Sorry if this comes off as political but something I have noticed for a while now among articles like this covering Republicans and Trump and the fossil fuel companies, across all sorts of climate newsletters or sites, is the Inflation Reduction Act missing from the discussion, and how Republicans and fossil fuel companies wanting that repealed. And more generally a lack of coverage in general from climate oriented outlets.
I think when polling shows 7 in 10 Americans know little or nothing about the IRA, that is a problem both for getting its benefits to people and what it means politically. I will lose my mind if Trump wins, and all that negatively means for the climate, in part because of people not knowing about the IRA, which I think would be a collective failure, including from me.
To be clear, I'm not asking for reporters to become Biden cheerleaders, just, idk, more proactive on the specific topic of the IRA.
Don't want to take anything away from this piece, and I'm not being critical of your journalism. I'm grateful for this great reporting on these people, and the obvious imo quid pro quo going on between Trump and fossil fuel execs! Just more concern and curiosity if you in your discussions with other climate journalists, feel there is a hesitation (maybe not the right word) in discussing the IRA? Curious on your thoughts if you want to share!
And as anyone with half a brain knows by now, if the U.S. economy collapses, these same steak eaters will take their companies elsewhere and find another country to steal from. They don't care about anything other than themselves and that is what will kill off the rest of us eventually.
I believe if we tie this with how Trump also said he's going to roll back all gun regulations at an NRA event recently it's a double handed punch. Here's how Dan Pfeiffer framed that up:
The NRA speech was a suck-up to the gun industry, a major funder of Republican causes. At one point, Trump promised, “In my second term, we will roll back every Biden attack on the Second Amendment.”
This is a huge deal with deadly consequences. Trump went to the NRA event to accept his flowers from the gun lobbyists, but he ended up giving Democrats a political gift — the only question is: will we take it?
Every one of them (Biden,Trump,RFK Jr., Stein and West) is sucking up to their targeted audience. We could have the election now and all the campaign money would feed the hungry or support child care instead of propaganda adds.
Chopped liver is what they have in mind for the climate activist and alarmists to be at what they hope can be the last supper on stopping the NetZero journey to oblivion.
Here are the emerging facts…
Awareness is growing from scientists that are now specking up from the past subjugation of science. They are saying that. Climate change is mostly natural, it’s not an emergency, and it’s not us.
The only action needed is very manageable localized adaption, and this can only be accomplished with the continued and expanded use of fossil fuels.
CO2 is not a pollutant, and is not a significant driver of climate change, so any mitigation such as NetZero is unnecessary, technologically unattainable, economically unviable and extremely foolish.
But we still get propaganda and nonsense from the climate scare hoax even if it does not have scientific data to support the position. This is because they keep confusing natural weather transients with climate change.
When the IPCC scientific reports are separated from the UN political rhetoric its clear we do not have an emergency, but too many people want to keep the nose in the funding bucket!
The good news is that many people are waking up to the reality of this climate emergency scam.
We need to dismantle the climate emergency industrial complex and redeploy efforts to other much more useful initiatives.
Wind and solar is not a reliable solution for the main energy grid although it does have some off grid applications, and certainly wont support industrial activity.
Also, everyone must realize that fossil fuels are needed for many other requirements outside of just electrical energy and without it we will have an economy more like the 1900s.
Further the emerging economies are forging ahead without the nonsense our western policies are creating so they will get stronger while we in the west get weaker due to our rank stupidity.
So, Much MORE debate MUST be undertaken so that our future energy policies and technologies are much better balanced between any environmental risk and the need for the recovery of our prosperity.
Um, there was a typo in your latest post, Nigel. You accidentally wrote:
"Here are the emerging facts…"
when you should have written:
"Here are the emerging distortions...."
...ahead of your list of outright falsehoods. I certainly appreciate your conveniently compiling this list of misinformation, so that other readers can go down this checklist in order to address the myths, one at a time.
For future posts, since you have listed the current myths so many times already, you can save us all time by just posting the latest newly emerging distortions, as the original list has been thoroughly dismissed with the real facts, thus saving yourself and other readers the time needed to wade through those so we can be alerted to the truly newly emerging distortions.
Sorry, nice try yourself. You are the one with the burden of proof for all of these individual pieces of misinformation, not me. The overwhelming vetted evidence and non-cherry picked contexts coming in from all scientific professions are directly in contradiction to each of these statements. YOU need to provide evidence that EACH one of these lies/distortions are true if you want any of these statements that contradict the scientific consensus to be taken seriously.
But I'll make it easy: just pick just one of them, provide your evidence and we'll go from there.
No .. I don’t have to shoulder the burden of proof as my aim is to inform not win arguments with those not interested in seeking the truth. What is sad is you continue to hide behind and believe the thinning façade of institutions that are clearly corrupt with there compliance to the hoax.
The reality is contained in the info I have provided as it is all based on reports from the IPCC and other scientific institutions. But, I do agree it has been better compiled to tell the truth and not rigged to sell the dangerous religion of climate emergency.
Very soon many national governments under pressure from disenchanted voters upset with poor prosperity due to NetZero will demand an open and much needed policy review.
This review process is happening already in many western nations…. Then we will see about the truth .....
OK, if you refuse to defend your misinformation, then let's just let your lies fall flat. But just as a teaser for what your distortions have overlooked, I'll do the honors of just taking one of your so-called facts and examine it under the scrutiny of the scientific community, whose job it is to look at the data, analyze its collection methodology to make sure that it is representative or at least operationalize it, then examine it in light of what we know about the physics of the earth's climate systems and what it tells us about what the data is telling us in a testable, reproducible way.
Taking the first one: oops! "The scientific community is subjugated by the climate emergency industrial complex" is not even a factoid! It's a judgement that the many discussions and community organizations preparing for adaptation to a changing climate have created a "climate emergency industrial complex." Well, faced with having to upgrade your community's infrastructure to accommodate the inevitable volumes of runoff from more severe flash flooding, or raising levees to accommodate full scale flooding, or upgrading water supplies to conserve water for upcoming droughts, or changing landscaping regulations to deal with increasingly frequent and severe wildfires, what is the alternative? Just pay for the damages incurred when you DON'T take these measures, a far more disruptive and expensive option? Here's to more communities taking these measures to accommodating to the observed changes, and hopefully they are coupled with measures to increase energy conservation and switching to a low carbon future as the real way to address the changing climate.
OK, now, let's try one that is actually trying to state a fact: "No scientific proof that CO2 is the prime driver of temperature. " Pretty clever, Nigel--this is a classic example of a "straw dog," or cherry picking for that matter, which I'm quite sure you're aware of. Because in a system such as the earth's climate, where there is a dynamic set of factors creating the net balance, it is totally inaccurate to depict one of those elements as "the prime driver." Is water vapor the prime driver? Well, it has is a huge greenhouse gas, but the dynamics of CO2 are necessary for it to be present in the atmosphere. The increased presence of CO2 warms the air, and since the air is warmer, it is capable of containing a higher amount of water vapor, which turbocharges the extreme weather capacity of the atmosphere. But don't take my word for it: check out what the science says about this relationship from that notoriously suspect organization: NASA https://science.nasa.gov/earth/climate-change/steamy-relationships-how-atmospheric-water-vapor-amplifies-earths-greenhouse-effect/
OK.. this is a first .....as you now have attempted to provide scientific info... rather than name dropping and slandering any sources that disagree with your religion....... so I will review and respond in due course.. so patience as I formulate a response.
Absolutely the best opening lines about the cheapness of serving chopped steak.
Hilarious! I was hooked!
Besides the excellent content, Saturday Night Live may want you for their own purposes.
Thanks very much!
You’re too kind!
Sorry if this comes off as political but something I have noticed for a while now among articles like this covering Republicans and Trump and the fossil fuel companies, across all sorts of climate newsletters or sites, is the Inflation Reduction Act missing from the discussion, and how Republicans and fossil fuel companies wanting that repealed. And more generally a lack of coverage in general from climate oriented outlets.
I think when polling shows 7 in 10 Americans know little or nothing about the IRA, that is a problem both for getting its benefits to people and what it means politically. I will lose my mind if Trump wins, and all that negatively means for the climate, in part because of people not knowing about the IRA, which I think would be a collective failure, including from me.
To be clear, I'm not asking for reporters to become Biden cheerleaders, just, idk, more proactive on the specific topic of the IRA.
Don't want to take anything away from this piece, and I'm not being critical of your journalism. I'm grateful for this great reporting on these people, and the obvious imo quid pro quo going on between Trump and fossil fuel execs! Just more concern and curiosity if you in your discussions with other climate journalists, feel there is a hesitation (maybe not the right word) in discussing the IRA? Curious on your thoughts if you want to share!
apparently being rich doesnt mean you have good taste in food!
And as anyone with half a brain knows by now, if the U.S. economy collapses, these same steak eaters will take their companies elsewhere and find another country to steal from. They don't care about anything other than themselves and that is what will kill off the rest of us eventually.
The golden rule again. Who has the gold makes the rules
Thanks for sharing this list.
I believe if we tie this with how Trump also said he's going to roll back all gun regulations at an NRA event recently it's a double handed punch. Here's how Dan Pfeiffer framed that up:
The NRA speech was a suck-up to the gun industry, a major funder of Republican causes. At one point, Trump promised, “In my second term, we will roll back every Biden attack on the Second Amendment.”
This is a huge deal with deadly consequences. Trump went to the NRA event to accept his flowers from the gun lobbyists, but he ended up giving Democrats a political gift — the only question is: will we take it?
https://www.messageboxnews.com/p/a-trump-win-more-gun-violence
Every one of them (Biden,Trump,RFK Jr., Stein and West) is sucking up to their targeted audience. We could have the election now and all the campaign money would feed the hungry or support child care instead of propaganda adds.
Chopped liver is what they have in mind for the climate activist and alarmists to be at what they hope can be the last supper on stopping the NetZero journey to oblivion.
Here are the emerging facts…
Awareness is growing from scientists that are now specking up from the past subjugation of science. They are saying that. Climate change is mostly natural, it’s not an emergency, and it’s not us.
The only action needed is very manageable localized adaption, and this can only be accomplished with the continued and expanded use of fossil fuels.
CO2 is not a pollutant, and is not a significant driver of climate change, so any mitigation such as NetZero is unnecessary, technologically unattainable, economically unviable and extremely foolish.
But we still get propaganda and nonsense from the climate scare hoax even if it does not have scientific data to support the position. This is because they keep confusing natural weather transients with climate change.
When the IPCC scientific reports are separated from the UN political rhetoric its clear we do not have an emergency, but too many people want to keep the nose in the funding bucket!
The good news is that many people are waking up to the reality of this climate emergency scam.
We need to dismantle the climate emergency industrial complex and redeploy efforts to other much more useful initiatives.
Wind and solar is not a reliable solution for the main energy grid although it does have some off grid applications, and certainly wont support industrial activity.
Also, everyone must realize that fossil fuels are needed for many other requirements outside of just electrical energy and without it we will have an economy more like the 1900s.
Further the emerging economies are forging ahead without the nonsense our western policies are creating so they will get stronger while we in the west get weaker due to our rank stupidity.
So, Much MORE debate MUST be undertaken so that our future energy policies and technologies are much better balanced between any environmental risk and the need for the recovery of our prosperity.
Go Trump!
Here is some material.
https://www.brainzmagazine.com/post/take-back-manufacturing-climate-realism
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k3Ut3cjENZg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xRfQzMgvfDA
Um, there was a typo in your latest post, Nigel. You accidentally wrote:
"Here are the emerging facts…"
when you should have written:
"Here are the emerging distortions...."
...ahead of your list of outright falsehoods. I certainly appreciate your conveniently compiling this list of misinformation, so that other readers can go down this checklist in order to address the myths, one at a time.
For future posts, since you have listed the current myths so many times already, you can save us all time by just posting the latest newly emerging distortions, as the original list has been thoroughly dismissed with the real facts, thus saving yourself and other readers the time needed to wade through those so we can be alerted to the truly newly emerging distortions.
Thanks so much, and All the best....
Good try…. but not acceptable…..
I will amend any thing I have written if you can show proof with data that’s its wrong.
The scientific community is subjugated by the climate emergency industrial complex.
No scientific proof that CO2 is the prime driver of temperature.
No adverse climate impacts outside of natural weather variation
Some impact factors have improved with increasing CO2
Positive impact of a greener planet from more CO2
All Climate emergency predictions are based on failed climate models that keep being proved wrong.
NetZero will be a prosperity killer in the west.
Disallowing Fossil fuels will cause deaths in the developing world.
The FF industry is refocusing on doing its job to give us energy at the lowest cost.
Trump was correct to get out of the Paris Accord and we will be doing that again if we are smart.
Look at the information I have provided you may learn something…
https://www.brainzmagazine.com/post/take-back-manufacturing-climate-realism
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k3Ut3cjENZg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xRfQzMgvfDA
Sorry, nice try yourself. You are the one with the burden of proof for all of these individual pieces of misinformation, not me. The overwhelming vetted evidence and non-cherry picked contexts coming in from all scientific professions are directly in contradiction to each of these statements. YOU need to provide evidence that EACH one of these lies/distortions are true if you want any of these statements that contradict the scientific consensus to be taken seriously.
But I'll make it easy: just pick just one of them, provide your evidence and we'll go from there.
No .. I don’t have to shoulder the burden of proof as my aim is to inform not win arguments with those not interested in seeking the truth. What is sad is you continue to hide behind and believe the thinning façade of institutions that are clearly corrupt with there compliance to the hoax.
The reality is contained in the info I have provided as it is all based on reports from the IPCC and other scientific institutions. But, I do agree it has been better compiled to tell the truth and not rigged to sell the dangerous religion of climate emergency.
Very soon many national governments under pressure from disenchanted voters upset with poor prosperity due to NetZero will demand an open and much needed policy review.
This review process is happening already in many western nations…. Then we will see about the truth .....
OK, if you refuse to defend your misinformation, then let's just let your lies fall flat. But just as a teaser for what your distortions have overlooked, I'll do the honors of just taking one of your so-called facts and examine it under the scrutiny of the scientific community, whose job it is to look at the data, analyze its collection methodology to make sure that it is representative or at least operationalize it, then examine it in light of what we know about the physics of the earth's climate systems and what it tells us about what the data is telling us in a testable, reproducible way.
Taking the first one: oops! "The scientific community is subjugated by the climate emergency industrial complex" is not even a factoid! It's a judgement that the many discussions and community organizations preparing for adaptation to a changing climate have created a "climate emergency industrial complex." Well, faced with having to upgrade your community's infrastructure to accommodate the inevitable volumes of runoff from more severe flash flooding, or raising levees to accommodate full scale flooding, or upgrading water supplies to conserve water for upcoming droughts, or changing landscaping regulations to deal with increasingly frequent and severe wildfires, what is the alternative? Just pay for the damages incurred when you DON'T take these measures, a far more disruptive and expensive option? Here's to more communities taking these measures to accommodating to the observed changes, and hopefully they are coupled with measures to increase energy conservation and switching to a low carbon future as the real way to address the changing climate.
OK, now, let's try one that is actually trying to state a fact: "No scientific proof that CO2 is the prime driver of temperature. " Pretty clever, Nigel--this is a classic example of a "straw dog," or cherry picking for that matter, which I'm quite sure you're aware of. Because in a system such as the earth's climate, where there is a dynamic set of factors creating the net balance, it is totally inaccurate to depict one of those elements as "the prime driver." Is water vapor the prime driver? Well, it has is a huge greenhouse gas, but the dynamics of CO2 are necessary for it to be present in the atmosphere. The increased presence of CO2 warms the air, and since the air is warmer, it is capable of containing a higher amount of water vapor, which turbocharges the extreme weather capacity of the atmosphere. But don't take my word for it: check out what the science says about this relationship from that notoriously suspect organization: NASA https://science.nasa.gov/earth/climate-change/steamy-relationships-how-atmospheric-water-vapor-amplifies-earths-greenhouse-effect/
OK.. this is a first .....as you now have attempted to provide scientific info... rather than name dropping and slandering any sources that disagree with your religion....... so I will review and respond in due course.. so patience as I formulate a response.