NASA Study Indicates Antarctica is Gaining More Ice Than It's Losing - (2 Viewers)

[Grumm]

I'm not sure you saw the tongue in my cheek EV's are so bad for the planet it is scary. Just because they don't blow noxious fumes as you drive through the city doesn't mean they're not burning coal or running on batteries that are not made from minerals mined by slaves in China or Africa.

Be aware !! No bad fumes true, but they are looking for extra taxes on the brakes.
It seems that the brake system of the EV's emits more fine particulate matter dust than regular cars. (Brake particulate matter)
And that stuff is by far more dangerous than plain CO2.

Toxic particles from brakes to be included in 'Euro 7' emission rules

Ultra-fine particles from brake pad abrasion will for the first time be covered under an EU regulation to curtail vehicles’ contribution to air pollution, a move aimed at reducing the high level of the toxic particles in urban areas.

www.euractiv.com

 

[Steve R.]

Once again some of the sanctimonious leaders who claim to want CO2 emissions reduced are demonstrating that they are hypocrites. They refuse to alter their habits to conform to the policies they seek to reduce carbon emissions. They are not "walking the walk".

FOUR HUNDRED private jets arrived in Egypt during COP27

Climate delegates were accused of hypocrisy after 400 private jets arrived in Egypt for COP27.

www.dailymail.co.uk

 

[Uncle Gizmo]

Peterson nails it again!

 

[Steve R.]

Peterson nails it again!

Peterson points out that people are looking for "easy moral virtue signalling". Very true. Two implications.

• No actual concrete solutions are implemented by those in charge since that would mean modifying your (those making the rules) behavior to comply. Compliance is only imposed on the powerless peons. (That's why the imposition of CO2 mandates is used as the faux crutch that "solves" (for the gullible) all environmental global warming concerns while ignoring all other degrading environmental effects.)
• So-called "solutions" are (force-fed) advertised to the public as "pain-free" and/or "zero cost". The reality is the proposed "solutions" will lower (for the peons) your standard of living. Peterson touches on this when he describes the imposition of "green" policies as condemning third world nations to be perpetually trapped in poverty and substandard living conditions.

 

[Uncle Gizmo]

CO2 mandates is used as the faux crutch that "solves" (for the gullible) all environmental global warming concerns

Nail - Head - Now lets see if the holier that thou crowd can compose a meaningful response....

 

[Steve R.]

Ran across this while looking for something else.

 

[Pat Hartman]

How can so many people be so shallow and incapable of recognizing the unintended consequences of their pollyannaish solutions?

Somehow all of their moral solutions that sound good on paper and which cannot be challenged lest they call you some kind of hater, end up hurting the poor the most. But I guess when you keep your head up your you know what, you don't have to look at the results unless they somehow get to you personally.

PS - watching the video I got a subliminal message about Trump being too dangerous to elect in 2024

 

[Steve R.]

How can so many people be so shallow and incapable of recognizing the unintended consequences of their pollyannaish solutions?

An unanswerable question. We apparently live in a world where people really have no historical perspective and/or understanding of the environmental, economic, and sociological consequences that the Earth is experiencing.

Without writing a treatise, which I should do someday; I'll repeat the inflection point made by Fredrick Jackson Turner that the frontier closed in 1893. Basically, the world (Earth) became "full". One of our problems today is a growing homeless population. In the "old" days, when the world was not "full", the homeless could simply be kicked into the nether-lands to take care of themselves. That realpolitik option can no longer be implemented today.

For millions of years, people were in a constant battle for survival. So people had to vigorously breed, not to also mention endless migrations to find new virgin territories to settle. That essentially came to a crashing halt by 1900. Nerveless, old habits die hard, even if obsolete.

Then there is science and technology. Since the late 1800s science and technology have exploded. This has given people the utopian perception that any problem can be solved. Unfortunately, gullible people have been blinded that claimed "climate change" can be solved by superb hucksters. (As one recent example of public gullibility, think of the collapse of FTX) They refuse to accept the premise that the "climate change" religion that they believe, results from population. Which also gets us back to the paragraph above that humans for millions of years were in a battle of survival so they refuse to accept that too many people can be a problem.

We are only a few generations away from the closing of the frontier. Society as a whole has yet to comprehend that we live in a "new" world.

 

[Pat Hartman]

The homeless problem was caused 40 years ago by one of the left's "do good" ideas with unintended consequences. At that time, most of the people who are now on the streets would have been living in one of the state hospitals all around the country. They housed the physically and mentally infirm and gave them treatment where possible. They also offered drug and alcohol rehab. But, ever the do-gooders, there was a feeling that these state hospitals were evil and people shouldn't be forced to live in this type of communal environment. I have some personal insight here since several close family members worked for the Norwich State Hospital so I visited on a number of occasions. My aunt managed the canteen which served the workers, the public, and the patients. My mother and her husband worked in food service and an uncle was a maintenance worker. Unless the patients were a danger to themselves or others, they were free to roam the grounds. There were also organized trips off campus (which was 70 acres) to visit downtown Norwich a couple of miles away. People went shopping and to the movies. They also had recreational areas on the grounds which were quite extensive such as a bowling alley and tennis courts. There were no fences so the place didn't look like a prison. There was nothing fancy about it but it was clean (at least what I saw of it) and generally presentable.

So, in the 70's the hospitals started closing. The people who were not a danger to anyone were just free to go. Except that they had no place to go. Whoops, unintended consequence No marketable job skills. And little ability to make their way in the world. Those people all ended up on the street unless they had family that could take them in and care for them. I'm not sure what the do gooders thought was going to happen to these lost souls. It turned out to be nothing good.

 

[Uncle Gizmo]

No climate crisis... It's a politically generated scam ...

The Increase in CO2 will benefit plants, and will create a modicum of warming...

 

[Steve R.]

Nolte: Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Climate Change Doc Opens to Humiliating $81 Per Screen

Did you know Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-Lunatic) has a new movie out? Don't feel bad. Neither did anyone else. Her Climate Change (which is a hoax) documentary grossed just $81 per screen. | Entertainment Did you know Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-Lunatic) has a new movie out? Don't...

www.breitbart.com

 

[Pat Hartman]

I just came across the video Uncle posted above and watched it. It was very informative so I came here to post it myself and found that Uncle beat me to it. I've watched dozens of "climate change" videos mostly warning of impending doom. The problem with them is they come with few facts except that the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is increasing and something must be done to stop it or the world will end in 10 years. They insist that humans are the cause of the CO2 increase and therefore we must stop the activity that is causing the increase.

OK, humans are adding more CO2 than we used to but Connecticut has more acres of tree coverage than it did 200 years ago when we grew our own food and burned wood for heat. Now we have a lot of stone walls weaving through all the forested land that used to grow crops. The stones were a remnant of the last ice age and when the farmers cleared the fields they needed to do something with the rocks. They couldn't eat them. They couldn't burn them so they built walls. Walls everywhere. People don't even think about why they keep finding stone walls as they walk through the woods. I guess they must think that the walls formed naturally.

This video was filled with facts. I really like the presenter's data based conclusions. And I agree. If the climate models can't go back and analyze the data he and others have collected over the past 40 years and come up with a model that can predict what the year 2000 would look like, then how can we trust that the models are accurate? The answer is we can't so the best we can do is work on clearing up our pollution. The climate models are so far off that it's like the COVID model that said it would have a mortality rate of 10% which then sent the world into a tizzy and almost destroyed our economy. Turns out that the mortality rate was approximately that of a seasonal flu and so around .2%. So the model predicted 50 times the death rate that materialized. Did anyone apologize for destroying lives and businesses?

In the last 40 years America has done an amazing job of cleaning up our environment. Even as a child, I remember seeing debris in the gutters and it always bothered me. I remember crying when I went to DC in 1971 and found that the Tidal Basin was a sickly green goop and the Reflecting Pool was filled with bottles and paper dropped by visitors. Now, you can swim in the Hudson. In 1971, you could have walked across it on the garbage from NY to NJ. Our streets are no longer littered with gum wrappers and other debris that people used to just drop as they walked along. We are burning less coal and more gas in our power plants. Natural gas used to be just burned off instead of being captured. So we've been burning it since we started drilling for oil, but now we are doing something other than just wasting it. Apparently burning it to produce electricity is a problem but burning it because it is a nuisance was not a problem. Just take a night flight over the middle east or parts of Texas and the Dakotas. All the light is fires on oil wells where we are not capturing the Natural gas as it escapes. Why are we not capturing every bit of that natural gas? Why are we no longer building nuclear plants? Yes, the waste is a problem but they were the cheapest, cleanest way (except for hydro) we have to produce electricity.

 

[ColinEssex]

Why is the USA the world's 2nd worst polluter per capita if you seem to think its doing so well?
Col

 

[Pat Hartman]

1. Where are you getting your numbers?
2. What type of pollution are you talking about?
3. We have reduced our carbon emissions more than what was specified by the Paris Accords even while Trump took us out of them.
4. The US is the third largest country in the world and China and India produce far more pollution than we do.

 

[ColinEssex]

1) climatetrade.com
2) CO2
3) not enough though, USA still second to China, India is third.
4) if you say so, but you're wrong.


Col

 

[Pat Hartman]

1) You might want to use sources without an agenda.
2) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions --- sort the list descending by emissions per capita. We're 21st and improving. If we counted the 40 million illegal immigrants living here, we'd improve dramatically but on the other hand, if we counted these criminals, we'd have to admit they're here.
3) China seems to be building new coal fired power plants at an alarming rate so I doubt that they are reducing their emissions unless we just don't count coal plants. I'm pretty sure you can't actually breathe in Beijing for most of the year and that's why the Chinese started wearing masks initially. The skies over LA are no longer a sickly green from auto emission pollution.
4) I wasn't talking land mass, in that measure we are 4th. I was talking population.

 

[ColinEssex]

Amazing what stats people can manipulate depending on what site you look at. I was expecting you to disagree,
I'm sure if I was interested enough I could find a site to disagree with yours. But I'm not the slightest bit interested in pollution or non pollution. I've got better things to worry about, I won't be here in 5 years or so, so I'll leave it to the do-gooders.

Col

 

[Uncle Gizmo]

Big oil is actively scuppering attempts to reduce CO2 emissions...

 

[Steve R.]

Following-up on the topic of CO2 emissions. This morning Fox News was endlessly reporting on the number of illegal immigrants entering the US illegally. One of the topics discussed was moving the illegals from the border areas to the interior (planes, trains, and automobiles). Well, moving people generates (additional and unnecessary) CO2 emissions!!!!! Also consider that each illegal immigrant will be needing energy derived from hydrocarbons to keep warm and to cook food. So were are are the rabid members of the "climate change" crowd demanding that this CO2 generating activity be stopped?

Associated with "climate change", each illegal immigrant is moving from a low carbon footprint environment in their homeland to a high carbon footprint environment in the US. This means that each illegal immigrant will be generating more CO2 emissions. Those who are concerned about the claimed adverse impacts of CO2 emissions on "climate change" should be demanding that the influx of illegal immigrants be stopped.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

@Steve R., this also underscores that the anti-pollution crowd sees only part of the issue. We got this way because people need to eat, to work, to have a place to live, etc., and those things EACH involve energy expenditure to some variable degree. The REAL source of climate change is the Earth's population. Fewer people means lesser energy expenditure because it will take less arable land to feed everyone, less fuel to use farm equipment on the smaller fields that would be needed... it cascades with every human activity. If people are going to live, they WILL have some kind of energy footprint no matter how much we try to limit it.

Greenhouse gases? Immaterial - because they are a derivative of the real problem... too many people.