Would you abandon a diet where your weight doubled?

Below is chart of world CO2 emissions needed to maintain various temperatures. The RCP2.6 is the world CO2 diet for definitely staying below 2 degrees celsius of warming and having a shot at 1 degree warming. It mostly requires getting to net zero CO2 emissions by 2050 and then going about 20 billion tons per year negative by 2100. The RCP4.5 also requires going substantially negative on CO2 emissions by 2100.

The World has had climate agreements since 1992. The amount of CO2 emissions have doubled since 1985 and nearly doubled the 1992 amount.

Would you personally abandon a 26-year diet where your weight doubled while you were on the diet?

Below we will review that emissions doubled from 1985 to today.
We will review the climate agreements made from 1992 to today.

The agreements and the environmental plans have failed because

* economic growth and wealth of citizens is still connected to the amount of energy they use or the energy required to make the things they buy and use.

* the agreements and plans never had the hope of achieving the desired results

The wealth of individuals and nations is tied to energy use and energy is still nearly completely tied to emissions.

World GDP is projected to double by around 2040.

Climate change environmentalists can keep asking and demanding that China, India, the rest of Asia and other countries reduce economic activity but this will fail.

This is basically saying people all over the world should stay poor or become poor.

The electricity consumption of China, India and the rest of Asia will rapidly move to the EU per capita level. China will likely exceed the EU per capita level.

Electricity is only about one-seventh of the world energy production. Energy is generated for transportation and for manufacturing, mining, agriculture and other industry.

Even with a massive increase in solar power, electric cars and ride-sharing it will not be enough.

All those things together could get us to half of the emissions from energy. Wonderful, but remember that world GDP will double by 2040. This would mean that everything going perfect will result in stopping the increase in energy emissions.

Heroic action when there is a climate emergency?

In 2016 and 2017, marine heat waves killed half of the corals in the Great Barrier reef. It takes ten years for the coral to recover.

John Veron is the world’s top coral reef expert. Veron predicts there will be mass bleaching of coral reefs around the world in five years out of every seven. Veron believes the coral is doomed.

Between a quarter and a third of all marine species everywhere has some part of their life cycle in coral reefs. Losing the coral reefs will cause a third to a quarter of all marine species gets wiped out.

69,000 people are employed by industries associated with the Great Barrier Reef. Fisheries provide hundreds of millions of dollars of revenue while tourism based on the Reef is estimated to provide around $6 billion each year. Maintaining coral cover on the Reef, indeed any reef, is extremely important.

The Australian and Queensland governments are jointly investing approximately $200 million annually in the Reef’s health. They are seeking innovative solutions to quickly restore the ecological functions provided by the Great Barrier Reef.

* Creating a reflective surface film that would float on the surface of the water. Made from calcium carbonate (the same mineral as coral), the film would reflect sunlight, thereby lowering water temperatures and ultraviolet radiation exposure.

Australia has turned to localized geoengineering after the environmental damage became obvious.

China has devoted tens of billions to combat air pollution after millions of people have been dying each year die from air pollution for decades. China has turned to cloud seeding and skyscraper-sized air scrubbing systems.

When the world’s lumber industry caused the loss of forests did the world cut back on lumber usage? No. The lumber industry went to managed forests and grew fast-growing trees so that they could be repeatedly harvested like crops like Wheat or corn.

Expand Commercial Kelp Growth by 100 times

There is a proposal to use about 9% of the oceans surface for massive kelp farms. The Ocean surface area is about 36 billion hectares. This would offset all CO2 production and provide 0.5 kg of fish and sea vegetables per person per day for 10 billion people as an “incidental” by-product. 9% of the world’s oceans would be equivalent to about four and a half times the area of Australia.

In 2016, seaweed farms produce more than 25 million metric tonnes annually. The global value of the crop, US$6.4 billion (2014), exceeds that of the world’s lemons and limes.

A 2016 report from the World Bank estimates that the annual global seaweed production could reach 500 million dry tons by 2050 if the market is able to increase its harvest 14% per year. Hitting that 500 million mark would boost the world’s food supply by 10% from the current level, create 50 million direct jobs. The Ocean forest plan would accelerate growth of seaweed farming to 25-50% per year growth and reach about 20-60 billion tons per year of production. The world currently produces about 4 billion tons per year of agricultural products.

Emissions doubled from 1985

Carbon dioxide emissions have doubled since 1985. World carbon dioxide emissions were about 19.8 billion tons in 1985. In 2016, the world CO2 emissions were 36.1 billion tons.

Total Greenhouse gas emissions in 1990 were 33.8 billion tons of CO2 equivalent and total greenhouse gas emission in 2014 were 48.9 billion tons of CO2 equivalent.

Agreements made that failed from 1992 to today

President George H.W. Bush joined and other worlds leaders agreed to limit greenhouse gases at the 1992 Rio Earth Summit.

There were a series of Kyoto protocol agreements from 1995-2005.

There were the Copenhagen and Cancun Agreements from 2007 to 2010. The Copenhagen Accord set a goal of limiting global temperature increase to 2 degrees Celsius; called on all countries to put forward mitigation pledges; established broad terms for the reporting and verification of countries’ actions; set a goal of mobilizing $100 billion a year by 2020 in public and private finance for developing countries; and called for the establishment of a new Green Climate Fund.

On December 12, 2015 most the world agreed to the Paris Agreement. The Paris agreement represents a hybrid of the “top-down” Kyoto approach and the “bottom-up” approach of the Copenhagen and Cancun agreements. It establishes common binding procedural commitments (aka empty promises) for all countries, but leaves it to each to decide its nonbinding “nationally determined contribution” (NDC).

The Paris Agreement promises if kept would eliminate about 25 billion tons of CO2 emissions from now to 2030. However, countries are tracking to about 5-10 billion tons of CO2 emissions reduction. Global CO2 emissions would keep going up but would go up a bit slower.

385 thoughts on “Would you abandon a diet where your weight doubled?”

  1. Because Brian doesn’t care about commenting as it relates to his site now. He’s got millions of hits per day, I believe. Commenting just isn’t a big part of it any more.

    Reply
  2. Because Brian doesn’t care about commenting as it relates to his site now. He’s got millions of hits per day I believe. Commenting just isn’t a big part of it any more.

    Reply
  3. Big words from a guy who lives all the way in Japan…where they don’t have large SUVs and thus your original post on this was BS. Eh, Matteo?

    Reply
  4. Big words from a guy who lives all the way in Japan…where they don’t have large SUVs and thus your original post on this was BS.Eh Matteo?

    Reply
  5. Humanity was almost wiped out by ice ages. More than once. In fact, we are in an ice age now. Just a ‘brief’ interglacial period that is set to end anyway within the next thousand years or so. Meanwhile, there used to be hippos swimming in the Thames River two thousand years a go. Humanity flourishes during times of global warming.

    Reply
  6. Humanity was almost wiped out by ice ages. More than once. In fact we are in an ice age now. Just a ‘brief’ interglacial period that is set to end anyway within the next thousand years or so.Meanwhile there used to be hippos swimming in the Thames River two thousand years a go. Humanity flourishes during times of global warming.

    Reply
  7. Humanity was almost wiped out by ice ages. More than once.

    In fact, we are in an ice age now. Just a ‘brief’ interglacial period that is set to end anyway within the next thousand years or so.

    Meanwhile, there used to be hippos swimming in the Thames River two thousand years a go. Humanity flourishes during times of global warming.

    Reply
  8. But not the UN, if you didn’t want a humanitarian disaster. They’d probably end up selling the reactors to Iran for hookers.

    Reply
  9. But not the UN if you didn’t want a humanitarian disaster. They’d probably end up selling the reactors to Iran for hookers.

    Reply
  10. X” isn’t really “X” If *i’m* the one doing it, in a good cause! Nobody who disagrees with your cause is going to accept that reasoning.

    Reply
  11. X”” isn’t really “”””X”””” If *i’m* the one doing it”””” in a good cause!Nobody who disagrees with your cause is going to accept that reasoning.”””

    Reply
  12. No moron, NOAA is the hack disinformation site. It prints the data before NOAA has concluded adjusting it to agree with AGW theory. It is the digging deeper.

    Reply
  13. No moron NOAA is the hack disinformation site. It prints the data before NOAA has concluded adjusting it to agree with AGW theory. It is the digging deeper.

    Reply
  14. BTW once China builds the MSR they will surround it with patents ” The idea the rest of humanity will be held disadvantaged to Chinese patents is risible.

    Reply
  15. BTW once China builds the MSR they will surround it with patents “”The idea the rest of humanity will be held disadvantaged to Chinese patents is risible.”””

    Reply
  16. Nice try, troll. Love how you tried to draw me into the trick of basically trying to prove that the sky is colored blue to a blind man. Not falling for it. Who cares if you came up with a list of Grant Whores that ‘agree’ with you? The issue was that there is no ‘consensus’. Science isn’t conducted by consensus anyway.

    Reply
  17. Nice try troll.Love how you tried to draw me into the trick of basically trying to prove that the sky is colored blue to a blind man. Not falling for it. Who cares if you came up with a list of Grant Whores that ‘agree’ with you? The issue was that there is no ‘consensus’. Science isn’t conducted by consensus anyway.

    Reply
  18. You put up these ridiculous either or options that are ridiculous. Basically it is about not killing a few billion people. ” Never said it was. It was about making them STAY POOR or BECOME POOR. But you can’t deny that, so you try to change it to ‘killing a few billion people’. Nice trick. Too bad it was totally obvious and trollish on your part. “Nope you are a right wing fool using terms like greentard and libertard etc etc.” No. I am using what has quickly become de-facto dictionary terms. But again, it doesn’t address what I spoke of. Nice try, troll.

    Reply
  19. You put up these ridiculous either or options that are ridiculous. Basically it is about not killing a few billion people. “”Never said it was. It was about making them STAY POOR or BECOME POOR.But you can’t deny that”””” so you try to change it to ‘killing a few billion people’. Nice trick. Too bad it was totally obvious and trollish on your part.””””Nope you are a right wing fool using terms like greentard and libertard etc etc.””””No. I am using what has quickly become de-facto dictionary terms. But again”” it doesn’t address what I spoke of. Nice try”” troll.”””

    Reply
  20. TOM TOM TOM you have been punked by a bunch of disinformation campaign web sites. The problem with you is you cannot tell the difference between a valid scientific source and a disinformation web site. Look at the authors and their credentials and look at the source of funding.

    Reply
  21. TOM TOM TOM you have been punked by a bunch of disinformation campaign web sites. The problem with you is you cannot tell the difference between a valid scientific source and a disinformation web site. Look at the authors and their credentials and look at the source of funding.

    Reply
  22. Real Climate Science is a hack disinformation web site. It attacks NOAA and NASA and every reputable scientific organization that disagrees with it. They claim all GW is a fraud and yet where are the lists of its contributors and funding. OOOPS that is not there. Why would an organization not list its staff and their qualifications or its funding source etc. They are a disinformation site for suckers who cannot dig deeper to verify it validity. I know that according to you NASA is full of a bunch of idiots who think they are as smart as bunch of rocket scientists. Obviously not cause we have you here.

    Reply
  23. Real Climate Science is a hack disinformation web site. It attacks NOAA and NASA and every reputable scientific organization that disagrees with it. They claim all GW is a fraud and yet where are the lists of its contributors and funding. OOOPS that is not there. Why would an organization not list its staff and their qualifications or its funding source etc. They are a disinformation site for suckers who cannot dig deeper to verify it validity. I know that according to you NASA is full of a bunch of idiots who think they are as smart as bunch of rocket scientists. Obviously not cause we have you here.

    Reply
  24. AGAIN name just one nationally or internationally scientific organization that agrees with you. You have been punked by the Oil industry disinformation campaign. BTW solar activity is not down as you claim NASA has records showing this is nit the case. So please enlighten us and show the board where you got you information. If you cannot support you position then just shut up and go away. BTW here is a link to the list of scientific organizations that agree with me: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change Its called put up or shut up!

    Reply
  25. AGAIN name just one nationally or internationally scientific organization that agrees with you. You have been punked by the Oil industry disinformation campaign. BTW solar activity is not down as you claim NASA has records showing this is nit the case. So please enlighten us and show the board where you got you information. If you cannot support you position then just shut up and go away. BTW here is a link to the list of scientific organizations that agree with me: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_changeIts called put up or shut up!

    Reply
  26. AGW ia a Fraud? Exactly where id you get this information? How about naming just one nationally recognized or internationally recognize scientific organization that agrees with you. Either support your argument or just admit that you were not given the inside story you were just punked by the Oil industry disinformation campaign.

    Reply
  27. AGW ia a Fraud? Exactly where id you get this information? How about naming just one nationally recognized or internationally recognize scientific organization that agrees with you. Either support your argument or just admit that you were not given the inside story you were just punked by the Oil industry disinformation campaign.

    Reply
  28. Wow exactly how are the MSRs as dangerous as the LWR? The MSR are walk away safe. They are not under pressure and are drained stopping the reaction if all power is lost. Fukushima cannot happen. Please explain to the rest of us exactly how this is true. First you make the assertion that the safety of a MSR is as much a problem as a LWR which is not true. Then you use the example of LWR not being built with their inherent problems including construction costs and safety issues as the reason MSR are not being built also not true. They are not the same system. MSR initial design is not being funded by the Federal government. Thus no working full sized system then no one is willing to risk a billion or two without guarantees. BTW once China builds the MSR they will surround it with patents to prevent the US from manufacturing it. Yes and they will fight every step of the way just as hard as they steal the rest of the worlds IT property. Also your example that GW is not a problem since mitigation strategies can be undertaken is assuming that they can be implemented affordably and that they will not also cause unknown hazardous side effects.

    Reply
  29. Wow exactly how are the MSRs as dangerous as the LWR? The MSR are walk away safe. They are not under pressure and are drained stopping the reaction if all power is lost. Fukushima cannot happen. Please explain to the rest of us exactly how this is true. First you make the assertion that the safety of a MSR is as much a problem as a LWR which is not true. Then you use the example of LWR not being built with their inherent problems including construction costs and safety issues as the reason MSR are not being built also not true. They are not the same system. MSR initial design is not being funded by the Federal government. Thus no working full sized system then no one is willing to risk a billion or two without guarantees. BTW once China builds the MSR they will surround it with patents to prevent the US from manufacturing it. Yes and they will fight every step of the way just as hard as they steal the rest of the worlds IT property. Also your example that GW is not a problem since mitigation strategies can be undertaken is assuming that they can be implemented affordably and that they will not also cause unknown hazardous side effects.

    Reply
  30. It ‘IS’ about ‘FORCING’ people all over the world ‘TO STAY’ poor or become poor. ” You put up these ridiculous either or options that are ridiculous. Basically it is about not killing a few billion people. “”And to think I was once banned from NBF for saying this harsh truth “” Nope you are a right wing fool using terms like greentard and libertard etc etc.

    Reply
  31. It ‘IS’ about ‘FORCING’ people all over the world ‘TO STAY’ poor or become poor. “”You put up these ridiculous either or options that are ridiculous. Basically it is about not killing a few billion people. “”””””””And to think I was once banned from NBF for saying this harsh truth “”””””””Nope you are a right wing fool using terms like greentard and libertard etc etc.”””

    Reply
  32. No, fool, they say with great confidence and reason for that, what will happen. You pretending their not known exactly when the first pebble of an avalanche will fall is nothing to do with them being quite correct the avalanche will happen. ” All they tell you is to leave the economy alone.

    Reply
  33. No fool they say with great confidence and reason for that what will happen. You pretending their not known exactly when the first pebble of an avalanche will fall is nothing to do with them being quite correct the avalanche will happen. All they tell you is to leave the economy alone. “” “””

    Reply
  34. ” AGW is a Fraud? ” <-- Entirely. And moron, I can read a graph. 100% of the supposed warming is the creation of baseless adjustments to the actual measurements. The '30's were warmer.

    Reply
  35. Nice try, troll.

    Love how you tried to draw me into the trick of basically trying to prove that the sky is colored blue to a blind man.

    Not falling for it.

    Who cares if you came up with a list of Grant Whores that ‘agree’ with you? The issue was that there is no ‘consensus’. Science isn’t conducted by consensus anyway.

    Reply
  36. “You put up these ridiculous either or options that are ridiculous. Basically it is about not killing a few billion people. ”

    Never said it was. It was about making them STAY POOR or BECOME POOR.

    But you can’t deny that, so you try to change it to ‘killing a few billion people’. Nice trick. Too bad it was totally obvious and trollish on your part.

    “Nope you are a right wing fool using terms like greentard and libertard etc etc.”

    No. I am using what has quickly become de-facto dictionary terms. But again, it doesn’t address what I spoke of. Nice try, troll.

    Reply
  37. TOM TOM TOM you have been punked by a bunch of disinformation campaign web sites. The problem with you is you cannot tell the difference between a valid scientific source and a disinformation web site. Look at the authors and their credentials and look at the source of funding.

    Reply
  38. Real Climate Science is a hack disinformation web site. It attacks NOAA and NASA and every reputable scientific organization that disagrees with it. They claim all GW is a fraud and yet where are the lists of its contributors and funding. OOOPS that is not there. Why would an organization not list its staff and their qualifications or its funding source etc. They are a disinformation site for suckers who cannot dig deeper to verify it validity.
    I know that according to you NASA is full of a bunch of idiots who think they are as smart as bunch of rocket scientists. Obviously not cause we have you here.

    Reply
  39. AGAIN name just one nationally or internationally scientific organization that agrees with you. You have been punked by the Oil industry disinformation campaign. BTW solar activity is not down as you claim NASA has records showing this is nit the case. So please enlighten us and show the board where you got you information. If you cannot support you position then just shut up and go away.
    BTW here is a link to the list of scientific organizations that agree with me: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change

    Its called put up or shut up!

    Reply
  40. AGW ia a Fraud?
    Exactly where id you get this information? How about naming just one nationally recognized or internationally recognize scientific organization that agrees with you. Either support your argument or just admit that you were not given the inside story you were just punked by the Oil industry disinformation campaign.

    Reply
  41. Wow exactly how are the MSRs as dangerous as the LWR? The MSR are walk away safe. They are not under pressure and are drained stopping the reaction if all power is lost. Fukushima cannot happen. Please explain to the rest of us exactly how this is true.

    First you make the assertion that the safety of a MSR is as much a problem as a LWR which is not true. Then you use the example of LWR not being built with their inherent problems including construction costs and safety issues as the reason MSR are not being built also not true. They are not the same system. MSR initial design is not being funded by the Federal government. Thus no working full sized system then no one is willing to risk a billion or two without guarantees.

    BTW once China builds the MSR they will surround it with patents to prevent the US from manufacturing it. Yes and they will fight every step of the way just as hard as they steal the rest of the worlds IT property.

    Also your example that GW is not a problem since mitigation strategies can be undertaken is assuming that they can be implemented affordably and that they will not also cause unknown hazardous side effects.

    Reply
  42. It is not physically impossible so it can be done. And as a known fact the US manage to reduce the amount of energy it took to produce each dollar of GDP. And there are many countries in the world that manage to produce each dollar of GDP a lot cheaper than the US. Please don’t be rude. I am trying to have a civil debate. If you aren’t up to it then don’t respond.

    Reply
  43. It is not physically impossible so it can be done. And as a known fact the US manage to reduce the amount of energy it took to produce each dollar of GDP. And there are many countries in the world that manage to produce each dollar of GDP a lot cheaper than the US. Please don’t be rude. I am trying to have a civil debate. If you aren’t up to it then don’t respond.

    Reply
  44. Austrian School economists will tell you they can’t predict anything so as a science they are useless. All they tell you is to leave the economy alone. I can get the same advise for a nut.

    Reply
  45. Austrian School economists will tell you they can’t predict anything so as a science they are useless. All they tell you is to leave the economy alone. I can get the same advise for a nut.

    Reply
  46. ” It ‘IS’ about ‘FORCING’ people all over the world ‘TO STAY’ poor or become poor. ”
    You put up these ridiculous either or options that are ridiculous. Basically it is about not killing a few billion people.

    “”And to think I was once banned from NBF for saying this harsh truth “”
    Nope you are a right wing fool using terms like greentard and libertard etc etc.

    Reply
  47. Wow, I stand corrected, for some reason I had read that cargo ships were producing more CO2 than cars and I did not check that information… my bad. Emissions are indeed in the range of values given by you. After another check : cargo ships pollute a lot but that’s sulphur emissions, not CO2. whoops.

    Reply
  48. Wow I stand corrected for some reason I had read that cargo ships were producing more CO2 than cars and I did not check that information… my bad. Emissions are indeed in the range of values given by you.After another check : cargo ships pollute a lot but that’s sulphur emissions not CO2. whoops.

    Reply
  49. No, fool, they say with great confidence and reason for that, what will happen. You pretending their not known exactly when the first pebble of an avalanche will fall is nothing to do with them being quite correct the avalanche will happen.

    ” All they tell you is to leave the economy alone. ” <-- Far more wise than anything else any other economist will tell you.

    Reply
  50. Your comparison does not apply. As there would be NO problem to feed my dog AND the child in Afghanistan. In fact, it is quite a moronish comparison so as the food taken from my dog would not even go to the child in Afghanistan you should try better, Goat! And I am dangerous, yes, but for the people trying to kill animals and the planet

    Reply
  51. Your comparison does not apply. As there would be NO problem to feed my dog AND the child in Afghanistan. In fact it is quite a moronish comparison so as the food taken from my dog would not even go to the child in Afghanistan you should try better Goat! And I am dangerous yes but for the people trying to kill animals and the planet

    Reply
  52. Then you won’t mid my pointing out you have no counterargument against the obvious from the numbers fact the data is being molested into agreeing with the bogus AGW theory.

    Reply
  53. Then you won’t mid my pointing out you have no counterargument against the obvious from the numbers fact the data is being molested into agreeing with the bogus AGW theory.

    Reply
  54. Small potatoes. Summing all boats and ships they use 5% of transportation fuel (which itself is only 29% of the energy used in the US). You are talking a massive and very expensive investment for small gains. Pickup trucks though use 32% of transport fuel, more than any other transport modality. Just 50.6 million of these things use as much as all cars (183 million of those), motorcycles (8.4 million of those), boats, ships, trains, and buses in the US, COMBINED! TRANSPORTATION ENERGY USE BY TYPE light trucks (32%) AKA pickup trucks cars & motorcycles (24%) other trucks (23%) includes duelly pickup trucks as well as big trucks like semis aircraft (9%) boats & ships (5%) trains and buses (3%) military (all uses) (2%) pipeline fuel (2%) takes energy to move liquids in pipelines…that is transport lubricants (

    Reply
  55. Small potatoes. Summing all boats and ships they use 5{22800fc54956079738b58e74e4dcd846757aa319aad70fcf90c97a58f3119a12} of transportation fuel (which itself is only 29{22800fc54956079738b58e74e4dcd846757aa319aad70fcf90c97a58f3119a12} of the energy used in the US). You are talking a massive and very expensive investment for small gains.Pickup trucks though use 32{22800fc54956079738b58e74e4dcd846757aa319aad70fcf90c97a58f3119a12} of transport fuel more than any other transport modality. Just 50.6 million of these things use as much as all cars (183 million of those) motorcycles (8.4 million of those) boats ships trains and buses in the US COMBINED!TRANSPORTATION ENERGY USE BY TYPElight trucks (32{22800fc54956079738b58e74e4dcd846757aa319aad70fcf90c97a58f3119a12}) AKA pickup truckscars & motorcycles (24{22800fc54956079738b58e74e4dcd846757aa319aad70fcf90c97a58f3119a12})other trucks (23{22800fc54956079738b58e74e4dcd846757aa319aad70fcf90c97a58f3119a12}) includes duelly pickup trucks as well as big trucks like semisaircraft (9{22800fc54956079738b58e74e4dcd846757aa319aad70fcf90c97a58f3119a12})boats & ships (5{22800fc54956079738b58e74e4dcd846757aa319aad70fcf90c97a58f3119a12})trains and buses (3{22800fc54956079738b58e74e4dcd846757aa319aad70fcf90c97a58f3119a12})military (all uses) (2{22800fc54956079738b58e74e4dcd846757aa319aad70fcf90c97a58f3119a12})pipeline fuel (2{22800fc54956079738b58e74e4dcd846757aa319aad70fcf90c97a58f3119a12}) takes energy to move liquids in pipelines…that is transportlubricants (

    Reply
  56. Molten salt reactors are NUCLEAR FISSION devices, at the core. (sorry, bad pun.) Like it or not, they’re ever much as dangerous as the light water or pressurized water reactors that would be alternative designs to suit industrial purpose. In the exceptional case where one might construe the use of the heat produced by nuclear reactions directly, molten salt reactors offer higher heat potential while remaining controllable enough and safe enough for long-term operation. (any form of water reactor runs out of steam (pun) when its water temperature rises above 374° C, the critical temperature.). Liquid salt reactors are conceived as running above 600° C for “process heat”, safely) There is however, no “crisis” in the development of this tech. There are no orders for new nuclear reactors in the United States, for example, in the last 8 years. There are only a handful of orders for new nuclear reactors in France, the most nuclearized country on the planet (as a proportion of its population). Yes, there are a lot of orders and buildouts in China. Yes, China is pushing nuclear power builds onto as many 3rd world countries as it can. And yes, they are attempting a MSR design-flow as well. But the odd thing is… if anyone will do it, they will. GoatGuy

    Reply
  57. Molten salt reactors are NUCLEAR FISSION devices at the core. (sorry bad pun.) Like it or not they’re ever much as dangerous as the light water or pressurized water reactors that would be alternative designs to suit industrial purpose. In the exceptional case where one might construe the use of the heat produced by nuclear reactions directly molten salt reactors offer higher heat potential while remaining controllable enough and safe enough for long-term operation. (any form of water reactor runs out of steam (pun) when its water temperature rises above 374° C the critical temperature.). Liquid salt reactors are conceived as running above 600° C for process heat””” safely)There is however”” no “”””crisis”””” in the development of this tech. There are no orders for new nuclear reactors in the United States”” for example in the last 8 years. There are only a handful of orders for new nuclear reactors in France the most nuclearized country on the planet (as a proportion of its population).Yes there are a lot of orders and buildouts in China. Yes China is pushing nuclear power builds onto as many 3rd world countries as it can.And yes they are attempting a MSR design-flow as well. But the odd thing is… if anyone will do it”” they will. GoatGuy”””””””

    Reply
  58. So… using that stretch of logic, then I can “defend myself” by preëmptively killing your dog, because its eating food that would otherwise have gone to feed a starving child in Afghanistan? I’m sorry, but you’re a VANDAL, toad. The likes of you are the ANTIFA members who so decrying “fascism”, that they self-authorize the use of deadly force to quash whatever they believe to be the wrong message. Be it eco-terrorism or any other means. You’re developing dangerous traits, misguided lad.

    Reply
  59. So… using that stretch of logic then I can defend myself”” by preëmptively killing your dog”” because its eating food that would otherwise have gone to feed a starving child in Afghanistan? I’m sorry but you’re a VANDAL”” toad. The likes of you are the ANTIFA members who so decrying “”””fascism”””””” that they self-authorize the use of deadly force to quash whatever they believe to be the wrong message. Be it eco-terrorism or any other means. You’re developing dangerous traits”” misguided lad.”””””””

    Reply
  60. Thanks for the considered reply, Marcus. I hold very little hope of getting “civilization” to anything at all about its plight, largely because of the NIMBY¹ effect. Ever been to India? NIMBY is on parade there. To tell the truth, I didn’t have terribly high expectations visiting India (or Costa Rica, or Manila, or Belize or …) because they ARE “Third World Countries”, picture postcards of tin-roof slums and so on ever present in National Geographic exposes. In India, I was rather shocked though by the NIMBY mindset that has come to render most-every part of Delhi (and absolutely every other city, town, village and berg) a stinking cesspool of open sewer waste, refuse, piles of garbage and kitchen waste. Its appalling. Why is it thus? Because “NIMBY” is the thinking. The stuff encrusted and festering in the streets and alleyways is someone else’s responsibility. The neighborhoods do not work together, they just contribute individually to the mess, and ignore it once it is outside the “compound walls”. So … think about that in the context of comprehensively suppressing the ever-growing demand for burned petroleum and fossil fuel energy sources! When the super-minority (or even majority — who knows?) of peoples on this planet seem unable to even mandate and participate in high-functioning municipal waste-stream collection and competent waterway-and-refuse treatment, if “they” can’t even be inspired to clean up their cities, towns and villages, how really are we to expect them to meet “us” as equals in the protect-the-whole-planet gambit? How? It just seems like asking an impossible goal. Not just “improbable” or “difficult”. But impossible. WHICH IN TURN… if you connect the dots on that, is variously depressing, offensive and legitimately concerning. Indeed… except for a few politicians that are loudly wailing whenever a video camera and reporter is nearby, gnashing their teeth, collectively demanding payment for their oblivion, inevitably “

    Reply
  61. Thanks for the considered reply Marcus. I hold very little hope of getting civilization”” to anything at all about its plight”” largely because of the NIMBY¹ effect. Ever been to India? NIMBY is on parade there. To tell the truth I didn’t have terribly high expectations visiting India (or Costa Rica or Manila”” or Belize or …) because they ARE “”””Third World Countries”””””” picture postcards of tin-roof slums and so on ever present in National Geographic exposes. In India I was rather shocked though by the NIMBY mindset that has come to render most-every part of Delhi (and absolutely every other city town village and berg) a stinking cesspool of open sewer waste refuse”” piles of garbage and kitchen waste. Its appalling. Why is it thus? Because “”””NIMBY”””” is the thinking. The stuff encrusted and festering in the streets and alleyways is someone else’s responsibility. The neighborhoods do not work together”” they just contribute individually to the mess”” and ignore it once it is outside the “”””compound walls””””. So … think about that in the context of comprehensively suppressing the ever-growing demand for burned petroleum and fossil fuel energy sources! When the super-minority (or even majority — who knows?) of peoples on this planet seem unable to even mandate and participate in high-functioning municipal waste-stream collection and competent waterway-and-refuse treatment”””” if “”””they”””” can’t even be inspired to clean up their cities”” towns and villages”” how really are we to expect them to meet “”””us”””” as equals in the protect-the-whole-planet gambit? How?It just seems like asking an impossible goal. Not just “”””improbable”””” or “”””difficult””””.But impossible. WHICH IN TURN… if you connect the dots on that”” is variously depressing offensive and legitimately concerning. Indeed… except for a few politicians that are loudly wailing whenever a video camera and reporter is nearby gnashing their teeth collectively demanding”

    Reply
  62. Violence against property and cars is not really violence. The activism you were suggesting here. that is killing people abroad, killing animals. That IS violence If there is a violent person here it is not me

    Reply
  63. Violence against property and cars is not really violence. The activism you were suggesting here. that is killing people abroad killing animals. That IS violence If there is a violent person here it is not me

    Reply
  64. It is not physically impossible so it can be done. And as a known fact the US manage to reduce the amount of energy it took to produce each dollar of GDP. And there are many countries in the world that manage to produce each dollar of GDP a lot cheaper than the US.

    Please don’t be rude. I am trying to have a civil debate. If you aren’t up to it then don’t respond.

    Reply
  65. Austrian School economists will tell you they can’t predict anything so as a science they are useless. All they tell you is to leave the economy alone. I can get the same advise for a nut.

    Reply
  66. Wow, I stand corrected, for some reason I had read that cargo ships were producing more CO2 than cars and I did not check that information… my bad. Emissions are indeed in the range of values given by you.

    After another check : cargo ships pollute a lot but that’s sulphur emissions, not CO2. whoops.

    Reply
  67. Violence doesn’t cease being violence if you dub it “inspired activism”. A word of advice: Violence can suppress an opinion when the violence is massive, and conducted by the majority. Small scale violence by a minority tends, instead, to create a backlash.

    Reply
  68. Violence doesn’t cease being violence if you dub it inspired activism””.A word of advice: Violence can suppress an opinion when the violence is massive”” and conducted by the majority. Small scale violence by a minority tends instead”” to create a backlash.”””

    Reply
  69. The claim here is that the water cycle has an enormous positive feedback built into it, such that at any given moment the planet is on the verge of thermal runaway. So the tiny heating contribution from the CO2 is enormously amplified by the H2O. I find it unlikely we find ourselves living in the one moment in planetary history where Earth was on the verge of going Venus, and just waiting for a pebble to fall, to start the landslide.

    Reply
  70. The claim here is that the water cycle has an enormous positive feedback built into it such that at any given moment the planet is on the verge of thermal runaway. So the tiny heating contribution from the CO2 is enormously amplified by the H2O.I find it unlikely we find ourselves living in the one moment in planetary history where Earth was on the verge of going Venus and just waiting for a pebble to fall to start the landslide.

    Reply
  71. to be noted that while I engage not in vandalism but in assertive activism without killing anyone but doing some damage to cars, ” Are you a bit unclear about the definition of the word, “vandalism”?

    Reply
  72. to be noted that while I engage not in vandalism but in assertive activism without killing anyone but doing some damage to cars” “”Are you a bit unclear about the definition of the word”””” “”””vandalism””””?”””

    Reply
  73. Your comparison does not apply.
    As there would be NO problem to feed my dog AND the child in Afghanistan.
    In fact, it is quite a moronish comparison so as the food taken from my dog would not even
    go to the child in Afghanistan you should try better, Goat!
    And I am dangerous, yes, but for the people trying to kill animals and the planet

    Reply
  74. Bunch of bvll, if I may People waste waay too much energy, especially americans. Talking with them is not going to change their habits as they are selfish So you need to make them change the habits by force if necessary

    Reply
  75. Bunch of bvll if I may People waste waay too much energy especially americans. Talking with them is not going to change their habits as they are selfish So you need to make them change the habits by force if necessary

    Reply
  76. Thanks for clarifying Goat. “That if we really do think CO₂ emissions have reached a level that is endangering the future of the world, and of civilization, then we CAN do something about it.” I think this is the clinker though. Yes we can, but how do we as a collective, motivate ourselves to actually do something? People are great at responding to immediate threats but put the timeline out by a few decades and there is a huge motivation problem. Actually, I don’t think its very hard to solve, as most economists also suggest. You just put a price on it. The hard part is getting governments to implement that price when powerful vested interests oppose it for short-term gain. Regarding agriculture at least, temperature increases may easily offset gains from increased CO2. In addition, an increased frequency of extreme weather is certainly not going to be beneficial.

    Reply
  77. Thanks for clarifying Goat.That if we really do think CO₂ emissions have reached a level that is endangering the future of the world and of civilization” then we CAN do something about it.””I think this is the clinker though. Yes we can”” but how do we as a collective motivate ourselves to actually do something? People are great at responding to immediate threats but put the timeline out by a few decades and there is a huge motivation problem. Actually I don’t think its very hard to solve as most economists also suggest. You just put a price on it. The hard part is getting governments to implement that price when powerful vested interests oppose it for short-term gain.Regarding agriculture at least temperature increases may easily offset gains from increased CO2. In addition”” an increased frequency of extreme weather is certainly not going to be beneficial.”””””””

    Reply
  78. Small potatoes. Summing all boats and ships they use 5% of transportation fuel (which itself is only 29% of the energy used in the US). You are talking a massive and very expensive investment for small gains.

    Pickup trucks though use 32% of transport fuel, more than any other transport modality. Just 50.6 million of these things use as much as all cars (183 million of those), motorcycles (8.4 million of those), boats, ships, trains, and buses in the US, COMBINED!

    TRANSPORTATION ENERGY USE BY TYPE
    light trucks (32%) AKA pickup trucks
    cars & motorcycles (24%)
    other trucks (23%) includes duelly pickup trucks as well as big trucks like semis
    aircraft (9%)
    boats & ships (5%)
    trains and buses (3%)
    military (all uses) (2%)
    pipeline fuel (2%) takes energy to move liquids in pipelines…that is transport
    lubricants (<1%) lubricants used by engines and drive trains
    2017 figures U.S. Energy Information Administration

    If we want to cut deeply into fuel waste, we need to stop people from using pickup trucks to commute. The macho stupid has to end.

    They are not even used that much by professionals. Vans generally work better. They get better fuel millage and they protect tools and such from thieves.

    The automakers have been gaming the fuel efficiency numbers for pickups for decades. The real numbers are far worse than the sticker. Go to fuelly.com, and look at the real world numbers.

    Getting power plants replaced with nuclear would be a much smarter investment.

    Reply
  79. Well, I agree with you on necessity to stop climate change, but inciting silly violence had never helped to improve matters. In order to help the Earth we must use our best minds to find a realistic remedies. I am positive we already have some of them, e. g. nuclear fission, development fusion technologies, even consider geoengineering. I think that even people living in, what one lunatic called “shit holes” deserve a better future. If you damage people´s cars you won´t accomplish anything. By the way, you asked for a guy´s adress so you could damage his car, tell us your adress as we want to know who is scratching their cars.

    Reply
  80. Well I agree with you on necessity to stop climate change but inciting silly violence had never helped to improve matters. In order to help the Earth we must use our best minds to find a realistic remedies. I am positive we already have some of them e. g. nuclear fission development fusion technologies even consider geoengineering. I think that even people living in what one lunatic called shit holes”” deserve a better future. If you damage people´s cars you won´t accomplish anything. By the way”” you asked for a guy´s adress so you could damage his car”” tell us your adress as we want to know who is scratching their cars.”””””””

    Reply
  81. Molten salt reactors are NUCLEAR FISSION devices, at the core. (sorry, bad pun.)

    Like it or not, they’re ever much as dangerous as the light water or pressurized water reactors that would be alternative designs to suit industrial purpose. In the exceptional case where one might construe the use of the heat produced by nuclear reactions directly, molten salt reactors offer higher heat potential while remaining controllable enough and safe enough for long-term operation. (any form of water reactor runs out of steam (pun) when its water temperature rises above 374° C, the critical temperature.). Liquid salt reactors are conceived as running above 600° C for “process heat”, safely)

    There is however, no “crisis” in the development of this tech. There are no orders for new nuclear reactors in the United States, for example, in the last 8 years. There are only a handful of orders for new nuclear reactors in France, the most nuclearized country on the planet (as a proportion of its population).

    Yes, there are a lot of orders and buildouts in China.
    Yes, China is pushing nuclear power builds onto as many 3rd world countries as it can.
    And yes, they are attempting a MSR design-flow as well.

    But the odd thing is… if anyone will do it, they will.

    GoatGuy

    Reply
  82. So… using that stretch of logic, then I can “defend myself” by preëmptively killing your dog, because its eating food that would otherwise have gone to feed a starving child in Afghanistan? I’m sorry, but you’re a VANDAL, toad. The likes of you are the ANTIFA members who so decrying “fascism”, that they self-authorize the use of deadly force to quash whatever they believe to be the wrong message. Be it eco-terrorism or any other means. You’re developing dangerous traits, misguided lad.

    Reply
  83. Thanks for the considered reply, Marcus.

    I hold very little hope of getting “civilization” to anything at all about its plight, largely because of the NIMBY¹ effect. Ever been to India? NIMBY is on parade there.

    To tell the truth, I didn’t have terribly high expectations visiting India (or Costa Rica, or Manila, or Belize or …) because they ARE “Third World Countries”, picture postcards of tin-roof slums and so on ever present in National Geographic exposes. In India, I was rather shocked though by the NIMBY mindset that has come to render most-every part of Delhi (and absolutely every other city, town, village and berg) a stinking cesspool of open sewer waste, refuse, piles of garbage and kitchen waste. Its appalling.

    Why is it thus? Because “NIMBY” is the thinking. The stuff encrusted and festering in the streets and alleyways is someone else’s responsibility. The neighborhoods do not work together, they just contribute individually to the mess, and ignore it once it is outside the “compound walls”.

    So … think about that in the context of comprehensively suppressing the ever-growing demand for burned petroleum and fossil fuel energy sources! When the super-minority (or even majority — who knows?) of peoples on this planet seem unable to even mandate and participate in high-functioning municipal waste-stream collection and competent waterway-and-refuse treatment, if “they” can’t even be inspired to clean up their cities, towns and villages, how really are we to expect them to meet “us” as equals in the protect-the-whole-planet gambit? How?

    It just seems like asking an impossible goal.
    Not just “improbable” or “difficult”.
    But impossible.

    WHICH IN TURN… if you connect the dots on that, is variously depressing, offensive and legitimately concerning.

    Indeed… except for a few politicians that are loudly wailing whenever a video camera and reporter is nearby, gnashing their teeth, collectively demanding payment for their oblivion, inevitably “caused” by the First World, apart from that, where’s the evidence for a broader grassroots change-of-ways amongst the populi of the same Third World nations?

    Mmmm… gone fishing.
    Just saying.
    GoatGuy
    _______

    ¹ NIMBY → Not In My Back Yard

    Reply
  84. Yep every reputable scientific in the world without exception” Only if you point blank ignore all the other reputable members of the scientific community who says other wise..which is what you are doing. Many of whom ‘come out of the closet’ when they retire and no longer are in the Grant Whoring Game, which is very telling all in of itself.

    Reply
  85. Yep every reputable scientific in the world without exception””Only if you point blank ignore all the other reputable members of the scientific community who says other wise..which is what you are doing.Many of whom ‘come out of the closet’ when they retire and no longer are in the Grant Whoring Game”””” which is very telling all in of itself.”””

    Reply
  86. No, it is a fraud. CO2 has to increase at an exponential rate in order to cause the same level of warming as it did previously. That would mean BURNING MORE THAN ALL fossil fuels in the ground both discovered & projected. It’s a fraud. And the problem of glaciation or another Maunder Minimum at the least is very real. Solar activity does not lie, unlike Greentards.

    Reply
  87. No it is a fraud. CO2 has to increase at an exponential rate in order to cause the same level of warming as it did previously. That would mean BURNING MORE THAN ALL fossil fuels in the ground both discovered & projected.It’s a fraud. And the problem of glaciation or another Maunder Minimum at the least is very real. Solar activity does not lie unlike Greentards.

    Reply
  88. This is basically saying people all over the world should stay poor or become poor.” No ‘basically’…and not ‘saying’ and not ‘should stay’. It ‘IS’ about ‘FORCING’ people all over the world ‘TO STAY’ poor or become poor. This is the Watermelon/Greentard agenda. Pure and simple. Always was. And to think I was once banned from NBF for saying this harsh truth that Brian didn’t like to hear at that time. 🙂

    Reply
  89. This is basically saying people all over the world should stay poor or become poor.””No ‘basically’…and not ‘saying’ and not ‘should stay’. It ‘IS’ about ‘FORCING’ people all over the world ‘TO STAY’ poor or become poor.This is the Watermelon/Greentard agenda. Pure and simple. Always was.And to think I was once banned from NBF for saying this harsh truth that Brian didn’t like to hear at that time. :)”””

    Reply
  90. Actually… I had a conclusion, but this lovely nit-witted comment system cut it off silently. Comment too long, I guess. Here it is from my file: _______ THE POINT THO IS… That if we really do think CO₂ emissions have reached a level that is endangering the future of the world, and of civilization, then we CAN do something about it. We also tho have to be almost brutally realistic about the burgeoning Third World. Its populations are growning more numerous, its life-expectations, longer, and its “life narrative” substantially wealthier in outlook. This has no alternative than to drive UP the total amount of energy produced and consumed by the peoples of the world in the future. As I started saying, EFFICIENCY of energy-use is key to putting the quabash on ever higher CO₂ emissions and output. The PYTOSPHERE (plant world) is mighty happy about our CO₂ emissions, because to them, all that CO₂ is just plant building food. But with pretty decent physical correlation, we also can say with first-principles certainty, that increasing the atmospheric load of CO₂ also will result in SOME general climatic warming. Provided the Sun doesn’t peter out and try to throw Earth into another Ice Age. In any case, I think the future looks rosey. Just saying, [b]Goat[/b]Guy

    Reply
  91. Actually… I had a conclusion but this lovely nit-witted comment system cut it off silently. Comment too long I guess. Here it is from my file:_______THE POINT THO IS…That if we really do think CO₂ emissions have reached a level that is endangering the future of the world and of civilization then we CAN do something about it. We also tho have to be almost brutally realistic about the burgeoning Third World. Its populations are growning more numerous its life-expectations longer and its life narrative”” substantially wealthier in outlook. This has no alternative than to drive UP the total amount of energy produced and consumed by the peoples of the world in the future. As I started saying”” EFFICIENCY of energy-use is key to putting the quabash on ever higher CO₂ emissions and output. The PYTOSPHERE (plant world) is mighty happy about our CO₂ emissions because to them all that CO₂ is just plant building food. But with pretty decent physical correlation we also can say with first-principles certainty that increasing the atmospheric load of CO₂ also will result in SOME general climatic warming. Provided the Sun doesn’t peter out and try to throw Earth into another Ice Age. In any case I think the future looks rosey. Just saying”” [b]Goat[/b]Guy”””””””

    Reply
  92. Goat Guy was making fun in this very place of the mothers of the people killed by US snipers ” Considering how may of them urged their idiot progeny to be martyrs, those should be made fun of.

    Reply
  93. Goat Guy was making fun in this very place of the mothers of the people killed by US snipers “”Considering how may of them urged their idiot progeny to be martyrs”””” those should be made fun of.”””

    Reply
  94. Fraud should be denied, and no economists can make any predictions worth a damn but the Austrian school. The success of the “elites” in arbitraging the stupidity of the likes of you into wealth at everyone else’s expense makes few comfortable — even if like most like you don’t know where to point their pitchforks.

    Reply
  95. Fraud should be denied and no economists can make any predictions worth a damn but the Austrian school. The success of the elites”” in arbitraging the stupidity of the likes of you into wealth at everyone else’s expense makes few comfortable — even if like most like you don’t know where to point their pitchforks.”””

    Reply
  96. Violence against property and cars is not really violence.
    The activism you were suggesting here. that is killing people abroad, killing animals.
    That IS violence
    If there is a violent person here it is not me

    Reply
  97. Goatguy you make three points but 1) they are kind of obvious and 2) they don’t really lead to an overall conclusion. Do you have a policy solution for the climate or do you think the cost of mitigation is higher than the cost of doing nothing?

    Reply
  98. Goatguy you make three points but 1) they are kind of obvious and 2) they don’t really lead to an overall conclusion. Do you have a policy solution for the climate or do you think the cost of mitigation is higher than the cost of doing nothing?

    Reply
  99. It means that relying on your own “buttocks” is not going to do it because most people won’t do the same. A CO2 tax is the simplest and most favoured solution according to economists. No free riders.

    Reply
  100. It means that relying on your own “buttocks” is not going to do it because most people won’t do the same. A CO2 tax is the simplest and most favoured solution according to economists. No free riders.

    Reply
  101. Not violence. Insipired activism against dvmb people who are destroying our planet We need to do something Really we do But by the way, are not you the same Brett Bellmore who called for a violent blockade against china a few months ago

    Reply
  102. Not violence. Insipired activism against dvmb people who are destroying our planet We need to do something Really we doBut by the way are not you the same Brett Bellmore who called for a violent blockade against china a few months ago

    Reply
  103. To be noted that while I engage not in vandalism but in assertive activism without killing anyone but doing some damage to cars, Goat Guy was making fun in this very place of the mothers of the people killed by US snipers and he called my actions *dramatic* Go figure how twisted his mind and opinions must be..

    Reply
  104. To be noted that while I engage not in vandalism but in assertive activism without killing anyone but doing some damage to cars Goat Guy was making fun in this very place of the mothers of the people killed by US snipers and he called my actions *dramatic* Go figure how twisted his mind and opinions must be..

    Reply
  105. Not *my* environmental policy but *any* environmental policy that protects the planet and not *vandalism* but *assertive activism* . Please use the right words

    Reply
  106. Not *my* environmental policy but *any* environmental policy that protects the planet and not *vandalism* but *assertive activism* . Please use the right words

    Reply
  107. Violence doesn’t cease being violence if you dub it “inspired activism”.

    A word of advice: Violence can suppress an opinion when the violence is massive, and conducted by the majority. Small scale violence by a minority tends, instead, to create a backlash.

    Reply
  108. The claim here is that the water cycle has an enormous positive feedback built into it, such that at any given moment the planet is on the verge of thermal runaway. So the tiny heating contribution from the CO2 is enormously amplified by the H2O.

    I find it unlikely we find ourselves living in the one moment in planetary history where Earth was on the verge of going Venus, and just waiting for a pebble to fall, to start the landslide.

    Reply
  109. “to be noted that while I engage not in vandalism but in assertive activism without killing anyone but doing some damage to cars, ”

    Are you a bit unclear about the definition of the word, “vandalism”?

    Reply
  110. Yes your options are false. The US now uses 40{22800fc54956079738b58e74e4dcd846757aa319aad70fcf90c97a58f3119a12} more energy than Europe for the amount of production. “” “””

    Reply
  111. It’s a waste of time to argue with “”most”””” anthropogenic driven climate change deniers. “””” “””

    Reply
  112. You’ve already demonstrated that your alternate reality is based on cherry picked interpretations from cherry picked, non-climate scientist blogs about cherry picked measurements. That is an ideological, not rational, way of understanding the world I’m afraid.

    Reply
  113. You’ve already demonstrated that your alternate reality is based on cherry picked interpretations from cherry picked non-climate scientist blogs about cherry picked measurements. That is an ideological not rational way of understanding the world I’m afraid.”

    Reply
  114. There are sure a lot of really crazed-and-confused comments here, today. Lucky Lucca has burrowed down the rabbit hole, and is calling for acts of ecologically inspired vandalism. That … is kind of dramatic. From a more level-headed perspective, I see this: (1) THE WORLD ECONOMY IS PROGRESSING In essence, for reasons hinged on the irrepressible benefits of technological innovation, the world is continuing to become ever more wealthy. The standards of living are improving everywhere from the Great Big Countries to the little almost-invislbe archipelagos all over the map. MOST of this — at least I feel — can be attributed to the remarkable leverage of energy-to-accomplish-useful-things-with-super-convenience. It may be a conceit but the Motor Car has democratized the world in a way that very few other technologies have directly empowered. At the cost of burning a surprisingly small amount of petroleum per walking-hour of distance, the great metal machines — cars, trucks, busses and trains — save one’s feet, and comport people to and fro in relative convenience. Sure, “surprisingly small” amount of petrol would be nicer if smaller, or if eliminated even … and there are signs that that is coming. But in the meantime, petroleum powered transportation does surprisingly well at moving goods and people about ubiquitously. (2) THE TEEMING THIRD WORLD WANTS A MUCH BETTER FUTURE I know it really kind of “goes without saying”, so commonly held is this reality. But the truth is out front and hard to ignore: people around the world substantially covet the trappings of the higher-energy-per-capita economic future. Perhaps “we in the West” … or more appropriately labeled, the “technological first world” have perhaps peaked in our per-capita energy use. We might “spend” more energy on more things, but the efficiency-in-flow is improving. Still… higher efficiencies, and some degree of Old Fashioned Conservation would go a long way to individually reduce our per-p

    Reply
  115. There are sure a lot of really crazed-and-confused comments here today. Lucky Lucca has burrowed down the rabbit hole and is calling for acts of ecologically inspired vandalism. That … is kind of dramatic. From a more level-headed perspective I see this:(1) THE WORLD ECONOMY IS PROGRESSINGIn essence for reasons hinged on the irrepressible benefits of technological innovation the world is continuing to become ever more wealthy. The standards of living are improving everywhere from the Great Big Countries to the little almost-invislbe archipelagos all over the map. MOST of this — at least I feel — can be attributed to the remarkable leverage of energy-to-accomplish-useful-things-with-super-convenience. It may be a conceit but the Motor Car has democratized the world in a way that very few other technologies have directly empowered. At the cost of burning a surprisingly small amount of petroleum per walking-hour of distance the great metal machines — cars trucks busses and trains — save one’s feet and comport people to and fro in relative convenience. Sure surprisingly small”” amount of petrol would be nicer if smaller”” or if eliminated even … and there are signs that that is coming. But in the meantime”” petroleum powered transportation does surprisingly well at moving goods and people about ubiquitously. (2) THE TEEMING THIRD WORLD WANTS A MUCH BETTER FUTUREI know it really kind of “”””goes without saying”””””””” so commonly held is this reality. But the truth is out front and hard to ignore: people around the world substantially covet the trappings of the higher-energy-per-capita economic future. Perhaps “”””we in the West”””” … or more appropriately labeled”””” the “”””technological first world”””” have perhaps peaked in our per-capita energy use. We might “”””spend”””” more energy on more things”” but the efficiency-in-flow is improving. Still… higher efficiencies”” and some degree of Old Fashioned Conservation would go a long way to indiv”

    Reply
  116. It’s a waste of time to argue with “most” anthropogenic driven climate change deniers. Just tell them you strongly disagree with them and move on. If they want to blather on about conspiracy theories just let them. A lot them have pent up aggressions and love to squabble. The harshest response to this is silence.

    Reply
  117. It’s a waste of time to argue with most”” anthropogenic driven climate change deniers. Just tell them you strongly disagree with them and move on. If they want to blather on about conspiracy theories just let them. A lot them have pent up aggressions and love to squabble. The harshest response to this is silence.”””

    Reply
  118. It is kind of obvious I think to most people and certainly basic to school level economics the phenomenon of “Free riding”. It is perfectly natural for many of us to rely on others to do the work. How do I know even 10% of people will put the effort in if I do? Saying we should all just do what’s needed without a money incentive is either being deliberately obstructive or stupidly naive.

    Reply
  119. It is kind of obvious I think to most people and certainly basic to school level economics the phenomenon of “Free riding”. It is perfectly natural for many of us to rely on others to do the work. How do I know even 10{22800fc54956079738b58e74e4dcd846757aa319aad70fcf90c97a58f3119a12} of people will put the effort in if I do? Saying we should all just do what’s needed without a money incentive is either being deliberately obstructive or stupidly naive.

    Reply
  120. Note, just because your diet fails does not mean it’s time to start a buttercream frosting diet instead. What it probably means you are cheating big time on your diet. The World is doing lots of stupid things that need to stop. An example is, it’s ridiculous that businesses have diesel generators in Indian to run their ACs when the power goes out. If India was to do something as simple as requiring all new commercial buildings to have a solar roof this would be a big start. A lot of places aren’t even doing bare minimum cost effective things to address the problem. I’d suggest a new international development fund just dedicated to making loans for sustainable energy projects that will at least break even.

    Reply
  121. Note just because your diet fails does not mean it’s time to start a buttercream frosting diet instead. What it probably means you are cheating big time on your diet. The World is doing lots of stupid things that need to stop. An example is it’s ridiculous that businesses have diesel generators in Indian to run their ACs when the power goes out. If India was to do something as simple as requiring all new commercial buildings to have a solar roof this would be a big start. A lot of places aren’t even doing bare minimum cost effective things to address the problem. I’d suggest a new international development fund just dedicated to making loans for sustainable energy projects that will at least break even.

    Reply
  122. Bunch of bvll, if I may
    People waste waay too much energy, especially americans.
    Talking with them is not going to change their habits as they are selfish
    So you need to make them change the habits by force if necessary

    Reply
  123. Thanks for clarifying Goat.

    “That if we really do think CO₂ emissions have reached a level that is endangering the future of the world, and of civilization, then we CAN do something about it.”

    I think this is the clinker though. Yes we can, but how do we as a collective, motivate ourselves to actually do something? People are great at responding to immediate threats but put the timeline out by a few decades and there is a huge motivation problem. Actually, I don’t think its very hard to solve, as most economists also suggest. You just put a price on it. The hard part is getting governments to implement that price when powerful vested interests oppose it for short-term gain.

    Regarding agriculture at least, temperature increases may easily offset gains from increased CO2. In addition, an increased frequency of extreme weather is certainly not going to be beneficial.

    Reply
  124. Well, I agree with you on necessity to stop climate change, but inciting silly violence had never helped to improve matters. In order to help the Earth we must use our best minds to find a realistic remedies. I am positive we already have some of them, e. g. nuclear fission, development fusion technologies, even consider geoengineering. I think that even people living in, what one lunatic called “shit holes” deserve a better future. If you damage people´s cars you won´t accomplish anything. By the way, you asked for a guy´s adress so you could damage his car, tell us your adress as we want to know who is scratching their cars.

    Reply
  125. False options. Typically “whddayawant everyone to ride horses” typically followed by LOL LOL LOL. Alternatives can cut Green House Gases substantially as well as improved efficiency. Long term alternatives like MSR can be developed and built. Economies like the US have grown while the green houses gases have been reduced. LOOK IT UP before you run you ignorant opinions. The US now uses 40% more energy than Europe for the amount of production. Stop throwing out those disinformation soundbites that are misleading and just false.

    Reply
  126. False options. Typically whddayawant everyone to ride horses”” typically followed by LOL LOL LOL. Alternatives can cut Green House Gases substantially as well as improved efficiency. Long term alternatives like MSR can be developed and built. Economies like the US have grown while the green houses gases have been reduced. LOOK IT UP before you run you ignorant opinions. The US now uses 40{22800fc54956079738b58e74e4dcd846757aa319aad70fcf90c97a58f3119a12} more energy than Europe for the amount of production. Stop throwing out those disinformation soundbites that are misleading and just false.”””

    Reply
  127. realclimatescience.com 2018 03 noaa-data-tampering-approaching-2-5-degrees Each “space” is to be replaced by a “/” in the URL. It is the fraudulent AGW supporting “science’ which is the bought and paid for propaganda.

    Reply
  128. realclimatescience.com 2018 03 noaa-data-tampering-approaching-2-5-degreesEach space”” is to be replaced by a “”””/”””” in the URL.It is the fraudulent AGW supporting “”””science’ which is the bought and paid for propaganda.”””

    Reply
  129. “Yep every reputable scientific in the world without exception”

    Only if you point blank ignore all the other reputable members of the scientific community who says other wise..which is what you are doing.

    Many of whom ‘come out of the closet’ when they retire and no longer are in the Grant Whoring Game, which is very telling all in of itself.

    Reply
  130. No, it is a fraud. CO2 has to increase at an exponential rate in order to cause the same level of warming as it did previously. That would mean BURNING MORE THAN ALL fossil fuels in the ground both discovered & projected.

    It’s a fraud.

    And the problem of glaciation or another Maunder Minimum at the least is very real. Solar activity does not lie, unlike Greentards.

    Reply
  131. “This is basically saying people all over the world should stay poor or become poor.”

    No ‘basically’…and not ‘saying’ and not ‘should stay’. It ‘IS’ about ‘FORCING’ people all over the world ‘TO STAY’ poor or become poor.

    This is the Watermelon/Greentard agenda. Pure and simple. Always was.

    And to think I was once banned from NBF for saying this harsh truth that Brian didn’t like to hear at that time. 🙂

    Reply
  132. Actually… I had a conclusion, but this lovely nit-witted comment system cut it off silently. Comment too long, I guess. Here it is from my file:
    _______

    THE POINT THO IS…

    That if we really do think CO₂ emissions have reached a level that is endangering the future of the world, and of civilization, then we CAN do something about it. We also tho have to be almost brutally realistic about the burgeoning Third World. Its populations are growning more numerous, its life-expectations, longer, and its “life narrative” substantially wealthier in outlook.

    This has no alternative than to drive UP the total amount of energy produced and consumed by the peoples of the world in the future. As I started saying, EFFICIENCY of energy-use is key to putting the quabash on ever higher CO₂ emissions and output. The PYTOSPHERE (plant world) is mighty happy about our CO₂ emissions, because to them, all that CO₂ is just plant building food. But with pretty decent physical correlation, we also can say with first-principles certainty, that increasing the atmospheric load of CO₂ also will result in SOME general climatic warming.

    Provided the Sun doesn’t peter out and try to throw Earth into another Ice Age.

    In any case, I think the future looks rosey.
    Just saying,
    [b]Goat[/b]Guy

    Reply
  133. This will not work as the multinationals have too much money and they will pay the government to do their interests, not the interests of the planet

    Reply
  134. This will not work as the multinationals have too much money and they will pay the government to do their interests not the interests of the planet

    Reply
  135. Terrible comparison. the chick in the egg would go out eventually, while there is no evidence human race can find other habitable planets (what about the animals here by the way) People like you are a danger for the planet and they need to be stopped Even with violence if necessary . Sad but true

    Reply
  136. Terrible comparison. the chick in the egg would go out eventually while there is no evidence human race can find other habitable planets (what about the animals here by the way) People like you are a danger for the planet and they need to be stopped Even with violence if necessary . Sad but true

    Reply
  137. ” Goat Guy was making fun in this very place of the mothers of the people killed by US snipers ”

    Considering how may of them urged their idiot progeny to be martyrs, those should be made fun of.

    Reply
  138. And so what? It is CO2 the “ecologists” propose to impoverish billions over about and hurry hundreds of millions to the early graves wealth could put off. And needlessly, because there is no evidence whatsoever that human released CO2 is changing the climate in any measurable way.

    Reply
  139. And so what? It is CO2 the ecologists”” propose to impoverish billions over about and hurry hundreds of millions to the early graves wealth could put off.And needlessly”””” because there is no evidence whatsoever that human released CO2 is changing the climate in any measurable way.”””

    Reply
  140. Fraud should be denied, and no economists can make any predictions worth a damn but the Austrian school. The success of the “elites” in arbitraging the stupidity of the likes of you into wealth at everyone else’s expense makes few comfortable — even if like most like you don’t know where to point their pitchforks.

    Reply
  141. realclimatescience.com/2018/03/noaa-data-tampering-approaching-2-5-degrees/ The fraud shown there is the state of “climate science” worldwide.

    Reply
  142. realclimatescience.com/2018/03/noaa-data-tampering-approaching-2-5-degrees/The fraud shown there is the state of climate science”” worldwide.”””

    Reply
  143. Molten Salt Reactors are the fastest and best technology to solve a huge percentage of the energy pollution crisis. They can be used to produce other fuels, and chemical processes, and desalinate water and burn up spend nuclear rods. The US developed these in the 60s-70s but the LWR was pursued because it produced material for bombs unlike MSRs. China is spending 3.5 billion dollars to develop this technology while DOE spent 85 million. This is a world wide crisis that will kill billions and yet people are more interested in the sized of Kardasians butt.

    Reply
  144. Molten Salt Reactors are the fastest and best technology to solve a huge percentage of the energy pollution crisis. They can be used to produce other fuels and chemical processes and desalinate water and burn up spend nuclear rods. The US developed these in the 60s-70s but the LWR was pursued because it produced material for bombs unlike MSRs. China is spending 3.5 billion dollars to develop this technology while DOE spent 85 million. This is a world wide crisis that will kill billions and yet people are more interested in the sized of Kardasians butt.

    Reply
  145. Exactly what percentage of those who do not like CO2 are against nuclear? Where did you get this information? Many people are against LWR and are in favor of MSR. Since the US will spend trillions on defense and 85 million of MSR technology the US will never lead in this area.

    Reply
  146. Exactly what percentage of those who do not like CO2 are against nuclear? Where did you get this information? Many people are against LWR and are in favor of MSR. Since the US will spend trillions on defense and 85 million of MSR technology the US will never lead in this area.

    Reply
  147. WELL Tom obviously you have the inside scope;) Yep every reputable scientific in the world without exception says global warming is real so they must be stupid/part of the fraud/corrupted/part of a one world government bent on taking away our rights and money? I actually find it hard to believe such ignorant gullible people still exist. Just goes to show you what a well financed disinformation campaign will buy.

    Reply
  148. WELL Tom obviously you have the inside scope;) Yep every reputable scientific in the world without exception says global warming is real so they must be stupid/part of the fraud/corrupted/part of a one world government bent on taking away our rights and money? I actually find it hard to believe such ignorant gullible people still exist. Just goes to show you what a well financed disinformation campaign will buy.

    Reply
  149. Goatguy you make three points but 1) they are kind of obvious and 2) they don’t really lead to an overall conclusion. Do you have a policy solution for the climate or do you think the cost of mitigation is higher than the cost of doing nothing?

    Reply
  150. Plus little LWRs are the only thing that could power a ship for 5 years with *cheap* 4{22800fc54956079738b58e74e4dcd846757aa319aad70fcf90c97a58f3119a12} enriched fuel.

    Reply
  151. It means that relying on your own “buttocks” is not going to do it because most people won’t do the same. A CO2 tax is the simplest and most favoured solution according to economists. No free riders.

    Reply
  152. BTW, I’m not the one who said nuke propulsion was a good idea for cargo. Just highlighting what would make it professional, safe, etc. Would need at least a treaty and an international authority granting licenses.

    Reply
  153. BTW I’m not the one who said nuke propulsion was a good idea for cargo. Just highlighting what would make it professional safe etc. Would need at least a treaty and an international authority granting licenses.

    Reply
  154. Well what international organization is going to license and oversee nukes on the high seas outside of military operations? Don’t say it wouldn’t be needed. Needs to have authority up to the ability to land a helicopter and take away the keys if your captain isn’t fit for duty (i.e. drunk or high).

    Reply
  155. Well what international organization is going to license and oversee nukes on the high seas outside of military operations? Don’t say it wouldn’t be needed. Needs to have authority up to the ability to land a helicopter and take away the keys if your captain isn’t fit for duty (i.e. drunk or high).

    Reply
  156. It’s not so unfortunate, it is that I will always hear of the death of such as yourself with pleasure. You are hostis humani generis.

    Reply
  157. It’s not so unfortunate it is that I will always hear of the death of such as yourself with pleasure.You are hostis humani generis.

    Reply
  158. Not violence.
    Insipired activism against dvmb people who are destroying our planet
    We need to do something
    Really we do
    But by the way, are not you the same Brett Bellmore who called for a violent blockade against china a few months ago

    Reply
  159. To be noted that while I engage not in vandalism but in assertive activism without killing anyone but doing some damage to cars, Goat Guy was making fun in this very place of the mothers of the people killed by US snipers and he called my actions *dramatic*
    Go figure how twisted his mind and opinions must be..

    Reply
  160. Intennectually under developed people very often resort to labeling the opponent as they do not find any argument against them. Understandable

    Reply
  161. Intennectually under developed people very often resort to labeling the opponent as they do not find any argument against them. Understandable

    Reply
  162. Unfortunately for you, I am alive and well. By the way, do you own a large car? Where do you live? Please tell me where you live so I can make you a visit

    Reply
  163. Unfortunately for you I am alive and well. By the way do you own a large car? Where do you live?Please tell me where you live so I can make you a visit

    Reply
  164. It is not the private industry, it is the large majority of people who are too inorant and covard to do anything save complain and complain and to do nothing. If you really want to do something, do not hope others work for you, move your buttocks yourself daer friend

    Reply
  165. It is not the private industry it is the large majority of people who are too inorant and covard to do anything save complain and complain and to do nothing. If you really want to do something do not hope others work for you move your buttocks yourself daer friend

    Reply
  166. No, homes and cars, much less industry, cannot be built to be zero net energy users. ” There is no reason why people have to burn more to earn more.

    Reply
  167. No homes and cars much less industry cannot be built to be zero net energy users. There is no reason why people have to burn more to earn more. “” “””

    Reply
  168. Probably would be best chartered under the UN. ” AYFKM?! The same people who ran the Food for Oil program? Who’s peacekeepers brought disease to Haiti by rape? The UN should not grant charters, it should be de-chartered.

    Reply
  169. Probably would be best chartered under the UN. “”AYFKM?! The same people who ran the Food for Oil program? Who’s peacekeepers brought disease to Haiti by rape?The UN should not grant charters”””” it should be de-chartered.”””

    Reply
  170. I hope you are shot dead, because you are a terrorist. Terrorism is committing crimes for political purposes. Of course, you are an average Leftist.

    Reply
  171. I hope you are shot dead because you are a terrorist. Terrorism is committing crimes for political purposes.Of course you are an average Leftist.

    Reply
  172. Please tell me what’s wrong with a revenue neutral carbon tax offset by some other tax cut? ” Because AGW is a fraud. C’imate has always changed, what is actually likely to happen to the climate which is a problem is a glaciation, and AGW does not exist.

    Reply
  173. Please tell me what’s wrong with a revenue neutral carbon tax offset by some other tax cut? “”Because AGW is a fraud. C’imate has always changed”” what is actually likely to happen to the climate which is a problem is a glaciation”” and AGW does not exist.”””””””

    Reply
  174. The reason why we are in a situation much worse than it needs to be is because private industry (the swamp) has way too much control over government policy. Please tell me what’s wrong with a revenue neutral carbon tax offset by some other tax cut? We have never given private industry the proper incentive to innovate our way out of this. You can say it’s an impossible task but unless we try it, we will never know what could be achieved. As it stands there is simply too little incentive to reduce CO2.

    Reply
  175. The reason why we are in a situation much worse than it needs to be is because private industry (the swamp) has way too much control over government policy. Please tell me what’s wrong with a revenue neutral carbon tax offset by some other tax cut? We have never given private industry the proper incentive to innovate our way out of this. You can say it’s an impossible task but unless we try it we will never know what could be achieved. As it stands there is simply too little incentive to reduce CO2.”

    Reply
  176. Yes, your options are false.

    ” The US now uses 40% more energy than Europe for the amount of production. ” <-- Except even without adopting any laws mandating it, it is the only nation meeting any CO2 reduction targets... reason.com blog 2018 05 04 us-carbon-dioxide-emissions-down-europea Thank a fracker.

    Reply
  177. Would you personally abandon a 26-year diet where your weight doubled while you were on the diet?” Depends… If I went on it when I was 10? Sure! Terrible analogy. A better one would be a chick in an egg: Should it stop consuming yolk because it’s a limited resource? No, it should continue to develop until it’s ready to hatch. Fossil fuels have been our yolk. We just have to bust out of our she’ll before they’re gone.

    Reply
  178. Would you personally abandon a 26-year diet where your weight doubled while you were on the diet?””Depends… If I went on it when I was 10? Sure!Terrible analogy. A better one would be a chick in an egg: Should it stop consuming yolk because it’s a limited resource? No”””” it should continue to develop until it’s ready to hatch.Fossil fuels have been our yolk. We just have to bust out of our she’ll before they’re gone.”””

    Reply
  179. That hydrogen can be reacted with CO and/or CO2 to make either methanol or methane. Either way, you get a carbon-neutral fuel that’s much more compact. I think I saw on the news this week about some methane-fueled ships being launched. Of course, extracting methane from the ground is cheaper, but it’s not carbon-neutral.

    Reply
  180. That hydrogen can be reacted with CO and/or CO2 to make either methanol or methane. Either way you get a carbon-neutral fuel that’s much more compact. I think I saw on the news this week about some methane-fueled ships being launched. Of course extracting methane from the ground is cheaper but it’s not carbon-neutral.

    Reply
  181. ” It’s a waste of time to argue with “most” anthropogenic driven climate change deniers. ” <-- No, it's only warming the AGW theory allows for. " Just tell them you strongly disagree with them and move on " <-- Well you certainly can't debate on the merits of your position. " A lot them have pent up aggressions " <-- You are a participant in an attempted atrocity greater than than any in history.

    Reply
  182. You’ve already demonstrated that your alternate reality is based on cherry picked interpretations from cherry picked, non-climate scientist blogs about cherry picked measurements. That is an ideological, not rational, way of understanding the world I’m afraid.

    Reply
  183. There are sure a lot of really crazed-and-confused comments here, today. Lucky Lucca has burrowed down the rabbit hole, and is calling for acts of ecologically inspired vandalism. That … is kind of dramatic.

    From a more level-headed perspective, I see this:

    (1) THE WORLD ECONOMY IS PROGRESSING

    In essence, for reasons hinged on the irrepressible benefits of technological innovation, the world is continuing to become ever more wealthy. The standards of living are improving everywhere from the Great Big Countries to the little almost-invislbe archipelagos all over the map. MOST of this — at least I feel — can be attributed to the remarkable leverage of energy-to-accomplish-useful-things-with-super-convenience.

    It may be a conceit but the Motor Car has democratized the world in a way that very few other technologies have directly empowered. At the cost of burning a surprisingly small amount of petroleum per walking-hour of distance, the great metal machines — cars, trucks, busses and trains — save one’s feet, and comport people to and fro in relative convenience. Sure, “surprisingly small” amount of petrol would be nicer if smaller, or if eliminated even … and there are signs that that is coming. But in the meantime, petroleum powered transportation does surprisingly well at moving goods and people about ubiquitously.

    (2) THE TEEMING THIRD WORLD WANTS A MUCH BETTER FUTURE

    I know it really kind of “goes without saying”, so commonly held is this reality. But the truth is out front and hard to ignore: people around the world substantially covet the trappings of the higher-energy-per-capita economic future. Perhaps “we in the West” … or more appropriately labeled, the “technological first world” have perhaps peaked in our per-capita energy use. We might “spend” more energy on more things, but the efficiency-in-flow is improving. Still… higher efficiencies, and some degree of Old Fashioned Conservation would go a long way to individually reduce our per-person energy footprint. More to share around.

    The third world however is still mostly in the “look on with wonder” … and hope. People all around the world still use donkey carts and tromp across hill and vale — as kids — hours to get to school; shoeless; all but shirtless. Poverty is a real thing for much of the planet.

    (3) THE TECHNOLOGICAL WORLD HAS OVER-SUPPLY OF “MAKING”

    Let’s face it: we definitely could make WAY more cars than there is presently demand for. We could make more electricity, more office desks, more bicycles, more propane stoves, more LED lights and more rolls of dental floss. We could make WAY more cell phones, more books, jars of jam, fancy knives, machine-loomed oriental rugs, stained glass windows and bolts of pre-washed blue denim to make skirts and jeans. We could. TRIVIALLY, today.

    But at present, there’s not much demand for much more of the stuff. People are consuming what they need and in the wealthier communities, somewhat more than that.

    Reply
  184. It’s a waste of time to argue with “most” anthropogenic driven climate change deniers. Just tell them you strongly disagree with them and move on. If they want to blather on about conspiracy theories just let them. A lot them have pent up aggressions and love to squabble. The harshest response to this is silence.

    Reply
  185. It is kind of obvious I think to most people and certainly basic to school level economics the phenomenon of “Free riding”. It is perfectly natural for many of us to rely on others to do the work. How do I know even 10% of people will put the effort in if I do?

    Saying we should all just do what’s needed without a money incentive is either being deliberately obstructive or stupidly naive.

    Reply
  186. Note, just because your diet fails does not mean it’s time to start a buttercream frosting diet instead. What it probably means you are cheating big time on your diet.

    The World is doing lots of stupid things that need to stop. An example is, it’s ridiculous that businesses have diesel generators in Indian to run their ACs when the power goes out. If India was to do something as simple as requiring all new commercial buildings to have a solar roof this would be a big start. A lot of places aren’t even doing bare minimum cost effective things to address the problem. I’d suggest a new international development fund just dedicated to making loans for sustainable energy projects that will at least break even.

    Reply
  187. Matheus you are a terrorist, you should be put to jail. If actisity like you would stop to protest against the safest energy like nuclear we could all have a cleaner and carbon free future and people in all countries could have decent standard of livong. You are so naive.

    Reply
  188. Matheus you are a terrorist you should be put to jail. If actisity like you would stop to protest against the safest energy like nuclear we could all have a cleaner and carbon free future and people in all countries could have decent standard of livong. You are so naive.

    Reply
  189. False options. Typically “whddayawant everyone to ride horses” typically followed by LOL LOL LOL. Alternatives can cut Green House Gases substantially as well as improved efficiency. Long term alternatives like MSR can be developed and built. Economies like the US have grown while the green houses gases have been reduced. LOOK IT UP before you run you ignorant opinions. The US now uses 40% more energy than Europe for the amount of production. Stop throwing out those disinformation soundbites that are misleading and just false.

    Reply
  190. We have to change the incentives. Tight now, there is very little price for CO2 pollution, most of even that is indirect penalties for soot pollution instead. We need a world Carbon Tax, offset by decreases in other taxes that hurt productivity and innovation. It should be revenue neutral.

    Reply
  191. We have to change the incentives. Tight now there is very little price for CO2 pollution most of even that is indirect penalties for soot pollution instead.We need a world Carbon Tax offset by decreases in other taxes that hurt productivity and innovation. It should be revenue neutral.

    Reply
  192. Can we get back the ability to downvote and/or press “ignore user”? Why has this site gone backward on troll mitigation technology?

    Reply
  193. Can we get back the ability to downvote and/or press ignore user””? Why has this site gone backward on troll mitigation technology?”””

    Reply
  194. So Mexico got removed from North America? Even if you went instead with North, Central, and South America, Mexico is still considered North America, last I knew. USA 346.7 million Canada 37.0 million Mexico 131.0 million total=514.7 million 579.0 million (North American Continent and associated islands)

    Reply
  195. So Mexico got removed from North America?Even if you went instead with North Central and South America Mexico is still considered North America last I knew.USA 346.7 millionCanada 37.0 millionMexico 131.0 milliontotal=514.7 million579.0 million (North American Continent and associated islands)

    Reply
  196. f they have to spend more money to repair things this means they will have less money to spend on SUVs and other polluting stuff. I do not hurt people who behave right, only people who behave wrong. And fascist is the guy who hurts the planet, not the guy trying to save it Again, you lose

    Reply
  197. f they have to spend more money to repair things this means they will have less money to spend on SUVs and other polluting stuff. I do not hurt people who behave right only people who behave wrong. And fascist is the guy who hurts the planet not the guy trying to save it Again you lose

    Reply
  198. A) the guy does not spend money in efficient cars to taking away money from him is a plus not a minus B) very little but the car would not be usable for quite some time. Another plus C) again, that money would have probably gone spent in fuel so better to spend them on paint D) I do not think so, as he will probably have less money now to buy a new SUV. E) People lives in countryside for ages and lived fairly well without SUVs. So, not an excuse In other words, you lose

    Reply
  199. A) the guy does not spend money in efficient cars to taking away money from him is a plus not a minus B) very little but the car would not be usable for quite some time. Another plus C) again that money would have probably gone spent in fuel so better to spend them on paint D) I do not think so as he will probably have less money now to buy a new SUV. E) People lives in countryside for ages and lived fairly well without SUVs. So not an excuse In other words you lose

    Reply
  200. realclimatescience.com 2018 03 noaa-data-tampering-approaching-2-5-degrees

    Each “space” is to be replaced by a “/” in the URL.

    It is the fraudulent AGW supporting “science’ which is the bought and paid for propaganda.

    Reply
  201. That doesn’t make them stop destroying the planet….that makes them spend money repairing the things you destroyed. Also so your saying its OK to say….break out the windows of shop keepers to make them do what you want? Maybe throw some bricks through some windows when you see them feeding the “wrong sort” of people. Man, glad to see you learned something. Oh well fascist will be fascist.

    Reply
  202. That doesn’t make them stop destroying the planet….that makes them spend money repairing the things you destroyed.Also so your saying its OK to say….break out the windows of shop keepers to make them do what you want? Maybe throw some bricks through some windows when you see them feeding the wrong sort”” of people.Man”””” glad to see you learned something. Oh well fascist will be fascist.”””

    Reply
  203. Hey good job! You then caused that person to, A) Spend money that could have been spent on a more efficient car or some such repairing that which you messed up. B) They spent more gas getting to said repair place. (more CO2) C) The person then spent EVEN MORE energy replacing that panel which cost far more in paints (made from fossil fuels and such) D) Caused the person to probably be even more likely to get a SUV again because you had to act like a child. Oh and who are you to decide whether “a SUV or an unnecessary large car” is just that? Maybe they need a SUV because they live in the country and the roads can get rough. Maybe they are big into canoeing and such and need a vehicle to tow things? Maybe they have a large family. The point is you don’t know. Your Ignorant. And apparently a coward. Why would you only do it when they aren’t around?

    Reply
  204. Hey good job! You then caused that person toA) Spend money that could have been spent on a more efficient car or some such repairing that which you messed up.B) They spent more gas getting to said repair place. (more CO2)C) The person then spent EVEN MORE energy replacing that panel which cost far more in paints (made from fossil fuels and such)D) Caused the person to probably be even more likely to get a SUV again because you had to act like a child.Oh and who are you to decide whether a SUV or an unnecessary large car”” is just that? Maybe they need a SUV because they live in the country and the roads can get rough. Maybe they are big into canoeing and such and need a vehicle to tow things? Maybe they have a large family.The point is you don’t know. Your Ignorant. And apparently a coward. Why would you only do it when they aren’t around?”””

    Reply
  205. Use nuclear plants (or other) to generate hydrogen. Use hydrogen fueled cargo ships. I’m sure it has tons of economic issues, but I think this would be far more palatable than having that many nuclear reactors floating around. In the long run I think this is how we’ll do it, unless we figure out a way to make small(ish) nuclear fusion.

    Reply
  206. Use nuclear plants (or other) to generate hydrogen. Use hydrogen fueled cargo ships. I’m sure it has tons of economic issues but I think this would be far more palatable than having that many nuclear reactors floating around. In the long run I think this is how we’ll do it unless we figure out a way to make small(ish) nuclear fusion.

    Reply
  207. Terrible comparison. the chick in the egg would go out eventually, while there is no evidence human race can find other habitable planets (what about the animals here by the way)
    People like you are a danger for the planet and they need to be stopped
    Even with violence if necessary . Sad but true

    Reply
  208. Right but most people do not understand this So you need to do activism against them in order to make them stop destroying the planet

    Reply
  209. Right but most people do not understand this So you need to do activism against them in order to make them stop destroying the planet

    Reply
  210. This is how I do it Everytime I see a SUV or an unnecessary large car parked somewhere, I look around, and if no one s seeing I take out the sharpest of my keys and gently without getting noticed I push the key on the side door of the car. If I do it gently the car alarm is not going to ring . The owner of the SUV does not care about polluting the planet I live in, so why should I care about his car?

    Reply
  211. This is how I do it Everytime I see a SUV or an unnecessary large car parked somewhere I look around and if no one s seeing I take out the sharpest of my keys and gently without getting noticed I push the key on the side door of the car. If I do it gently the car alarm is not going to ring . The owner of the SUV does not care about polluting the planet I live in so why should I care about his car?

    Reply
  212. That would require your typical filipino first engineer and others to be licensed nuclear control operators…. That might not mean much to you, but that’s a lot of training and a lot of intellect and a lot of oversight. Fuel costs would go down but crew costs would go way up in a civilian nuclear merchant marine force. Probably would be best chartered under the UN.

    Reply
  213. That would require your typical filipino first engineer and others to be licensed nuclear control operators…. That might not mean much to you but that’s a lot of training and a lot of intellect and a lot of oversight. Fuel costs would go down but crew costs would go way up in a civilian nuclear merchant marine force. Probably would be best chartered under the UN.

    Reply
  214. And so what? It is CO2 the “ecologists” propose to impoverish billions over about and hurry hundreds of millions to the early graves wealth could put off.

    And needlessly, because there is no evidence whatsoever that human released CO2 is changing the climate in any measurable way.

    Reply
  215. Molten Salt Reactors are the fastest and best technology to solve a huge percentage of the energy pollution crisis. They can be used to produce other fuels, and chemical processes, and desalinate water and burn up spend nuclear rods. The US developed these in the 60s-70s but the LWR was pursued because it produced material for bombs unlike MSRs. China is spending 3.5 billion dollars to develop this technology while DOE spent 85 million. This is a world wide crisis that will kill billions and yet people are more interested in the sized of Kardasians butt.

    Reply
  216. Exactly what percentage of those who do not like CO2 are against nuclear? Where did you get this information? Many people are against LWR and are in favor of MSR. Since the US will spend trillions on defense and 85 million of MSR technology the US will never lead in this area.

    Reply
  217. The year of the embargo. Following that year the GDP rose year after year. Most of the newer based load oil fired power plants were retrofitted to burn gas, the older ones were either retired or became peakers. The USA did not build enough nuclear power plant to replaced all of the oil fired power plant. One thing the USA did was to pursue efficiency. As a result of that it took a lot less energy to make things, to heat and cool homes and offices and to provide lighting.

    Reply
  218. The year of the embargo. Following that year the GDP rose year after year. Most of the newer based load oil fired power plants were retrofitted to burn gas the older ones were either retired or became peakers. The USA did not build enough nuclear power plant to replaced all of the oil fired power plant. One thing the USA did was to pursue efficiency. As a result of that it took a lot less energy to make things to heat and cool homes and offices and to provide lighting.

    Reply
  219. WELL Tom obviously you have the inside scope;) Yep every reputable scientific in the world without exception says global warming is real so they must be stupid/part of the fraud/corrupted/part of a one world government bent on taking away our rights and money? I actually find it hard to believe such ignorant gullible people still exist. Just goes to show you what a well financed disinformation campaign will buy.

    Reply
  220. If we really want to curb CO2 emissions, we need to build nuclear-powered cargo ships. Many military ships use nuclear fuel and cargo ships are ideal for that as well. Those giant cargo ships are currently among the world’s top polluters, as they use massive amounts of the dirtiest diesel fuel there is. The idea of nuclear cargo ships was explored in the 1950s with a few prototypes and never took off, for various reasons, but if there was enough political will to back it up, it could work 100%. Nowadays, the issue is that the same people who cry over CO2 levels, don’t want nuclear power either…

    Reply
  221. If we really want to curb CO2 emissions we need to build nuclear-powered cargo ships. Many military ships use nuclear fuel and cargo ships are ideal for that as well.Those giant cargo ships are currently among the world’s top polluters as they use massive amounts of the dirtiest diesel fuel there is.The idea of nuclear cargo ships was explored in the 1950s with a few prototypes and never took off for various reasons but if there was enough political will to back it up it could work 100{22800fc54956079738b58e74e4dcd846757aa319aad70fcf90c97a58f3119a12}.Nowadays the issue is that the same people who cry over CO2 levels don’t want nuclear power either…

    Reply
  222. BTW, I’m not the one who said nuke propulsion was a good idea for cargo. Just highlighting what would make it professional, safe, etc. Would need at least a treaty and an international authority granting licenses.

    Reply
  223. Well what international organization is going to license and oversee nukes on the high seas outside of military operations? Don’t say it wouldn’t be needed. Needs to have authority up to the ability to land a helicopter and take away the keys if your captain isn’t fit for duty (i.e. drunk or high).

    Reply
  224. It is not the private industry, it is the large majority of people who are too inorant and covard to do anything save complain and complain and to do nothing. If you really want to do something, do not hope others work for you, move your buttocks yourself daer friend

    Reply
  225. United States GDP dropped 6.4{22800fc54956079738b58e74e4dcd846757aa319aad70fcf90c97a58f3119a12} in 1974. Then they built enough reactors to replace all their oil fired power stations.

    Reply
  226. No, homes and cars, much less industry, cannot be built to be zero net energy users.

    ” There is no reason why people have to burn more to earn more. ” <-- If you mean watts, you are quite incorrect.

    Reply
  227. ” Probably would be best chartered under the UN. ”

    AYFKM?! The same people who ran the Food for Oil program? Who’s peacekeepers brought disease to Haiti by rape?

    The UN should not grant charters, it should be de-chartered.

    Reply