4 ms·

The hubris in the climate change cult --because that is what it has become-- never ceases to both amaze and horrify me. Unbelievable. I have said this here ma

The hubris in the climate change cult --because that is what it has become-- never ceases to both amaze and horrify me. Unbelievable. I have said this here many times. If we continue to listen to these brainwashed cult members we are going to succeed at killing everything on this planet. In a rational world, anyone proposing to control planetary-scale phenomena should be laughed off the stage. This cult has gained foothold in powerful political circles. This drives billions (hundreds of billions?) of dollars for research and general-purpose nonsense. The greedy among us (universities and private enterprise) jump on that bandwagon and promote the nonsense because it makes them millions of dollars. It's a horrific positive feedback loop with potentially devastating consequences. The sad part is we are wasting time and obscene amounts of money that could be put to work on the reality of climate change, rather than the fantasies they continue to erect to keep the money machine going. NOTE: In a rational world you should be able to get just as much funding from government to disprove or counter these hairbrained schemes. How much of that funding you think is available? Zero. Therefore, if you depend on research funding to make a living or a university depends on it to keep a department funded, guess what your conclusions are going to say, every, fucking, time? Today, if you are a researcher or a business and dare go against what the cult has decreed to be "The One and Only Truth", your career is over and your business is going bankrupt. That should make everyone take pause. This is nothing less than Orwellian.

BiggsHoson 4y ago
Brilliantly put.
- robomartin 4y ago
  It really bugs me that people don't realize research funding is only available if you say what they want you to say. That should be a red flag of massive proportions. Science isn't made this way. One could argue in science it is essential to fund and support every reasonable effort to discover holes in hypothesis. We don't do that, at all. Good news is that it is very difficult to go-up against reality. Eventually physics wins, brutally so. The closest I have seen to a refutation of climate change dogma is a private paper by Google Research dating back to 2014. That's right, we have understood some very important things about this issue since at least 2014...yet nobody talks about it and, much worse, none of this research is funded. They are looking for one, and only one, conclusion. https://storage.googleapis.com/pub-tools-public-publication-data/pdf/43326.pdf https://storage.googleapis.com/pub-tools-public-publication-... There are other realities that, once again, are brutally hard to avoid. For example, if tomorrow all of the US and China were to evaporate from this planet atmospheric CO2 would continue to increase. No effort to control this can produce a rate of change higher than about 100 ppm in 50K to 100K years. That's not a guess. We have known this for decades. All you have to do is analyze atmospheric CO2 ice-core sample data going back 800K years to reach this very simple conclusion.
  - Schroedingersat 4y ago
    The oil industry spends vastly more burying and trying to refute climate science than is spent on legitimate reasearch. The "everything is fine, keep drilling" camp already has 4/5 politicians and about half of the total money and resources, they don't need any help. Also what are you even trying to argue with that second bit?
    - robomartin 4y ago
      > Also what are you even trying to argue with that second bit? A number of things. Perhaps the most obvious of them being that any proposed magical solution has to be compared to common sense baselines. We never do that. Eliminating ALL of the US and China (as in: They evaporate from this planet and cease to exist) can't fix the problem. At all. Taking that as a simple factual baseline, I can't think of a single proposed so-called solution that even begins to compare to such an extreme, much less actually reduce atmospheric CO2 concentration. The fact of the matter is it will take 50K to 100K years. We can kill ourselves in the process. We are not going to make it happen faster. We can't do that. We would have to violate the laws of physics. That tends to fall under the "impossible" category.
      - Schroedingersat 4y ago
        Stopping it from increasing is overwhelmingly simple. Just stop digging up carbon and stop releasing carbon tied up in ecosystems. The methods for getting energy without fossil fuels are accelerating at 20% or so per year, and last year displaced about 1-2% of carbon producing final energy. Luckily noone is proposing solving the problem by Thanos snapping a quarter of the population, so you don't have to worry about something as obviously idiotic as that not helping. As to removing it, there are on the order of a billion with enough wealth to wield about 10kW without dropping their quality of life below the people they stole the natural resources from. This is enough energy for direct capture and sequestration of 10-20 tonnes of CO2 using industrial means per year using current technology. There are also many biological means that would have even greater impact just using a fraction of the land used for pasture. There is no technical limitation to undoing the damage in a century or even a few decades, merely one of political will. So I reiterate. What is your point of bringing this up? Why are you repeating this? What are you even trying to say?
Schroedingersat 4y ago
Noone on the left wants this. It's a solution invented and pushed by people who want to keep using more energy and drag their feet in eliminating fossil fuels. We should be putting every ounce of effort we can into eliminating waste, transitioning to clean sourcez and better distributing the energy budget we have now so the people who have too little can flourish. Not coming up with reasons that those in the global north can consume even more.

BiggsHoson 4y ago

Brilliantly put.

robomartin 4y ago
It really bugs me that people don't realize research funding is only available if you say what they want you to say. That should be a red flag of massive proportions. Science isn't made this way. One could argue in science it is essential to fund and support every reasonable effort to discover holes in hypothesis. We don't do that, at all. Good news is that it is very difficult to go-up against reality. Eventually physics wins, brutally so. The closest I have seen to a refutation of climate change dogma is a private paper by Google Research dating back to 2014. That's right, we have understood some very important things about this issue since at least 2014...yet nobody talks about it and, much worse, none of this research is funded. They are looking for one, and only one, conclusion. https://storage.googleapis.com/pub-tools-public-publication-data/pdf/43326.pdf https://storage.googleapis.com/pub-tools-public-publication-... There are other realities that, once again, are brutally hard to avoid. For example, if tomorrow all of the US and China were to evaporate from this planet atmospheric CO2 would continue to increase. No effort to control this can produce a rate of change higher than about 100 ppm in 50K to 100K years. That's not a guess. We have known this for decades. All you have to do is analyze atmospheric CO2 ice-core sample data going back 800K years to reach this very simple conclusion.
- Schroedingersat 4y ago
  The oil industry spends vastly more burying and trying to refute climate science than is spent on legitimate reasearch. The "everything is fine, keep drilling" camp already has 4/5 politicians and about half of the total money and resources, they don't need any help. Also what are you even trying to argue with that second bit?
  - robomartin 4y ago
    > Also what are you even trying to argue with that second bit? A number of things. Perhaps the most obvious of them being that any proposed magical solution has to be compared to common sense baselines. We never do that. Eliminating ALL of the US and China (as in: They evaporate from this planet and cease to exist) can't fix the problem. At all. Taking that as a simple factual baseline, I can't think of a single proposed so-called solution that even begins to compare to such an extreme, much less actually reduce atmospheric CO2 concentration. The fact of the matter is it will take 50K to 100K years. We can kill ourselves in the process. We are not going to make it happen faster. We can't do that. We would have to violate the laws of physics. That tends to fall under the "impossible" category.
    - Schroedingersat 4y ago
      Stopping it from increasing is overwhelmingly simple. Just stop digging up carbon and stop releasing carbon tied up in ecosystems. The methods for getting energy without fossil fuels are accelerating at 20% or so per year, and last year displaced about 1-2% of carbon producing final energy. Luckily noone is proposing solving the problem by Thanos snapping a quarter of the population, so you don't have to worry about something as obviously idiotic as that not helping. As to removing it, there are on the order of a billion with enough wealth to wield about 10kW without dropping their quality of life below the people they stole the natural resources from. This is enough energy for direct capture and sequestration of 10-20 tonnes of CO2 using industrial means per year using current technology. There are also many biological means that would have even greater impact just using a fraction of the land used for pasture. There is no technical limitation to undoing the damage in a century or even a few decades, merely one of political will. So I reiterate. What is your point of bringing this up? Why are you repeating this? What are you even trying to say?

Schroedingersat 4y ago

Noone on the left wants this. It's a solution invented and pushed by people who want to keep using more energy and drag their feet in eliminating fossil fuels. We should be putting every ounce of effort we can into eliminating waste, transitioning to clean sourcez and better distributing the energy budget we have now so the people who have too little can flourish. Not coming up with reasons that those in the global north can consume even more.