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.
2 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