that particular time I ran out of patience and was exasperated”
Wait a minute, didn’t you just proclaim that you weren’t angry? And FWIW, there really is no third option. Your smears are out there. Either you meant them or you are getting desperate and so are resorting to Saul Alinsky’s tactics.
“I don’t think I am morally superior, I think I have a better perspective.”
You need to get to the self-awareness clinic, you’re running low.
“I am living now in US which is almost in the other extreme”.
Please, if you do nothing else in your response, tell the audience how the US is the other extreme of the ideology that killed 100 million people.
“I spent time in countries where they are in the middle (France, Germany)”
Moving the socialism goal posts from the 50 year line to your opponents 20 yard line doesn’t make that the new middle. And you opponents are likely to notice your attempt…………….and not be too happy about it. Welcome to Mr Trump’s America.
“Extremists are idiots no matter on what side of the political spectrum they reside in.”
Yeah, let’s have a beer!
“Oh, pray tell, what is my evil hidden reasoning for offering to buy beers and discuss things in person.”
A misdirect proclaiming you only want polite discourse after the mud you’ve slung. Saul Alinsky 101.
“Right back at you. When you live in the conservative bubble you live in, it’s easy to see commies everywhere”
No bubble, only a very clear understanding of what you are. Maybe a better idea from this back and forth than you know yourself, with your vacillations between personal smears and beer summits Tell you one thing, the audience is getting an eye opening experience. So, keep digging.
“The question is, how do you bridge the gap. Because getting together and sharing a beer seems to be out of the question.”
You got that right. You don’t get to say the things you said and then expect a hug.
Sorin Varzaru says
Ok Ray, Paul. I acknowledge defeat. You wore me out. I got nothing left to say.
Good night.
Paul Plante says
And Sorin, how can you even think of being defeated when it is incandescently clear from recent national and world news that thanks to the Cape Charles Mirror, your voice has reached out across America and the world and has been heard by corporate America not only in this country, but overseas, as well, so you have scored a huge victory for a green and totally de-carbonized United States of America by 2030, to wit:
A new chapter in our story!
At Volvo, we’re taking the lead with electrification in the auto industry.
Our commitment to world-changing innovation and the demand for power, fuel efficiency and environmental friendliness will drive a broader range of hybrids and fully battery electric models.
All designed to improve your life now and in the future.
“We are determined to be the first premium car maker to move our entire portfolio of vehicles into electrification.”
– Håkan Samuelsson, President and CEO, Volvo
end quotes
And there you are, thinking only three people are reading this thread and your voice isn’t being heard, when we have contrary evidence not only right there, but here, as well:
KYMA
“Ford announces largest electric vehicle charging network in US – Automaker joins partners to offer stations”
By: Peter Valdes-Dapena, CNN Business
Posted: Oct 17, 2019 03:58 AM MST
Updated: Oct 17, 2019 08:57 AM MST
DETROIT – Ford doesn’t currently offer any electric vehicles, but it announced Thursday that, once it does, it will offer the largest North American network of electric vehicle chargers of any automaker — including Tesla.
Unlike Tesla, though, Ford didn’t build this charging network on its own.
Working with EV charging companies Greenlots and Electrify America, Ford has created what it calls the FordPass Charging Network.
When needed, users will be directed to one of the network’s chargers using an app or in the vehicle’s central touch screen.
Next year, Ford will begin selling an electric crossover SUV with styling based on the Ford Mustang.
It’s the first vehicle Ford has ever offered that was designed, from the outset, as an electric vehicle.
That vehicle has not been unveiled yet.
An electric version of the Ford F-150 pickup is also being developed.
The FordPass network will include more than 12,000 charging stations with a total of 35,000 plugs in the United States and some parts of Canada.
Tesla has 4,375 public charging stations with about 15,000 plugs in the United States, according to the Department of Energy.
While Tesla’s chargers can only be used by Tesla cars, the chargers in the FordPass network will work with most other electric cars.
Unlike Tesla’s chargers, which are all run and operated by Tesla, the chargers in the FordPass network will be operated by different companies.
The charging network will include fast chargers that can rapidly juice up a vehicle’s battery to about 80% in about 40 minutes, in some cases.
While the chargers themselves will work with many different cars, only Ford drivers will be able to use the FordPass app.
end quotes
You clearly won them over, Sorin, by the forcefulness of your logic, so I think that you should be a co-recipient of the alternative Nobel Prize that the Cape Charles Mirror so richly deserves, and I hope the Cape Charles Town Board and Northampton County Board of Supervisors see it that same way, and it would be a real shame for humanity if they didn’t.
Paul Plante says
You haven’t heard any opinions on how to solve the issues we face from the conservative folk, Sorin?
Why exactly would you think they had any?
And what issues, Sorin?
Why would everyone think something was an issue because you think it should be one?
And why would people have to care about what you think is an issue, or be tasked with finding a solution to it?
Society in America, is pretty ****** up, Sorin, so how does anybody solve that, given there are over 300 million people in this nation?
And what’s with this “I have not even heard an acknowledgment that we have a problem?”
We have a host of problems in this country, and I don’t think anyone in here is denying that.
And what hogwash is this, Sorin, where you say, “Global warming doesn’t exist!”
Of course global warming exists, and it is a part of a natural cycle over which humans have absolutely no control whatsoever, as if human beings somehow had control over the earth and its weather.
Since global warming is a part of a natural cycle that I have been aware of for longer than you have been alive, I don’t see it as a problem for me to have to solve, because there is no solution to nature, Sorin, other than living with it to the best of your ability.
And what solutions to anything do you have, Sorin?
Or is it for somebody else to have to come up with the solutions?
As to the solutions the one who knows most about the problem has for the problem, let’s jump to a Marketwatch article entitled “Students around the world skip class to organize climate change protests” by Associated Press published Mar 15, 2019, where we have as follows:
In Stockholm, Greta Thunberg said of politicians who are discussing individual measures to cut emissions, from building nuclear power plants to support for electric cars and green tax programs that “they waste time.”
Asked what they should do, she replied: “Everything.”
end quotes
So, there we have it, Sorin – the solutions you have been looking for – simply do everything and there will be no problem.
So, how are you going to start that ball rolling over here, Sorin?
Consider that in Germany, a dude named Volker Quaschning, a professor of engineering at Berlin’s University of Applied Sciences, was one of more than 23,000 German-speaking scientists to sign a letter of support saying Germany should aim to fully “decarbonize” by 2040, to wit:
“This is going to require radical measures and there isn’t the slightest sign of that happening yet,” said Quaschning.
end quotes
It’s going to require radical measures, Sorin, and what better place to start with those radical measures over here than Cape Charles, Virginia.
If the Germans are going to decarbonize by 2040, then by God, let’s us Americans show them Germans how its really done by totally decarbonizing Cape Charles by 2030, ten full years before the Germans can do it.
I’m for it, Sorin, are you?
Are you really ready to put your money where your mouth is by leading the effort to decarbonize Cape Charles by 2030, or it that just talk?
As to how vitally important it is for Cape Charles to lead not only the nation, but the world as well, in decarbonizing, Volker Quaschning, a professor of engineering at Berlin’s University of Applied Sciences, said:
“If we do nothing then parts of this planet could become uninhabitable by the end of the century.”
end quotes
Now, let me ask you, Sorin – is that something you want on your conscience, making parts of this planet uninhabitable by the end of the century because you faltered and didn’t get Cape Charles decarbonized in time?
Paul Plante says
Mr. Otton, stepping in here in defense of Sorin, each of us, and this must of necessity include Sorin think we know what we think we know, and as to everything else, it’s simply outside our ken, and that is a function of the confluence of many different factors going right down to literally the instant in which you were born, whether what star you were under amounts to a hill of beans, or not, and what environment you were born into.
In the case of Sorin, he spent his early years in a culture so foreign to ours it might as well have been on another planet, while we spent out early years in a culture as foreign to Sorin as his was to us.
So Sorin sees the world through a lens most of us cannot comprehend, where the world is broken down into two essentially ever-warring or struggling sides, one being the proletariots, who I believe correspond to the plebs of Rome (trying to make sense of any of it gives me a fierce headache), and they are the “good guys,” the ones in this country that vote straight Democrat all the way, and the other side of the struggle is the Bush-wahs, who in this country include Republicans and everybody who isn’t a Democrat.
And let’s take a walk in Sorin’s shoes to see what the culture in Rumania was like that shaped his ideas in his early life, to wit:
The Union of Communist Youth was the Romanian Communist Party’s youth organisation.
Like many Young Communist organisations, it was modelled after the Soviet Komsomol.
It aimed to cultivate young cadres into the party, as well as to help create the “new man” envisioned by communist ideologues.
end quotes
The rhetorical question which arises is how would one who went through that system of indoctrination as a youth know that it was any different anywhere else in the world?
Could that person so indoctrinated as a Communist “new man” in Rumania conceive of people like us in the United States of America who were not so indoctrinated, but instead were taught to question, not blindly obey?
What strange and made creatures we would be to that person so indoctrinated, and so we are to Sorin, and understandably so – in Rumania, we would be talking heresy which would have political thugs beating down our doors to beat us into a pulp as a lesson for anyone else who might think of being a dissident.
Following the history that Sorin grew up with, as opposed to our history, founded in 1922, the UTC went underground along with the rest of the party when it was banned in 1924.
A marginal group under strict control of the Comintern’s Young Communist International, it began to emerge as a mass movement in 1944, after the Red Army had entered Romania and the party became legal once again.
end quotes
And there we have the basis for the antipathy that Sorin feels for outliers to the consensus like us – it just is not done!
What the party decrees is what is, and nothing else is or can be, only that which has been approved by the PARTY!
As to how the culture of Rumania differed so markedly from ours, we have from Wikipedia, as follows:
Beginning in 1948, the Romanian Workers’ Party (PMR, as it was then called) began to contemplate merging and purging the country’s youth organisations – political, professional, religious, cultural, etc.
At the same time, young people were faced with several waves of arrests.
Starting in 1945, participants at anti-communist demonstrations were arrested, while category-based arrests began in 1948.
Members of youth liberal, peasant, and Iron Guard organisations were targeted, and political and religious youth organisations were shut down.
The educational reform of 3 August 1948 initiated the ideological re-education of youth and Sovietization of the educational system by restructuring it along Marxist-Leninist principles.
end quotes
That is what Sorin is a product of, Mr. Otton, through no fault of his own, given he was not in control of what nation and climate he was born in, and that has me personally cutting him some slack, as it were, in how he sees the functioning of the world versus how we who were born free see it.
Getting back to Sorin’s history:
That year, the Komsomol recommended the formation of a single youth group, and at a congress on March 19–21, 1949, hitherto separate youth organisations were merged to create a Union of Working Youth (Uniunea Tineretului Muncitoresc; UTM).
Its name was changed back to UTC in 1965.
Right after the single organisation was formed, the party asked for a purge, which in its first phase involved the “re-signing up” of UTM members (equivalent to PMR “verification” campaigns).
After this process, 34,000 UTM members and activists were purged as “dangerous elements” (kulaks (chiaburi), former Iron Guard or National Christian Party members, former members of democratic parties, religious activists (especially non-Orthodox ones), UTM leaders who did not heed PRM decisions, etc.).
end quotes
Now, right there, with those purges, which are so Commie they serve as its defining characteristic, we have before us the basis for the huge gulf between how Sorin sees the world, versus us.
We don’t toe the “consensus” line, so to someone indoctrinated like Sorin, and again, this is no fault of his personally, him being a product of his indoctrination, we are “dangerous elements” that he has to resist with all his might, lest he end up being purged by the party, as well, which takes us back to Sorin’s history, to wit:
Removal from the UTM could mean social exclusion, professional marginalisation or even open the way to a criminal investigation.
One’s social origin and membership in a communist organisation were the most important factors in climbing up the political, social and professional ladders.
UTM purges were one way that institutions, universities, schools, army units and factories were cleansed of troublesome elements.
These purges had a major social impact, quickly and decisively changing the face of society, as membership steadily rose (some 20% of youths were in UTM in 1950; by the end of the decade, a third; in another decade, half; and by the 1980s the great majority).
One major dilemma was how to deal with the peasantry.
Poor peasants were at first eagerly welcomed into the UTM, but 40% of those initially purged were peasants.
Starting in the 1950s, UTM activists were mobilised to help with collectivisation, participating in propaganda actions and unmasking class enemies at the party’s behest.
At UTM meetings, members were asked to convince their relatives and friends to give over their land to collectives, to denounce kulaks and those who opposed collectivisation, and even to speak out against marriages between kulaks and poor peasant girls.
end quotes
And interestingly, if the Democrats manage to gain control of our federal government so they can then impose one party rule on us, Sorin’s past will be our future.
Welcome to the brave new world!
And if you are for it, vote Democrat and it will be yours!
Paul Plante says
The Soviet Union provides a unique opportunity to examine the impact of social, political and cultural factors on the development of science.
In perhaps no other country do external forces shape the face of research so visibly.
Whether through economic desiderata to increase industrial production, ideological pronouncements to create a new “proletarian” science, or political pressures imposed from above, fundamental research in the USSR has reflected the tenor of Soviet history.
The most important factor in the history of Soviet science was the imposition of Stalinist policies in the 1930s.
This led to the ideologization of science and the belief that socialist science existed as distinct from bourgeois science.
The ideologization of science imposed significant impediments to fundamental research which handicap the system to this day.
In a word, politics and ideology played a predominant role in the Soviet scientific enterprise.
The politics of Soviet science reflect the personalities and programs of Communist party leaders, from Lenin to Stalin, Khrushchev, Brezhnev, and Gorbachev.
The party brought scientists, like all other potentially autonomous groups, strictly under its control, centralized policy-making, infiltrated research institutes, and established ideological hegemony and international isolation.
In spite of divergences in science policy among Soviet leaders, several trends remain constant.
First, throughout Soviet history, party leaders, economic planners, and scientists alike have maintained their faith in modern science as a panacea for the social and economic problems facing their nation.
– From “Soviet Scientists and the State: Politics, Ideology and Fundamental Research from Stalin to Gorbachev” by Paul R. Josephson
Paul Plante says
Sorin, this thread on the “CLIMATE CRISIS,” as the pandering Democrats call it, is hardly silly, although you are certainly free to construe it as such.
And what is very tedious isn’t this thread per se – what is very tedious coming into this thread is all this HYPE and FEAR-MONGERING and MANIPULATION and EXPLOITATION of children by the Democrats to score points for their party in the 2020 presidential election.
What this thread has served to demonstrate is just how ignorant, uninformed, gullible and just plain stupid the American people have become when it comes to the world around them and its ever-changing climate, which is HIGH SCHOOL stuff.
Consider “Climate, History, and the Modern World,” Second Edition, by H.H. Lamb:
Serious anxieties have been aroused by respected scientists warning of dire perils that could result from upsets of the climatic regime.
end quotes
Respected scientists?
Respected by whom?
And why, Sorin, are scientists warning of dire perils from upsets of the climatic regime?
Besides to get their names into print and to get further grant money?
And it is those so-called “scientists,” and no, Sorin, I don’t respect someone just because they tout themselves as a “scientist,” who have made a mockery of the concept of science itself.
Getting back to “Climate, History, and the Modern World” by Lamb:
Serious anxieties have been aroused by respected scientists, acknowledged as experts in the field, warning of dire perils: that the next ice age may be now due to begin, and could come upon us very quickly, or that the side-effects of man’s activities and their ever-growing scale may soon tip the balance of world climate the other way and for a few centuries produce a climate warm enough to melt the Greenland and Antarctic ice-caps, raising the sea level and drowning most of the world’s great cities.
end quotes
I’m a combat veteran, Sorin, twice-wounded – I don’t do anxiety about the climate or weather, of which I personally have experienced many extremes, because some “respected scientist” tells me I should be scared of everything under the sun that might happen, and could happen, or maybe will happen somewhere at some time.
But those “respected scientists” have to spew “dire warnings” because that is how they get their funding for further research, as well as their pay checks.
Publish or Perish, Sorin, check it out, to wit:
“Publish or perish” is an alliterative aphorism describing the pressure to publish academic work in order to succeed in an academic career.
Successful publications bring attention to scholars and their sponsoring institutions, which can help continued funding and career.
In popular academic perception, scholars who publish infrequently, or who focus on activities that do not result in publications, such as instructing undergraduates, may lose ground in competition for available tenure-track positions.
The pressure to publish has been cited as a cause of poor work being submitted to academic journals.
end quotes
Spend some time focusing in on that last sentence there and the phrase “cause of poor work being submitted to academic journals.”
Getting back to “Climate, History, and the Modern World” by Lamb:
The idea of climatic change has at last taken on with the public, after generations which assumed that climate could be taken as constant.
end quote
The “public,” Sorin, are all those people you see out there with the crooked necks and bent arms staring at the palm of their hand, thinking that that is where reality is located, instead of over their head and all around them, and the public was quite stupid in believing that climate could be taken as constant, when we are taught in high school that climate is not constant, even if everybody in America wants it to be, and will throw temper tantrums, including holding the breath and turning blue and stamping their heels on the ground while screeching at the top of their lungs for the climate to stop changing, because they don’t like it to change.
And back to “Climate, History, and the Modern World” by Lamb, once again:
But it is easy to notice the common assumption that Man’s science and modern industry and technology are now so powerful that any change of climate or the environment must be due to us.
end quotes
And there we have it, Sorin – it has to be us, doesn’t it?
So then, what do we do about us?
Everybody drink some Jonestown Kool-Aid at the same time to save the earth from people?
Which takes us back to “Climate, History, and the Modern World” by Lamb as follows:
It is good for us to be more alert and responsible in our treatment of the environment, but not to have a distorted view of our own importance.
Above all, we need more knowledge, education and understanding in these matters.
Hubert Lamb Holt, Norfolk December 1994
end quotes
And Sorin, you were hardly “defeated” in here, because it never was about, “oh, let’s all gang up and get Sorin!”
If anything was defeated, Sorin, it was your ideas, and that is what democracy is all about, Sorin, getting all points of view on the table for consideration, including yours.
So, you weren’t defeated, at all.
Just not believed.