You do know that climate change can make the earth practically unlivable right?

Some of us feel it's practically unlivable now.

Climate change may make the Earth practically unlivable years in the future if nothing is done to mitigate its effects in the interim.

If diesel supplies run out, people are going to be freezing to death and starving in the next few months.

Diesel supplies will never "run out" in the sense that they there is absolutely none to be had, sorry. People who posit the idea of "running out of something" don't understand economics and there's a lot of them.

The miracle of prices is that they no only encourage production (the return for exploration goes up, marginal wells become profitable, higher yield refining becomes more cost effective); but it encourages disuse and substitution.

In the case of diesel, they aren't nearly as picky about about what they are fed as gas powered engines; and even that's been partially solved with computer controlled spark retardation; your car might be designed for 89 octane, but for a small cut in power, 87 will work just fine; unless you have the pedal mashed to the floor, you'll never know.


This from two days ago:

https://interestingengineering.com/scie ... out-of-oil

This from 18 years ago.

https://fee.org/articles/were-running-out-of-oil/

That is the conventional wisdom spread by the politicians and activists, but the reality is that climate change will be somewhat of a minor disruption for the planet's inhabitants in the future. This is the consensus of opinion of the scientists who study this that are not influenced by hefty grants and vested interests.

It is practically impossible to separate the true concern for the planet from those who are using this issue to advance agendas and gain power. As such we have a duty to be very skeptical of the over the top claims that are being made. If we pay attention to how the wealthiest climate change activists spend their money, we can get some indication of their level of belief in those predictions. Buying homes at sea level and continuing to travel the globe in private jets speaks louder than their words on climate change can. Also, entities such as insurance companies who has trillions of dollars at risk are still writing policies for properties at sea level and are also underwriting policies that extend well into the future. If they were concerned about the survival of the planet, would they be putting their necks out in such a manner? Heck no. Those who control vast sums of wealth are not that reckless.

Those at the top who stand to gain the most from the climate change "crisis" can continue living their lives as before, secure in the knowledge that climate change is not the crisis that is being publicly portrayed, and also knowing that average people can be scared into adopting whatever restrictions to their lives that are proscribed as the "Cure" for climate change. We must not dismiss the idea that we are all being scammed by this "crisis" as a way to get us to give up our middle class lifestyles and willingly accept a life of poverty.

I have also found that those who are pretty deep into their belief in the climate change crisis are also the same ones who are the least likely to listen to, read or follow any of the scientific research being done by those who have alternative theories. They would be more likely to dismiss that body of research out of hand, thus making any rational discussions impossible.

We as a society have not even attempted to discuss the cost/benefit analysis of mitigation vs. net zero, and that is perhaps the most important discussion that humanity could engage in at this time. We need to know, beyond the doomsday pronouncements and fearmongering, what the REAL effects of climate change are and what the REAL effects of net zero would be so that we can decide which is the path of least harm. Too many are convinced that the worst case scenario is the most likely scenario and that never is the case.

The other day I made my now every other week trip into the office; within walking distance was Pennsylvania's official fossil, a Pleistocene Mastodon recovered near Marshall's Creek Pennsylvania (near East Strousburg/Delaware Water Gap, along the Lackawanna). It lived in a glacial climate, at least 10K years ago.

https://www.hmdb.org/m.asp?m=182691

Its species died off because the climate changed, long before human impact on the world other than post mortem decay and campfires.

Those of us that are old enough to remember; know that in the 1970's we were told with regularity that the world was entering a new glacial age; Europe was going to be wiped out by starvation.

The Earth’s Cooling Climate,” Science News, November 15, 1969.• “Colder Winters Held Dawn of New Ice Age,” Washington Post, January 11, 1970.• “Science: Another Ice Age?” Time Magazine, June 24, 1974.• “The Ice Age Cometh!” Science News, March 1, 1975.• “The Cooling World,” Newsweek, April 28, 1975.• “Scientists Ask Why World Climate is Changing; Major Cooling May Be Ahead,” New York Times, May 21, 1975.• “In the Grip of a New Ice Age?” International Wildlife July-August, 1975.• “A Major Cooling Widely Considered to Be Inevitable,” New York Times, September 14, 1975.• “Variations in the Earth’s Orbit, Pacemaker of the Ice Ages,” Science magazine, December 10, 1976.

By the 1990's, the fear of "global warming" became the accepted narrative.

Now it's "climate change", which is much more useful because anything is evidence of "climate change". Famously, Al Gore predicted more and more intense tornadoes, but there hasn't been an EF-5 since May (of 2013) and this year only 4 EF-4's. Funny that lawyer/politician Al Gore makes his predictions of tornadogenesis with PowerPoint, while Leigh Orff has been studying a single tornado with supercomputers and is still conscious that his modeling might not actually explain the beast, it may be producing similar images.

https://orf.media/

So there is climate change, and there will always will be. The earth is not static, nor is the sun and the factors are unknown.

And yet what we have here is public panic as a form of mandatory virtue, not based on science, but tribalism. It isn't scientific to call others a "denier" because they don't accept a narrative based more on emotion than evidence. Skepticism is an essential part of science because establishing cause and effect in complex systems is often extraordinarily difficult.

Of course people with what was labelled "useless degrees" (some are actually worse than useless, they are a form of credentialed enstupidification and a anthropogenic Dunning-Kruger infection); and who make no effort to learn math and physics, because stories are much easier than partial differential equations and the laws of thermodynamics. When confronted with their own ignorance and deficient prediction regard; they become angry.

And if you are John Kerry flying around in private jets and living in multiple mansions; well Golf Foxtrot Yankee, hypocrite.

It's also hard not to note the covariance between climate change hysterics and Covid hysterics and the more or less common prescription. Shut up, do not question us, do as we say, and accept every manner of disruption to your life with a smile.

It is 100% true for those who are pretty deep into their denial of climate change.

There are some effects to preservation:
Some property insurance companies are increasing rates or refusing to write new policies for historical organizations as if the risk of climate change is real.

Thanks for demonstrating the enstupidification I mentioned. Man it's as predictable as getting a cat to chase a red dot. Somehow if reading Rypn posts thoroughly is beyond your capacity...

This is the reason: If

https://www.reuters.com/business/us-tre ... 022-10-18/

The interesting thing is that the McCarran Ferguson Act (passed as the result of the United States v. South-Eastern Underwriters, 322 U.S. 533 (1944) decision which held that insurance was Interstate Commerce; reversing the holding in Paul v. Virginia, 75 U.S. 168 (1869) that insurance was not Interstate Commerce) provided for state regulation of insurance. former career politician John Dingell made a career out of threatening to nullify MF and create a federal regulator.

There's no legislative authorization for Treasury to intervene in insurance; but why should that stop them?

Meanwhile China has helpfully come to the rescue to prevent US green energy initiatives from triggering a global cooling emergency like the one the US media declared in the 1970s. They are using their "developing nation" status, which exempts them from meeting the current Paris Accord requirements for "developed" nations, to construct 33 Gigawatts of new coal-fired power plants. According to a recent article linked below, "The newly added capacity under construction was three times more than the rest of the world combined".

https://www.reuters.com/markets/commodi ... 022-02-24/

Also quoted in the article was President XI Jinping's priority for power generation projects in China: "China's low-carbon goals should not come at the expense of energy and food security or the normal life of ordinary people."

The 33 Gigawatts equals 33,000 Megawatts. The largest US power station is 6,809 Megawatts. The China coal projects total 4.846 times that output.

PC

You hit the nail on the head there with one of the leading issues of climate change policy. Manufacturing in the USA is still one of the largest emitters of CO2 between steel making, aluminum smelting, and cement making I don't know the total percentages but it's huge. So when you close down all of the USA'S low cost coal plants the CO2 emissions don't go down they actually go up as the production moves to China!

Here's a good example;
https://www.wdrb.com/news/century-alumi ... e6314.html

"But Russia supplied 20% of America’s imported oil products, includes grades of oil and certain distillates ideal for conversion into diesel. The loss of those imports has created marginal shortages of the input fuel that becomes diesel, which is not really a problem for gasoline supplies."

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/biden-ov ... 40234.html

The leftist politicians and bureaucrats and woke bankers aren't going to go the common sense "all of the above" route until renewables are capable of replacing fossil fuels economically. The higher the price and the less secure the supply of fossil fuel is, is part of their game plan.

Training yourself to not automatically believe the "conventional wisdom" is a good skill to develop, especially in the "misinformation age". Here is just one example of what is being done to advance the climate change crisis narrative. Temperature data being manipulated to show warming trends that do not exist. Actual thermometer data that shows no warming trend adjusted to show a warming trend. Now this is not definitive proof, but is just one more brick in the wall of evidence that those of us who do not want to destroy the western standard of living have been uncovering. https://youtu.be/GpwIM57aJN0

With us being in a field that relies heavily on fossil fuels to survive, isn't it in our best interest to be skeptical and to fully evaluate the other side before dooming ourselves to a future of energy poverty? I am very skeptical and have found that there indeed is a strong case against anthropogenic climate change that is being suppressed.

There are questions about the veracity of the temperature data itself.
There are questions about whether the temperature data is being altered.
There are questions about whether mitigation is the better strategy than net zero.
There are questions about whether climate change is being used as a method to advance governmental goals that otherwise the public would not support.

The stakes are very high. Net zero means going back to 1850 levels of energy usage. The elimination of everything except bare essentials for survival and the necessary elimination of a healthy chunk of the world's population. It behooves us all to really think about the implications and not to just follow along what powerful interests tell us.

If you can pull yourself away from the climate change deniers on YouTube you should look in to the Mosaic polar expedition, an expedition to the North Pole involving 20 countries to study the current state of polar sea ice and gather information on climate change. It will take years to study all the data but it's actual data that's been collected, unless you think all 20 countries have a secret plan to do something unlawful or harmful (which sounds like the definition of a certain word....)

The expedition leader also wrote a book which was a little dry but informative none the less if you were so inclined: https://www.amazon.com/Greatest-Polar-E ... 1771649488 .

Or ya know, maybe the YouTube guy you linked to making his own charts to show that Nebraska is actually cooling is correct, who knows.....