EV Movement, Plastic Bag Bans, etc. - Is Motive Really Environment or Control? (solar, recycling)

[jbg]

Wrong. Slowing climate change is FAR from minuscule.

I'm not concerned about an arbitrary deadline but with rapid progress which is being made:

By 2026, global renewable electricity capacity is forecast to rise more than 60% from 2020 levels to over 4 800 GW – equivalent to the current total global power capacity of fossil fuels and nuclear combined. Renewables are set to account for almost 95% of the increase in global power capacity through 2026, with solar PV alone providing more than half. The amount of renewable capacity added over the period of 2021 to 2026 is expected to be 50% higher than from 2015 to 2020.

Are we ever going to know whether this costly plunge into renewables made a difference? Do you really think we are not going to have heat waves, cold waves, droughts, polar vortexes, hurricanes and whatever de jure disasters occur now? When we do are the "leaders" just going to panhandle for a bigger "green fund"? Bet on it. And do you really trust the "leaders" of the Central African Republic or Malaysia to spend "climate adjustment subsidies" the way they should? Monitor their Swiss bank account balances.

The Ukraine war and the need to crush Russia economically is behind the problem Europe has.

Believe me, Russia is still getting plenty of money. The Nazis got plenty of money till the end. Esso (now Exxon) still did plenty of business with IG Farben, while the plebes were collecting and donating tin for victory. See BI0931-1944 WWII Tin Cans For Victory Ad.

I don't know where you're getting the lies you repeat here but the data was published which showed hospitals being overwhelmed. Restrictions were needed until COVID evolved to be less lethal, enough masks were available as well as vaccines.

Restrictions were eased starting in June 2020 in virtually all states when people's patience began to wear thin. The first vaccinations started in December 2020 and the vaccination centers were overwhelmed. When my age band became eligible in March 2021 my wife and I spent hours on the state website to get an appointment. I waited about two hours on March 2, 2021 at the Jacob Javits Convention Center, and later that day the lines swelled to over five hours. As for masks do you really think those dehumanizing, silly pieces of blue paper did anything? If you do I've got a bridge to sell you.

You have most of your science wrong. First off they did flatten the curve. We never had an outbreak as bad as Italy and Spain had at the onset of the disease, except for perhaps in New York City where the population density is so high that it is very hard to prevent a rapid spread. And your date may be correct. But by then we had a supply of masks. Counter measures were in place.

I'll repeat what I said above; do you really think those dehumanizing, silly pieces of blue paper did anything? If you do I've got a bridge to sell you. The outbreak was never really bad except in areas where the hospitals don't function in the best of times.

I don't know this for sure but I could swear I had what was then called novel coronavirus in mid-February 2020. I felt sick as a dog, and closed my office doors a few times each day for about three days to nap. That is not like me. For about a month thereafter I had a real foul smell in my nose. Recently I told my doctor about this, and he said "you're lucky to be alive." Never during this period did I feel my life was in jeopardy, and I have felt sicker on other occasions. I think a lot has to do with your resistance and overall state of health.

And yes, a lot of recycling does not go where it is supposed to. But to make recycling centers work there first needs to be a large and steady supply. In other words we kneed to learn how to recycle first. And I do not see how ten minutes of sorting garbage a week is "draconian"".

We've been recycling for 30 years+ and nothing has changed.

As to EV's the choice is either EV's or no V's. Like it or not AGW is real and a serious threat. Will the results of AGW occur overnight? No. It is much more like the old tale of a frog in a pot of water on a stove. By the time the frog notices it it is too late. (guess what? In reality even frogs are not that dumb).

The problem is that all the things that warming alarmists are pointing to have occurred before. In spades. Are you familiar with the Dust Bowl and a similar heat wave in July 1936 affecting the U.S. Upper Midwest and Northeast? Or of the unnamed 1821 hurricane that joined NYC's East and Hudson Rivers to Canal Street. Or the unnamed hurricane that destroyed St. Croix, gifting the then-colonies with Alexander Hamilton? Or the Year Without Summer, either 1816 or 1817? Weather events have been devastating inhabited areas back to Biblical times. "Sea level rise" is particularly comic. I forget whether it was the leader of the Marshall Islands or Tonga that wanted money to compensate for that. One would think that a Pacific atoll would be sundered and would need money to relocate, not for Swiss bank accounts.

And not all lithium comes from mines. A good percentage of it comes from salt deserts. Water is pumped out of underground lakes and then dried and the minerals are then refined:

Lithium mining: What you should know about the contentious issue.

It is a problem, but one has to look at the big picture. Coal mining is even worse. More mountains have been knocked down for coal than just about anything else. And that leaves a huge pollution problem on land and of course adds to the CO2 in the atmosphere. EV's are not perfect. No one claimed that they are. They are far better than what we are currently using.

I read the article about lithium and it sounds pretty grim. And coal burning is a lot cleaner than it once was.

 

[jbg]

Where to begin? You mixed a lot of things in there which aren't as much related as you think they are.

First of which is the difference between what a person can do and what a government does. People buy EVs because they personally either want to do something about climate change or want to look like they care. (And some are just interested in the superior performance of an electric motor.)

Many of them are, what you call "childlike". They want to do something. Usually something not too drastically. Something that still conforms to their affluent lifestyle. And EVs are just that, something that helps a bit but isn't a radical change.
And they wouldn't have to change their political stance either. You can be, and stay, a conservative and own an EV.

Quite true but rare. The problem with EV's is distance. I can see a situation perhaps development where families like mine own one EV and on ICE car, and take the ICE on long trips. We live near White Plains, New York. Maybe the ICE for our regular trips to Eastern Long Island, Vermont and Albany and the EV for my 3-4 mile commute to work? The problem with long trips is that even on the New York State Thruway about half the rest areas are closed for rebuilding and will be, on a rolling basis, for about four years.

Governments have to make other decisions but they basically end up doing the same things, little measures with minimal effort and maximal acclaim, without looking for maximal climate effect.

Once the climate effects really start to hurt, government will have to take more drastic measures. There is the idea that we will get "green" dictatorships which will reduce environmental impact with the most effective measures like mandatory birth control, very high carbon taxes, maxed out restriction on everything environmentally active.

I think many in government would like to get a "green dictatorship" but there's always a skunk at the garden party like Reagan (deregulated petroleum, bringing prices down and ending artificial shortages) or Donald Trump (who pulled out of Paris, but has a whole flock of problems of his own).

 

[jbg]

I think that you have swallowed one flavor of propaganda while the guy driving a Tesla using reusable bags and metal straws has swallowed another flavor. Is there an alternative though? What would you suggest?

Yes, doing exactly what we are doing now. It works!

What European disastrous winter is that? Can you explain in more detail?

(To me, it looks as if the "disastrous winter" seems to be the extreme climate event going on in N. America.)

Europe is running the risk of being without Russian gas, a combination of a pipeline rupture and supply cuts/boycotts. Are you really saying that the U.S. is without epic winter weather? I can point to the Children's Blizzard of January 12, 1888, see Blizzard brings tragedy to Northwest Plains, the March blizzard of New York City (same year),the Cold Wave of 1917-8 affecting the Eastern two-thirds of the country, the Valley Forge Winter, among others.

 

[Curious George]

Yes, doing exactly what we are doing now. It works!

What are we doing now? EVs, plastic bans etc? I thought that your point was that it didn’t work?

 

[Revoltingest]

The problem with EV's is distance. I can see a situation perhaps development where families like mine own one EV and on ICE car, and take the ICE on long trips.

A hybrid can do both.
At this stage of technology & infrastructure,
it's the clear winner for versatility & efficiency.
If I needed a new car, that's how I'd go.
Alas, much life left in my stable of vehicles.

BTW, hybrid power would be great for snowplow
trucks doing parking lots. There's a high demand
for DC electricity operating the plow. It's rough on
ordinary batteries, which just aren't quite big enuf.

 

[jbg]

A hybrid can do both.
At this stage of technology & infrastructure,
it's the clear winner for versatility & efficiency.
If I needed a new car, that's how I'd go.
Alas, much life left in my stable of vehicles.

BTW, hybrid power would be great for snowplow
trucks doing parking lots. There's a high demand
for DC electricity operating the plow. It's rough on
ordinary batteries, which just aren't quite big enuf.

The problem is affordability unless "leaders" want driving to be a privilege that the plebes cannot afford.

 

[Revoltingest]

The problem is affordability unless "leaders" want driving to be a privilege that the plebes cannot afford.

Hybrids are spendier than cheap IC engine cars,
but still largely affordable. And the capital cost
is mitigated by better fuel economy.
Global warming & air quality will mean some
cost paid to address them. That's life.

 

[exchemist]

Yes, doing exactly what we are doing now. It works!
Europe is running the risk of being without Russian gas, a combination of a pipeline rupture and supply cuts/boycotts. Are you really saying that the U.S. is without epic winter weather? I can point to the Children's Blizzard of January 12, 1888, see Blizzard brings tragedy to Northwest Plains, the March blizzard of New York City (same year),the Cold Wave of 1917-8 affecting the Eastern two-thirds of the country, the Valley Forge Winter, among others.

I'm having difficulty following your argument. Europe's gas storage is almost full and its reliance on gas is being progressively reduced by its programme of investment in renewable energy. That will be accelerated, precisely to lessen dependence on fossil fuels that come from geopolitically unreliable sources. Where is the disastrous winter in Europe?

As for the current winter in N America , which really is disastrous (50 dead and rising, isn't it?), the frequency of extreme weather events around the world is increasing. This winter event just the latest example, but this year alone we have had fires in the US, floods, drought and record high temperatures in Europe, Australia and elsewhere, etc., all of which are consistent with the predictions of anthropogenic climate change modelling.

 

[jbg]

Hybrids are spendier than cheap IC engine cars, but still largely affordable. And the capital cost is mitigated by better fuel economy. Global warming & air quality will mean some cost paid to address them. That's life.

Sounds more like a solution in search of a problem.

 

[Revoltingest]

As for the current winter in N America , which really is disastrous (50 dead and rising, isn't it?), the frequency of extreme weather events around the world is increasing. This winter event just the latest example, but this year alone we have had fires in the US, floods, drought and record high temperatures in Europe, Australia and elsewhere, etc., all of which are consistent with the predictions of anthropogenic climate change modelling.

Your disasters are even worse than ours.
You currently have 1 country invading another,
with massive death & destruction.
Europe....you guys have huge wars every few
decades. And it's always up to us to send materiel
there for the ill equipped good guys.

You're welcome.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I'll repeat what I said above; do you really think those dehumanizing, silly pieces of blue paper did anything? If you do I've got a bridge to sell you. The outbreak was never really bad except in areas where the hospitals don't function in the best of times.

I see. We have a science denier here. Yes, the masks did what they were supposed to do. That can be shown. The problem is that you probably did not listen. You definitely did not understand. Yes, they worked. They lowered the rate of transmission. That has been verified more than once. Did you expect perfection?

I don't know this for sure but I could swear I had what was then called novel coronavirus in mid-February 2020. I felt sick as a dog, and closed my office doors a few times each day for about three days to nap. That is not like me. For about a month thereafter I had a real foul smell in my nose. Recently I told my doctor about this, and he said "you're lucky to be alive." Never during this period did I feel my life was in jeopardy, and I have felt sicker on other occasions. I think a lot has to do with your resistance and overall state of health.

Yes, one's overall health is a major factor. I was working at a place that was Covid19 positive before vaccines came out. A coworker and I both got it about the same time. Probably from someone in the building. I too was just very very cold and sore for about three days. She went to the hospital. She did not go home. At our age the death rate was probably not much higher than that of younger people. So he may have overestimated your personal risk.

We've been recycling for 30 years+ and nothing has changed.

So what? You still can't spend less than ten minutes a week? And the amount of recycling has varied. When China first opened to international trade their labor rate was incredibly low. They did recycling there then. Since their old method of high labor recycling is not longer economical. We will get there again.

The problem is that all the things that warming alarmists are pointing to have occurred before. In spades. Are you familiar with the Dust Bowl and a similar heat wave in July 1936 affecting the U.S. Upper Midwest and Northeast? Or of the unnamed 1821 hurricane that joined NYC's East and Hudson Rivers to Canad Street. Or the unnamed hurricane that destroyed St. Croix, gifting the then-colonies with Alexander Hamilton? Or the Year Without Summer, either 1816 or 1817? Weather events have been devastating inhabited areas back to Biblical times. "Sea level rise" is particularly comic. I forget whether it was the leader of the Marshall Islands or Tonga that wanted money to compensate for that. One would think that a Pacific atoll would be sundered and would need money to relocate, not for Swiss bank accounts.

First off, you need to change your language. Yes, there are some alarmists. There always are. Listen to the scientists and what they say. Second you sank your own argument. Yes, there were events like that in the past. Did you not notice something about the two examples that you cited? They were both local. Local is weather. Global is all around the globe. And the worst effects are far ahead. You will not see significant global warming in the future. Your kids might. Your grandchildren definitely will. Do you ever plan for the future? Do you have a retirement account or two? Or do you just pretend that you will never get old? AGW is planning for the future. If you love your grandkids you will try to slow it down.

I read the article about lithium and it sounds pretty grim. And coal burning is a lot cleaner than it once was.

There are problems with it. But if you think that coal mining is cleaner than it was in the past you are sadly mistaken. It is highly polluting. Lithium i snot like coal. It is recyclable and it is economic to recycle it. Compare the concentration of lithium in a battery to the ore that it comes from and it is rather obvious that it makes more sense to go after the more readily available source. And there will be new technology. Another problem is peak oil. We are already in it. At this point we are well into the aera of diminishing returns. The end of oil is not in our lifetimes, but it is coming sooner than people realize. Luckily renewable energy sources are growing quickly. We will not need some miracle of technology to save us. Wind and solar will be enough. And they are taking over due to economics. The cheapest source of electricity right now is solar. The problem is building enough plants in appropriate areas. Wind is close behind. We should be able to meet goals to replace coal as a power source at least.

 

[jbg]

I'm having difficulty following your argument. Europe's gas storage is almost full and its reliance on gas is being progressively reduced by its programme of investment in renewable energy. That will be accelerated, precisely to lessen dependence on fossil fuels that come from geopolitically unreliable sources. Where is the disastrous winter in Europe?

Europe's natural gas storage is almost full because of their buying spree during the summer. Renewable energy is fin for mild weather. Extreme weather such as Britain and much of Europe experienced early this month; not so much.

As for the current winter in N America , which really is disastrous (50 dead and rising, isn't it?), the frequency of extreme weather events around the world is increasing. This winter event just the latest example, but this year alone we have had fires in the US, floods, drought and record high temperatures in Europe, Australia and elsewhere, etc., all of which are consistent with the predictions of anthropogenic climate change modelling.

And all of which are consistent with ENSO events, a/k/a El Niño and La Niña.All of these have been happening for centuries, certainly since Spanish fishermen off the Peruvian coast found their catch of anchovies declining around Christmas. That was where El Niño got its name. Its opposite, La Niña, is of more recent vintage as, well, its opposite.

 

[exchemist]

Europe's natural gas storage is almost full because of their buying spree during the summer. Renewable energy is fin for mild weather. Extreme weather such as Britain and much of Europe experienced early this month; not so much.

And all of which are consistent with ENSO events, a/k/a El Niño and La Niña.All of these have been happening for centuries, certainly since Spanish fishermen off the Peruvian coast found their catch of anchovies declining around Christmas. That was where El Niño got its name. Its opposite, La Niña, is of more recent vintage as, well, its opposite.

Yes, that is one mechanism for some of these weather patterns. However these events are becoming both more frequent and more intense. Attributing them to El Niño or La Niña does not account for that.

As for recent European weather, it's true that when one has dunkelflaute conditions, one can't rely on solar or wind generation, so one has to use nuclear, hydro or fossil fuel instead. However using gas during such periods is strictly temporary and so does not use anything like the same amount of gas as relying on gas-fired generation all the time. To suggest renewable powergen is useless because it needs to be intermittently supplemented is not an attitude that makes much sense.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Plebs. Short for pleb

Yes, that is one mechanism for some of these weather patterns. However these events are becoming both more frequent and more intense. Attributing them to El Niño or La Niña does not account for that.

As for recent European weather, it's true that when one has dunkelflaute conditions, one can't rely on solar or wind generation, so one has to use nuclear, hydro or fossil fuel instead. However using gas during such periods is strictly temporary and so does not use anything like the same amount of gas as relying on gas-fired generation all the time. To suggest renewable powergen is useless because it needs to be intermittently supplemented is not an attitude that makes much sense.

I have found that many science deniers rely on black and white fallacies quite often. When it came to the pandemic they used that for masks, social distancing, vaccinations, you name it. If it did not work all of the time, it did not work. The same applies to AGW. If it cools down for a few days it is fake. If there were hot areas in the past it is fake. Get past that attitude and one can make some success.

 

[exchemist]

I have found that many science deniers rely on black and white fallacies quite often. When it came to the pandemic they used that for masks, social distancing, vaccinations, you name it. If it did not work all of the time, it did not work. The same applies to AGW. If it cools down for a few days it is fake. If there were hot areas in the past it is fake. Get past that attitude and one can make some success.

Yes. It's a way of making a superficial rebuttal that doesn't stand close examination. But it's good enough for a bit of cheap self-delusion, which is all that's needed, as the denier starts from the comforting conclusion he wants and works back from there to find a justification that's good enough for the like-minded Trumpy guys propping up the bar.

 

[wellwisher]

The problem is we; humans, have never experienced manmade climate change before, to know 100%, if this is real or partly imaginary due to its unique novelty. The earth has done natural climate change plenty of times all by itself. We know this is possible, since we have nearly a billion years of examples. The earth has been much hotter than today many times. The manmade claim is like one half done prototype, that is not ever over, to know what the full cycle does. This is why the predictions are doom and gloom but without any accuracy. Fear can make you stupid which appear to be the goal to cover for soft science.

Relative to natural climate change, we are still warming from the last ice age. That glacial cycle began about 100,000 year ago and ended about 25,000 years ago. The natural warming from 25,000 year ago onward had already caused the glaciers to recede several thousand miles, before the manmade crowd decided it wanted to claim full credit. How did nature do the first 2 thousand miles of glaciers, and are these processes still happening? This is important to know!

The climate change propaganda crowd successfully avoided the scientific critiquing process of falsification, by making scientific criticism taboo; deniers can be censored. They do not wish too much scrutiny because it is not real science until a falsification step fails. Does avoiding the falsification step mean the same thing in science as a valid falsification effort that fails? Or is the former cheating the rules of science?

This entire claim is also run by the political left, who the Twitter files shows likes to stack the deck and censor effective opposing views; falsification. I am not convinced until there is a welcome falsification effort. Censoring the falsification step is a tell.

What would happen if the boneheads, who promote this science circus, make changes to the world energy supplies and community, and we find out this is not helping, because the natural cycle has a different goal in mind? When it is time to mobilize, we prepared for a fantasy and are not ready for natural reality.

This year. like the past x number of years, the doom and gloom crowd expected a bad hurricane season in the Atlantic, but it was less than normal. This is credited to the La Nina, which is creating natural climate change that is overcoming the expectations from the manmade claims. I would spilt the manmade climate change budget and give half to natural climate change, since that appears to be leading.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The problem is we; humans, have never experienced manmade climate change before, to know 100%, if this is real or partly imaginary due to its unique novelty. The earth has done natural climate change plenty of times all by itself. We know this is possible, since we have nearly a billion years of examples. The earth has been much hotter than today many times. The manmade claim is like one half done prototype, that is not ever over, to know what the full cycle does. This is why the predictions are doom and gloom but without any accuracy. Fear can make you stupid which appear to be the goal to cover for soft science.

Relative to natural climate change, we are still warming from the last ice age. That glacial cycle began about 100,000 year ago and ended about 25,000 years ago. The natural warming from 25,000 year ago onward had already caused the glaciers to recede several thousand miles, before the manmade crowd decided it wanted to claim full credit. How did nature do the first 2 thousand miles of glaciers, and are these processes still happening? This is important to know!

The climate change propaganda crowd successfully avoided the scientific critiquing process of falsification, by making scientific criticism taboo; deniers can be censored. They do not wish too much scrutiny because it is not real science until a falsification step fails. Does avoiding the falsification step mean the same thing in science as a valid falsification effort that fails? Or is the former cheating the rules of science?

This entire claim is also run by the political left, who the Twitter files shows likes to stack the deck and censor effective opposing views; falsification. I am not convinced until there is a welcome falsification effort. Censoring the falsification step is a tell.

What would happen if the boneheads, who promote this science circus, make changes to the world energy supplies and community, and we find out this is not helping, because the natural cycle has a different goal in mind? When it is time to mobilize, we prepared for a fantasy and are not ready for natural reality.

This year. like the past x number of years, the doom and gloom crowd expected a bad hurricane season in the Atlantic, but it was less than normal. This is credited to the La Nina, which is creating natural climate change that is overcoming the expectations from the manmade claims. I would spilt the manmade climate change budget and give half to natural climate change, since that appears to be leading.

Sorry, but we have already warmed the climate. It can be observed. It can be measured. The cause of it can be observed and measured. The basic science is not that hard to understand. But sadly most people do not understand the Greenhouse Effect. Something that we rely on quite heavily to keep the climate livable .

 

[jbg]

Yes, that is one mechanism for some of these weather patterns. However these events are becoming both more frequent and more intense. Attributing them to El Niño or La Niña does not account for that.

As for recent European weather, it's true that when one has dunkelflaute conditions, one can't rely on solar or wind generation, so one has to use nuclear, hydro or fossil fuel instead. However using gas during such periods is strictly temporary and so does not use anything like the same amount of gas as relying on gas-fired generation all the time. To suggest renewable powergen is useless because it needs to be intermittently supplemented is not an attitude that makes much sense.

The problem is that the "supplementation" has to be kept on line. Its system carries its own overhead and expenses. And, how do we know these "episodes" are becoming more frequent and more intense? Very few states or cities have set new high temperature records since July 8-10, 1936, when NYC it 106°, Troy it 108°, and just about every city and state east of the Rockies and north of the Mason-Dixon line set records. Have we topped the hurricane that gave us Alexander Hamilton, that joined the East and Hudson Rivers in NYC or the Dust Bowl heat?

Basically this is made up from hole cloth and us lemmings are going along with it. No different from Bernie Madoff's and Sam Bankman-Fried's "investors." As Paul McCartney said: "Will you walk away from a fool and his money?"

 

[Subduction Zone]

The problem is that the "supplementation" has to be kept on line. Its system carries its own overhead and expenses. And, how do we know these "episodes" are becoming more frequent and more intense? Very few states or cities have set new high temperature records since July 8-10, 1936, when NYC it 106°, Troy it 108°, and just about every city and state east of the Rockies and north of the Mason-Dixon line set records. Have we topped the hurricane that gave us Alexander Hamilton, that joined the East and Hudson Rivers in NYC or the Dust Bowl heat?

Basically this is made up from hole cloth and us lemmings are going along with it. No different from Bernie Madoff's and Sam Bankman-Fried's "investors." As Paul McCartney said: "Will you walk away from a fool and his money?"

One can always cherry pick some record highs that have not been beaten, but what one has to look at is the overall pattern. The number of new record highs every year is greater than the new number of record lows. And when it comes to new highs it is pretty hard to beat some of the more recent ones:

More than 400 weather stations beat heat records in 2021

2021 had over 400 new record high temperatures ever. It also had the highest temperature that was ever recorded reliably. 129.9 F in Death Valley.

The information is out there. There are various ways of measuring temperature and they all agree that it is rising, and rising quickly. Some try to blame the Sun but the Sun's output is easily measured too. From space one can do it without having worry about climate. The Sun is at a low right now, not a high. So the Sun is not the source.

Do you understand the Greenhouse effect at all? Do you know why and how he atmosphere keeps us warmer/

 

[jbg]

The problem is we; humans, have never experienced manmade climate change before, to know 100%, if this is real or partly imaginary due to its unique novelty. The earth has done natural climate change plenty of times all by itself. We know this is possible, since we have nearly a billion years of examples. The earth has been much hotter than today many times. The manmade claim is like one half done prototype, that is not ever over, to know what the full cycle does. This is why the predictions are doom and gloom but without any accuracy. Fear can make you stupid which appear to be the goal to cover for soft science.

I am new here but you will see me use the term "fear porn" a lot. Contrary to predictions 20 years ago, New York City is not underwater. We are not having more 90°F or above days. In 1991 and 1993 we cracked, by one or two days to 1944 summer record. Contrary to Al Gore's predictions snow has not become a rare event, albeit last winter it was.

Relative to natural climate change, we are still warming from the last ice age. That glacial cycle began about 100,000 year ago and ended about 25,000 years ago. The natural warming from 25,000 year ago onward had already caused the glaciers to recede several thousand miles, before the manmade crowd decided it wanted to claim full credit. How did nature do the first 2 thousand miles of glaciers, and are these processes still happening? This is important to know!

Even within the last 1000 years we went through the Medieval Optimum, followed by the Maunder Minimum and a bunch of Little Ice Ages.

The climate change propaganda crowd successfully avoided the scientific critiquing process of falsification, by making scientific criticism taboo; deniers can be censored. They do not wish too much scrutiny because it is not real science until a falsification step fails. Does avoiding the falsification step mean the same thing in science as a valid falsification effort that fails? Or is the former cheating the rules of science?

This entire claim is also run by the political left, who the Twitter files shows likes to stack the deck and censor effective opposing views; falsification. I am not convinced until there is a welcome falsification effort. Censoring the falsification step is a tell.

This is bullying and shaming, far worse than the marginalization of their latest darlings, LBGTQ+. Some personal disclosure, though; I consider myself a cisgender male Black Lab.

What would happen if the boneheads, who promote this science circus, make changes to the world energy supplies and community, and we find out this is not helping, because the natural cycle has a different goal in mind? When it is time to mobilize, we prepared for a fantasy and are not ready for natural reality.

Either they'll double down, or lose all credibility.

This year. like the past x number of years, the doom and gloom crowd expected a bad hurricane season in the Atlantic, but it was less than normal. This is credited to the La Nina, which is creating natural climate change that is overcoming the expectations from the manmade claims. I would spilt the manmade climate change budget and give half to natural climate change, since that appears to be leading.

Be careful, seriously. La Niña worsens hurricane seasons. The strong subtropical jets of El Niño prevents the vertical formation of hurricanes, basically decapitating them. One or two do sneak through though; even in 1992, Andrew, caused a lot of damage. Both were Niño years but as you can tell from their alphabet position, there were few hurricanes those summers. Agnes formed in 1972, a Niño year, but that storm had many subtropical characteristics. High numbers of storms, with names starting after letter "Z" were in near-Niña 2005 and Niña 2021.