If you are interested in discussing political aspects of climate change (or climate catastrophism, if you prefer), here is a thread for that.
Some people mute the politics forums, can’t blame them really.
Just to follow up on the latest bit of climate catastrophism from the older thread:
My immediate questions at the end of the linked article were:
- So can we see these before-and-after pictures, then?
- what was the rate of retreat before it doubled?
It turns out Wikipedia has at least an approximate answer:
So … ok, is 2km in three decades a lot? Is 4km a lot? If it’s a lot, is it a problem? If it’s a problem, is it caused by “climate change”, and if so can we do anything about it? I have absolutely no idea, and I doubt anyone else does either.
There seem to be extremely strong parallels here with “COVID”, where TPTB assured us that the solution to a massively-inflated problem was a ruinously-expensive set of interventions that had never been tried before and had no obvious theoretical basis for utility. As Sweden amply demonstrated, the proper solution was to simply do what could be done, in ways we knew would work. They wasted less money and killed/harmed fewer people than nearly any other country.
Now, as then, we have a significant minority of the population calling for funds to be diverted away from mundane and useful things into some open-ended Great Leap Forward which is likely to shorten lives and immiserate millions. And as with the historical precedents, “Science™” is the grift that keeps on grifting.
3 Likes
I find there’s a movement towards increase in cost of living yet income grows much slower than the increase in cost of living.
Why would they divert money towards something that is useless?
I think the true purpose is to eliminate the middle class so that there will be strong, rich, and powerful minority who can rule over very poor people.
When you’re paying first world expenses to live in third world condition, that’s when they have won.
2 Likes
With the “ethics” eggheads now well onboard, the global warming disaster that is now upon us can surely be averted.
All we need is some good ole’ WW2 rationing 
“This paper argues that rationing has been neglected as a climate change mitigation policy option. Indeed, it may be that it is not merely neglected, but is considered by many to be an unpalatable option. Raj Patel has suggested that ‘rationing is about as acceptable a topic of conversation as hemorrhoids’ (Patel, quoted in (Cox, Citation2013, back cover)). In this paper, however, we argue that rationing could plausibly play an important role in an effective and fair means of reducing emissions and is therefore worthy of serious consideration.”
"One way to manage this scarcity would be to use forms of rationing very similar to the wartime rationing discussed in section 2.3. Indeed, many of the things that were rationed in wartime are – coincidentally – things that one might want to ration in response to climate change. For example, in Britain, two key items that were rationed were petrol and food. As a fossil fuel, the significance of petrol is obvious, and in recent years there has been greater recognition of the significance of GHG emissions coming from food – meat in particular (Cox, Citation2013; Hedenus et al., Citation2014; Mcmichael et al., Citation2007; Scarborough et al., Citation2014; Springmann et al., Citation2017). Similarly, clothing was rationed during the Second World War, and there is also an increasing awareness of the environmental impacts of ‘fast fashion’. And although it wasn’t implemented, the government did also consider rationing household energy and a detailed plan of how to do this was developed (Freear, Citation2015). And of course other goods could be rationed if deemed appropriate. Aviation, for example, could be rationed whether by number of flights a year or by air miles.
Therefore, in addition to stricter regulations on fossil fuels, regulation could also target other areas. For example carbon-intensive farming methods and factory-farmed livestock could be banned – which would clearly have impacts on food supplies.
As this approach focuses on specific goods (rather than allocating overall carbon allowances), this policy is unlikely to be implemented in isolation. For example, a tax-based approach could be used to reduce general consumption while specific targeted rations could be used (1) to rapidly reduce consumption of specific goods that are particularly problematic (e.g. petrol) and/or (2) to ensure that essential goods (e.g. particular foods) are available to all and distributed more equally than would be possible if rationed by price."
The future is looking good 
https://doi.org/10.1080/21550085.2023.2166342
They couldn’t get complete food rationing up and running using the “pandemic” as an excuse, but maybe climate change will finally be the thing where the masses will finally see complete totalitarianism as necessary and desirable.
This strikes me as an extremely tenuous hypothesis. The global temperature increases being suggested - if we allow for the moment that they are real - are tiny. Of the order of a degree or two. Vegetation does not spontaneously combust at 35’C, nor at 35’C+2’C. The reality is that the vast majority of forest fires are started either by humans (80-90%) or by lightning strikes. That has been the case since forever, and it has been known since forever (it’s completely bloody obvious, really). So if there are more fires, we need to start investigating what humans are doing to cause that.
The other claim in the article - that things get drier because it’s hotter - is overly simplistic. This cannot be the primary reason given the tiny temperature increases being discussed - yes, transpiration increases during hot weather, but in and of itself, that does not cause things to dessicate, because under ordinary circumstances the soil holds a great deal of water even throughout the dry season (if it didn’t, nothing would survive, and you’d eventually end up with desertification). Hot weather also tends to cause more rainfall. What’s most likely happening here are - again - human interventions that affect the hydrologic cycle, not “warming”.
1 Like
I wonder as you condescending attempt to try and explain the basics to me if in your alarmist tendency to point to a fire they suspect was started by arson and the dry conditions attributed to El Nino if you have considered the very real consequences that will impact millions (billions probably) of climate alarmisim?
We do have the recent Coronavirus crisis to use as a reference point. A crackdown on freedom of speech, fascist like dictates which defy common sense and which in retrospect many are agreeing they caused irreparable damage both in terms of financial security and in terms of humans health and well being including but especially notably children.
2 Likes
I am sorry, you are misunderstanding my tone and my approach.
I am also sorry that you are bringing such a hostile attitude and side references to COVID into this thread. Given the gravity of the situation in Chile (and in Maui, and in Canada, and elsewhere), this honestly makes me sad.
Guy
1 Like
I was posting about a fire in Chile. I was not thinking about any off-putting remarks Trudeau might have made.
These fires are friggen’ scary. Tinder-dry conditions mixed with dramatic winds lead to frightening outcomes. We should all be concerned about this situation.
Guy
1 Like
So is inflation which is impacting billions. The cause of which is in my opinion western governments attempts to implement green policies as they try to reduce their carbon footprint. Im not arguing they are right or wrong just getting real.
The connection between the Covid crisis and the global warming crisis is being noted everywhere, I think from your reply you find the prospect of global warming scary but haven’t considered the consequences of climate alarmisim.
Jonathon Turley was reflecting on the censorship angle we saw during Covid and he also ties in global warming at the end.
Ive been following the topic of censorship for decades, a threat to Western democracies that authoritarianism poses is more of a threat than global warming, certainly over the next few decades.
1 Like
Well OK. Now try factoring in the costs we’ll be bearing due to these fires, floods, sea level rise, never mind the drops in human productivity as temperatures continue to rise.
I also challenge you to link the notorious basket case economies (such as Argentina’s) which are hurt by inflation to a commitment to green policies. I don’t think such a link actually exists.
Meanwhile, people in Chile, and Maui, and Canada, and elsewhere will continue to pay the costs . . .
Guy
Ok, I found the link. I might sugest you take a moment to consider what he is saying.
Not that we haven’t figured out this is what they are doing and plan to do, he was just the only one stupid enough to say it out loud.
Anyway, Ive said my piece, you have a good day.
3 Likes
Does it not bother you one iota that the events you mention have no demonstrable link with “climate change”, but very real and obvious links with human activity (and, in some cases, just differences in the way things are measured)? Granted, that activity is often driven by cheap fossil fuels - such as inappropriate farming methods used in fragile ecosystems - but you seem far less interested in the potential for change, and heavily focused on spending money (which nobody has) on projects that will make things worse.
@Mick’s point about alarmism is a valid one. COVID was magnified into a global crisis by heavy-handed government activity (subsequently ruled unlawful in several countries, including Canada) and they seem to have been emboldened by the fact that they got away with it. It was an exciting time for them; they discovered that they are completely unfettered by any legal or moral constraints. Billions of people were harmed in material ways, with the perennial excuse “it’s because of COVID”. And now we have the same sort of nonsense happening all over again “because of climate change”.
This is not purely hypothetical - in Scotland, for example, building codes now prevent new houses from having gas heating installed, and in the UK they’re talking about just ripping out the gas network and shutting it down. At the same time, they’re discussing a fourfold expansion of the electricity grid to cope with the increase in demand for heating loads - which, since the UK is only about 15% nuclear and 15% “renewables”, will increase fossil fuel usage waaaay above what it was in the first place when people were using gas for heating (I hope you know enough physics to understand why). The government is also heavily promoting heat pumps … which drop to roughly COP=1 in cold weather.
Net result: a decrease in quality of life, increase in the cost of heating (and less of it, because nobody can afford it), and an increase in CO2 emissions. Exactly what is the point of that? Why should anybody support it?
The icing on the cake here is that the UK represents about 1-2% of global CO2 emissions. So even if any of this nonsense worked: what’s the point?
4 Likes
It certainly seems to be spreading. However, I don’t think there’s any need for global warming mass fretting just yet.
If we wear masks, stay indoors, maintain 6ft distance, and get all the recommended climate change shots, I’m sure we’ll all be fine.
The cause of wildfires in Chile remains unknown, but scientists say climate change and effects from El Niño made them unstoppable.
Quebec’s ice fishing businesses are among a growing number of seasonal industries across Canada and the U.S. affected by rising global temperatures. Unpredictable changes in weather are impacting the income brought by tourists and thus livelihoods in small towns in the region.
Is not really tiny. Maybe 1’C looks tiny but not really.
1 Like
It’s tiny in relation to (a) the temperature at which organic matter will spontaneously combust and (b) the typical seasonal or geographical temperature variations across the globe. Let us say, for example, that some US State is observing peak summer temperatures of 35’C, whereas before it rarely went about 32’C. Well, so what? There are plenty of places on the globe where 35’C is entirely normal. They are not (usually) plagued by annual infernos.
The bottom line is that the vast majority of forest fires are initiated by human activity; furthermore, most local changes in vegetation cover can be ascribed to local human activity, not nebulous changes in “the climate”. I notice @afterspivak has no interest in presenting any evidence to the contrary.
1 Like
Wildfires are either started by people, or by lightning.
Also wildfire believe it or not, is a part of nature. Some trees will only reproduce if there’s a wildfire.
2 Likes
This news is about as surprising as sunrise. It’s been clear that something like this has been going on, at least in the US.
Also fits hand in glove with other luxury beliefs that only the privileged can afford.
An analysis of funding initiatives led by some of America’s biggest private foundations shows several major left-of-center entities funding this training for climate journalists at Columbia University, Harvard University, and the University of Southern California. In addition, Britain’s prestigious Oxford University is involved in a similar endeavor across the Atlantic.
The news comes two years after the announcement by the Associated Press of its hiring of twenty climate journalists using $8 million in grants received from the same type of foundations to propel more climate journalism. After the infusion of funding, AP journalists appeared to forgo seeking comment from the fossil fuels industry on stories that affected them.
Secret Partnership Fueling Climate Hawk Journalism | RealClearPolitics
1 Like
The obsession with “renewables,” “green energy” and “climate change” coming with a cost:
1 Like
Climate Change Policy has always been about containing the threat posed by the Chinese Communist Party.
Specifically with the goal of achieving Cap & Trade framework to address China’s manufacturing overcapacity and beyond. It’s a long term framework for Trade moving forward - so after China, we can apply the same structure to India, or other nations over time.
I think politically they were too ambitious in thinking Trade Wars could be circumvented by establishing Climate Change Policy, as we see with the ongoing one we have now.