Climate Change Demand is Telling Putin and Texas Oilmen to Stop and French to Sacrifice

89 thoughts on “Climate Change Demand is Telling Putin and Texas Oilmen to Stop and French to Sacrifice”

1. Titus, I even have a few years on you and traveled the same path. I learned about the danger of AGW from Steven Schneider himself at Stanford, gave Al Gore speeches before Steve sold his slides to Al. A good friend with two PhDs and four Masters degrees went to work for the Australian government to help them with their cap and trade program. We both celebrated his new role in saving the planet. About six months later, he started emailing that the science behind the hockey stick was a fraud and Australia was mostly interested in using his work to raise taxes on the massive amounts of coal that they export.

   This set me on a new path of independent investigation. Anyone reading this who wants to claim credibility needs to read all least: The Climategate Emails in their original text; The IPCC reports, both scientific and advice to policymakers (two different worlds); the Paris Climate Accord in its original text (nothing whatever to do with stopping climate change and everything to do with income transfers from rich countries to poor).

   Until you have done this and also read the important scientific papers in their original text, anything you have to say is just PR from one or another of the money grubbers and clickbait prostitutes that have colonized the temple of science.

   Appeals to authority and consensus thinking are not the basis of science. Skepticism is its heart and sole. That’s why the effects of CO2 are still a hypothesis, not even a theory.

2. Also for example Chicago. Thing is, people at the extremity of their ability to deal with extremes of climate, the very young the elderly, the sick–hot or cold–have always died at far higher rates when temperatures happen to be very hot or very cold. This is nothing new.

3. Now that’s funny. The fact measured tempratures are not going up as the AGW theory demands, and that the measured temperatures have to be adjusted until they agree with the theory — that is evidence the theory is BS.

4. Why does the fact that nature not caring about per capita breakdowns needs ‘sourcing’ ?

   Are you even CAPABLE of logical thinking and analysis or is it because you have zero grounding in ANY science to not be able to admit that it is true that nature doesn’t care about per capita breakdowns of CO2 emissions? Or are you just being a troll?

   I think we know which is the answer.

5. Prove that it was false.

   See, same thing.

   You don’t have to believe me. That’s your choice. But since all you do is troll the Libtard mantra on here, it is pretty much established that you wouldn’t believe this story even if a video recording of his dept head telling all that was aired on live TV, too.

6. Where is your scientific source. Put up or shut up. You do not have any background in climate science. Neither do I but I can name valid sources to support my arguments.

7. List one scientific organization in the entire world that agrees with you. There must be hundreds so list just one that agrees with you. You cannot since it does not exist. Can’t admit that the disinformation web sites were able to feed some false talking points and you bought them. That would bring into question you being a intelligent, and/or gullible fool that believes anything. That would make you a chump and admitting were were punked in not what people do. Con men relie on that so they do not get reported as often.

8. Yep a buddy of mine said that you were a fool. Since someone heard someone say something it must be true?

9. Yes. Like the evidence that GW data has been deliberately altered and deliberately so. That scientists conspired to rig the ‘peer review’ process at leading journals in order to censor papers by those who challenged their BS. Evidence that global sea levels have not risen.

   But most of all, we have the evidence of observed hindsight that the predictions of AGW ‘models’ were bupkiss.

   All evidence that leads to an evidence-based decision that Global Warming is a fraud.

10. Rational people long ago realized making evidence-based decision tends to lead to better outcomes than those based on beliefs.

11. Easy to say, hard to do.

12. Earth to IPCC: Leave us alone, we’re not buying your bill of goods.

13. Yea I get what you’re saying. I did not vote for Macron…
    I still think that France is not affected as badly by all this bullshit as some other countries but we still have a feminazi in the government (Marlene Schiappa), so we’re not completely spared either. I’m definitely considering moving to some other country if things get really bad though. Maybe eastern europe.

14. Ooh, then that went way over my head. I guess the quote got changed in translation, originally she said “Brioche” not “Cake”.

15. There are tens of thousand of research papers in the scientific literature going back over 100 years that supports AGW hypothesis.

    So what?

16. Because there are as many articles, videos, MIT professors and IPCC contributors who say just that, is why.

    In fact, the actual content of the IPCC reports are very heavily laced with contentious debate. It its only the political sections that claim that it is not.

17. I guess you’ve never seen a demographic map of voters broken down by ZIP codes, then.

18. ..and the title companies stop taking out policies for land that will ‘soon’ be ‘underwater’. Don’t forget them!

19. Yes, it IS all a conspiracy: To keep the funding money rolling in. Period.

    No need for much conspiring there…even though the U of East Anglia emails proved that they were doing so. Just saying the same talking points over and over again was good enough.

20. Yep. I was told by a buddy of mine who was an assiociate prof at UC Berkeley that his boss called him in to his office, and told him to keep his mouth shut about global warming despite the fact that he was a physicists teaching physics, not climate science.

    Reason: Didn’t want there to be any risk to the funding for ‘climate science’ departments. Period.

    Later on, just keeping his mouth shut was no longer deemed just good enough either: they started to pressure him to toot the global warming mantra even though he insisted that as a physicist who didn’t research any of that, he should not have ANY authorative position to say on the subject.

    That was deemed not good enough, apparently.

21. Nature doesn’t care about per capita breakdowns of CO2 emissions, either. It only cares about the total — regardless of which position one holds on what that ‘effect’ is.

    Yet all we hear from the Left…especially the Luca-types on here…is per capita this, per capita that. Which is sooo easy to rip apart for the ideological jihad of the Left against Normal Rest of Humanity that it is.

    And THAT is the issue, really. Conservatives take advantage of that, yes. But their position isn’t a part of the real issue. It wasn’t American conservatives taking to the streets in France while wearing yellow safety vests now, was it?

22. While I disagree on some of your analytical conclusions to the scenario you outlined, I do not disagree with the outline itself, roughly.

    Well done!

23. A) Because we realize not doing so will kill us and we just do it.

    B) We die. Plain and simple, no other way to put that.

    Hahahahahahah. Too funny!

24. He was referring to the Marie Antoinette quote (apocryphal as it may be).

25. I grew up in a rural area and farmers were raising cows for meat and milk and farming wheat and corn

    Yeah but only with heavy state intervention subsidy support. The average French small farm is woefully uncompetitive to vast agricorp farms in the US and Australia.

26. I don’t know why this lesson cannot be learned by policy makers.

    They know it perfectly well. What you seem to be having problems learning is that all politicians are more interested in having unsolved issues to derive power therefrom..and (gasp) solutions are anathema to that. 🙂

27. Also oil controls the world and the US is essentially energy independent.

    You say that like it is a bad thing. Meanwhile you and the rest of the world didn’t seem to mind when you bought oil from other countries by the gazillions of barrels. But now it is America you will have to line up to to perform felatio upon in order to keep your Volvos running…Evil Empire!

    One plan was to raise a carbon tax and refund everything off setting income taxes.

    Which will never see the light of day. Just look at how Marcon’s raise in diesel tax all went to feeding the French bureaucratic beast, for example.

    Raising gasoline taxes to just the historic 1950s percentage levels to fund infrastructure DEAD on arrival.

    Because TRILLIONS was raised…enough to rebuild ALL of America’s highways AND even state/local roads three times over. But the politicians raided the fund and so now they want to raise fuel taxes even more! No wonder nobody trusts them this time around.

28. Watermelons: Epithet denoting how communists have taken over environmentalism in order to achieve power after the Fall of Communism discredited open communist government.

    …a watermelon is a huge red, commie mass on the inside covered by a thin veneer of environmentalist green on the outside.

29. No one even considers diverting 1% of taxes taken from fuel sales into funding of such projects

    Given how Congress has raided to the tune of TRILLIONS from the highway trust fund that all our federal fuel taxes for the past 40 years were supposed to go in for rebuilding our roads and highways, what makes you think that they ever will consider doing as you propose? (Ditto for the states’ fuel tax revenues, btw)

30. Who are the big winners and powers that profit from oil and gas. It is Putin and the oil barons in Russia. It is Saudi Shieks. It is Texas oilmen.

    It is now all of America, since we are not net oil exporters and that has drastically cut down on our imports of goods as a percentage of GDP.

31. Dah. Just because temps can go up due to causes other than CO2 doesn’t mean they are doing so right now. This is the kind of basic logic that you seem completely blind to. You simply prove my case.

32. That’s funny the yellow vests don’t seem to be demanding an end to climate change reforms, instead they seem to want the more well do bear the brunt of the hardships. They also want taxes to be more progressive and they want higherr minimum wages too. The French are not Climate Change Deniers.

33. And I mean personal as in you being an author.

34. Please post your personal publication list of peer reviewed articles on global climate. Otherwise perhaps you should leave it to the professionals.

35. Stop it with the quack videos and list just one recognized scientific organization in the world that says global warming is not real. I can post quack videos that say the moon landing was a hoax and the earth is flat. But guess what genius I cannot find one scientific organization in the world that agrees with these videos. Using quack videos makes you look like a fool. Using a business man as your scientific source make you a fool.

36. Yes the greens are refusing to invent a battery that charges in one hour and goes 500 miles. They also refuse to invent a perpetual motion machine. Those damn greens are all part of a world wide conspiracy. Those greens are all in on big organized conspiracy tat is out to hold back green technology? Who knows why buy it must be for some nefarious reason. People would think that someone NON green would want to do this to make billions but the greens must be sabotaging these efforts. You logic is astounding.

37. Yes it a conspiracy the whole world of scientific organizations are involved in. So are the retreating glaciers in Alaska and the Greenland ice sheet melting and multiple cat 5/4 hurricanes in one year. Even the military is making contingency plans and the insurance companies are adjusting their calculations based upon more devastating storms. YET deas bees stupid when a moron posts his brilliant theories.

38. Yes false analogy. 500 years ago people though the earth was flat. Although your thinking may be 500 years ago we now have things like universities and computers and models and the scientific method and huge advances in technologies. We actually put a man on the moon (although they did not show the underside of the earth) as it flew by. We do not bleed people when they are sick either.
    Yes moron things were hotter with dinosaurs. So whats your point? It took thousands of years for change except when meteors hit the earth or vast volcanic fields opened up. We are facing change in 100 year time frame and guess what: we will lose our coastal cities worth trillions. You will be fine living in the hills making moonshine but the rest of the world will suffer a billion dead and displaced and 1/2 of the world species dead.

    Amazing how a fool can use so many examples out of context. I don’t have time to disprove the ton of BS you are spewing. A genieus in his own mind who cannot even list one scientific organization in the world that agrees with him. But he does not lets facts get in the way of logic.

39. I only wonder what is it that they expect to rule if their wish comes true. Life of “elite” 200 years ago was much worse than today’s minimum wage worker. Healthcare, food, life expectancy — everything. Also constant war and frequent uprisings, with a very good chance of losing the “elite head” one way or another. Simply put, the better the power base, the better life for the “elite”, the more power they have. The elites of the past strived and fought to expand power base, not shrink it. Or are the elites now too stupid to realise that?

    Also there is that one little catch. The way down from here is not to coal and wood, it is all the way down to small tribes picking twigs. The easy coal, easy gas, easy oil and easy food production are all over — it is either up from here, or down to zero, not down to feudal times.

40. Yep only liberals buy land on the coasts? You must live in the hills.

41. IT is not a liberal conservative issue. The climate doesn’t care what party your from when the waters rise and the hurricanes come. It dosen’t care when the species die off. So stop with that idiotic crap.

42. Wow your twisted logic is astounding. Basically the oil in the ground will last for another 30 years and the oil companies want to maximize their profits. Also oil controls the world and the US is essentially energy independent. So do not expect a Manhattan still project funded by the whores on capital hill.

    There are alternatives like molten salt reactors that require some material research and engineering efforts to make a commercial reactor. No new scientific breakthroughs are required just a few billion for the first designs and prototypes. (corporations loath to take that kind of risk). The cost of just one aircraft carrier will be enough money to funds several differnt design types. It will save trillions in coastal damage including relocating based such as Norfolk. This is not an issues of government control or tax you to death. One plan was to raise a carbon tax and refund everything off setting income taxes. DEAD on arrival. Raising gasoline taxes to just the historic 1950s percentage levels to fund infrastructure DEAD on arrival. You see a pattern here. Basically the whores on capital hill will do nothing to offend the oil industry or the banking industry or the drug industry.

    If it is a conspiracy thene there shoud be just one nationally or internationally recognized scientific organization in the world that agrees global warming is not real. Please list just one or take your tin foil hat and go away.

43. Normally, I don’t comment twice, but I just want to thank Brian for his wonderful website and giving us the ability to have a voice. That said, I simply disagree with him on this. The Green movement today has been 110% politicized. Don’t trust them! The founder of Green Peace left that organization for a reason – and he made it very clear why. If the Greens want to get rid of most of fossil fuels, then they need to invent a 500 MILE BATTERY THAT CHARGES IN UNDER AN HOUR. That will be disruptive and would definitely change the world. Solar and Wind are a joke. Fusion and LENR are currently fantasies; SURPRISE US !! Again, a 500 mile battery that charges in under an hour – OR BUST!!
    And thanks to Brian for this site though I respectfully disagree with him on this…

44. I have been on this planet for 60 years and am highly educated (with environmental sciences training under my belt) as well as having done years of research on this too. In the 1970’s these idiots were claiming that by 2000 we’d be in another Ice Age. I was in one class in mid-1990’s where a professor with a completely straight face… told his class that fossil fuels would gone by 2020. Then we heard that the caribou, polar bears, whales, and even the forests were all dying off. Today they are all thriving. They also told us the arctic ice sheets where shrinking when they were actually expanding. They whaled that the glaciers were all melting when they were actually just calving. They routinely faked their data, and academia was caught red-handed suppressing opposing view points. Brian’s statement that the French riots are just rural commuters is purely a progressive-talking-point! Gasoline in France is up to $7.00 dollars a gallon in most the country! All the French are buckling under! And that’s not all. Green policies are destroying the middle class in Germany, Poland, France, and many other Western European nations. The same policies would ruin the American economy. The Greens are nuts and its time people figured that out! This is all about economic competition and power-over-us. Don’t be a stupe! Question them!! Do your own research!!! Don’t accept a line of from a bunch of academics and politicians living in Ivory Towers. They are lying to us…

45. Don’t be irrational DrPat, there is a big difference between videos expressing unsupported beliefs and those with positions supported with evidence. That video is literally a guy reading the findings of the research paper, the original source write up of the research is also linked in his video.

    If you’re claiming the video is misrepresenting its own source or the research is a fraud then that is a problem, if substantiated?

    My point was, anyone can make claims in a blog or in a video, but what matters is if the assertions is supported by documented evidence. Like most of the human race, you appear incapable of seeing a distinction between beliefs and evidence.

46. Don’t punish people. Try rewarding them. Tax rebate or lower VAT for buying EV, pluggable hybrids, and high mpg cars. Tax rebates for renewable.

47. Isn’t France the place where ten thousands elderly French people died during a heat wave? I wonder what they will do when it happens every summer, protest?

48. Additionally, the recent peripheral melting of ice in Greenland merely uncovers what was once already uncovered — that is why there are Viking settlement structures for the melting to uncover, and there was no human released or higher CO2 when those settlemets were created…

    …So no corelation there to CO2 levels. Thank you for bringing up something which disproves your “theory”.

49. France’s new energy policies don’t make any sense. Thanks to nuclear energy, France has the lowest carbon footprint in Europe. Yet, pressure from the political left is forcing them to reduce their dependence on nuclear energy.

    What France should be doing is using their off peak electricity to convert urban and rural bio-waste into methanol. Methanol can be used in natural gas power plants cheaply converted to use methanol. And this could allow electricity production in France to be completely carbon neutral.

    Renewable methanol can also be converted into renewable gasoline. So France could have reduced the carbon footprint from automobiles be requiring a certain percentage of gasoline be derived from renewable methanol.

    Such policies would have put more money into the pockets of rural farmers while further reducing France’s carbon footprint.

    Marcel

50. “It is hard to build the future by punishing people, easier to build the future through engineering. I don’t know why this lesson cannot be learned by policy makers.”

    The policy makers figure they’re the ‘smartest and best’ to map out the future. Any dissent is, therefore, not smart and totally wrong and by God they’re going to punish any unbelievers who will not let them control it all.

51. You’ve got it. They really don’t want an energy revolution – they want an energy drought so they can ‘control’ who gets what.

    And we’re the bad guys because we won’t cooperate with them putting a boot on our neck.

52. has this website become cucked sjw marxist globalist?
    why the hell would you tell the french to “sacrifice”? are you stupid disconnected from reality?
    the reason Macron wanted to tax the oil is to get more money they lost by giving busineses and rich people tax cuts if they invested some of money in France. Sounds good right? wrong, they are sponsoring tax cuts for the rich that will get even richer once they reinvest their taxless money by taxing the regular working class that barely makes it.
    This has nothing to do with any climate change, the money from oil tax wont go to green projects or help climate change at all.
    Also it wont curb oil consumption because the majority of oil consumption is for daily needs not “for fun”, people would still buy the same ammount of oil but more expensive and then sacrifice something else in their budget like going out to dinner, entertainment etc, all just to help the rich get richer and help the french economy look better while the poor get poorer

53. Cheap fusion energy –
    The sociopolitical ramifications would sure be interesting.

54. Solar will only work for the middle latitudes (ever been to canada or northern Europe in January? The sun sometimes doesnt shines for days at a time and when it does, it’s super weak. And this just happens to be when the MOST base load energy is required to keep everyone from freezing to death. As the commenter above stated, we need small fusion and or in the short term closed cycle nukes installed locally. Problem solved! Everyone would get nearly unlimited, cheap, clean energy. It would even make vertical farming a sustainable solution to producing food locally.h

55. Yep.
    Let’s all take it easy and give each other some breathing room. There’s plenty of space in the solar system and beyond, and there’s plenty of time if we invest in a little bit of research on our poor puny natural aging bodies.

    Then we have eternity to debate all the ways we could’ve done it differently and whether Elvis and Hitler are still alive, whether Kennedy really was shot by a single person, whether socialism or capitalism really was more righteous, and maybe what we’re going to do with all that time and real estate.

56. It’s because the underlying plan is to return the populace to serfdom. Your ideas logically seem the most sensible however, they would result in the global masses gaining more wealth and influence in the world through a move to such an incredibly dense energy source that would be at least on par with the move from whale oil to fossil fuels. It would be a second industrial revolution. This would endanger the ruling classes controlling position in society however. So they would rather take us back to a feudal system of lords and paupers to ensure their everlasting dominance. That’s why the only solution they ever present is raise the price of everything, and tax it to oblivion. I’d take a bet saying they will want to tax exhaling if this is allowed to continue on its trajectory.

57. https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2018/01/25/new-yorks-temperature-record-massively-altered-by-noaa/

    No it has never been measured. No corelation between CO2 concentration and any increase in temperatures consistent with AGW theory have ever been observed. The effect of CO2 in that regard has been saturated for quite a while. That is why the warmists need to carry out fraud in claiming it has been measured.

    https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/the-stunning-statistical-fraud-behind-the-global-warming-scare/

    ” But the actual measured temperature record shows something different: There have been hot years and hot decades since the turn of the last century, and colder years and colder decades. But the overall measured temperature shows no clear trend over the last century, at least not one that suggests runaway warming. ”

    https://realclimatescience.com/2018/03/noaa-data-tampering-approaching-2-5-degrees/

    The warmists “empirical” data is invented, not measured. If AGW was real, let alone catastrophic, the theories proponents wouldn’t be needing to lie about it.

58. Russians screwed up and became communist the same way Germans screwed up and became Nazi — all on their own cultural rot, stupidity, and evil.

59. It’s been measured in many numerous ways. Just two days ago yet another paper came out, this time showing an exponential encrease in Greenland ice melt. However there is simply no amount of empirical evidence that will satisfy you Tom because that is the way you desire it to be. You therefore have no useful input into this discussion. You are completely blinkered.

60. “If you go to the countryside, it’s often a much nicer atmosphere, in my opinion.” yes, where actual french still live…but please, contiue to vote on various macrons, just like you did in past 30 years and in next generation you will be extinct. Before anybody will see andy “cliamte change”.

    random hate towards France is always a fun. like… man, there is huuuuge comeptiton right now for title of “cuck country of century”, I really cannot tell who will win in the end. Germany, France? UK or Sweden? Or maybe Norway? Im certain Canada has big chances too!

    utter contempt for those countries, im sending it with love and kisses!

61. But..but… plz sir, my NWO global government… I needz. xD
    Protest appears to he part of just about every culture. If it wasn’t, we’d all be in even bigger trouble than we already are. We’re all in this together, hmm?

62. This is more of a black and white statement in a gray area, but I think that eventually, we’re going to shift away from fossil fuels entirely, and it will happen for one of two reasons. Either:
    A) Because we realize not doing so will kill us and we just do it.
    B) We die. Plain and simple, no other way to put that.

    In either scenario, doing either of those two things will be difficult. I can say that if alternatives aren’t offered when governments demand that industry moves away from coal, oil gas and even fission, both industry and consumers will protest.
    So:
    This shift has to happen if we’re going to survive on this planet (moving planets is for another conversation), and alternatives need to be provided by industry AND government.

63. The question is who pays for it. Rich liberals want the poor to pay for it. Obviously they are idiots, and if they try to make the poor pay, the poor will burn this shit down, because the poor are barely surviving as it is. On the other hand, rich conservatives want the poor to pay too, not in taxes on gasoline to prevent global warming, but they want to do nothing about global warming, which causes the poor to bear the brunt of the vastly more expensive scenario of an unfolding global disaster. Then the rich conservatives accuse the rich liberals of “forgetting about the poor,” nobody votes for them, and the rich liberals wonder why they lose elections. Then they despair that humanity is doomed, while working with the conservatives to exclude all other political parties.

64. Is that the version of The GGWS with a few of the more blatant lies taken out ? ( e.g. volcanoes make more CO2 than humans when it’s a hundred times less, quoting people to support their case who vehemently denied doing so..)

65. To be fair, it wasn’t the Pope and the ‘religious establishment’ proper that strongly opposed Galileo( in fact, on their first meeting Galileo was warmly welcomed by the Pope). It was the ‘philosophical elite’ – in their efforts to ‘Christianize’ Greek philosophy – who pushed Geocentrism loud and hardest.

    Galileo’s evidence at the time was not as conclusive as we think in retrospect, and his downfall was at least in part due to a constitution and tact not unlike Elon Musk’s today, giving the ‘establishment’ the leverage they needed to convince the Church that he was of a kind with other _religiously_ motivated proponents of a Sun-centered cosmos( not merely our local solar system), who weren’t motivated by science in the least. He didn’t do himself any favors.

    Then again, if you’re skeptical of anthrapogenic global warming you could say the comparison works even better than it seems at first glance! 😀

    Joel

66. If IPCC and all “groups” said in one voice something constructive and workable, i.e. “organise Manhattan project-style effort to make economically viable clean fusion power to replace coal-powered base load generation”, and/or “complete development of closed nuclear fuel cycle and fast reactors”, they would get some credibility and attention. Meanwhile, the mentioned fusion projects are trying to get crowd funding in volumes that are a rounding error for all potential users. No one even considers diverting 1% of taxes taken from fuel sales into funding of such projects. So all that screaming and whining is just bullshit — no wonder it is essentially ignored by people at Xi/Putin/Saudi level. China funds and develops all viable options for nuclear — that is zero-carbon for those who don’t know. Russia basically switched to natural gas and nuclear, which is low-carbon and zero-carbon. Meanwhile, France wants to shut down its massive nuclear generation (makes whole France low-carbon), though with the recent unrest that may not happen.

67. ” There are tens of thousand of research papers in the scientific literature going back over 100 years that supports AGW hypothesis. ”

    No, there are not. In fact, as recently as 40 years ago, the screaming was that an Iace Age was coming. One is of course, we just can’t be sure when.

    If in fact AGW was a thing, it would be measured instead of being invented by baseless adjustments to data.

68. People who have been following political promises AND actual government actions over more than one electoral cycle can remember a number of occasions when some tax/fee/charge/different-name-for-same-thing was going to be “revenue” neutral.

    Somehow it always ends up that everyone ends up paying the tax, but only politically favoured groups supporting the current power centers get the money returned to them.

    Or maybe the money never comes back at all, and instead is funneled into some “service” that only serves a narrow group.

    eg. Tax on cigarettes → will be returned to the taxpayer → actually gets spent on cancer research and prevention → in real life this means was handed over to an advertising company in return for producing anti-smoking ads → ad company makes large political donation.

    If it was really neutral for each person then it wouldn’t actually change behaviour would it?

    So when another “revenue neutral” proposal comes up, so many people will just reject it straight away as probably being some sort of scam.

69. You shouldn’t believer random internet videos. Here is a random internet video to explain why not.

70. So now Bolshevism was imposed on Russia by foreigners? Interesting plot twist.

    Wait, I get it, it was Stalin. That Georgian! It makes sense now.

    Germany had a similar problem with an Austrian if I recall correctly. Not their fault at all.

71. Considering that efforts to appease the movement by reversing plans to raise the controversial gas tax have had little effect, it’s not really clear what these people are protesting about…

72. Thought that this was an interesting talk on our energy future from a Canadian point of view. Good graphs and discussion on current energy mix and trends.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=raMwTUjB224&feature=share&fbclid=IwAR1KYTHbA

73. Scientific consensus on the evidence for AGW mean it’s correct.

    500 years ago, the consensus was that the pope believed the Sun went around the Earth and you should too if you didn’t want to end up like a witch.

    You can use the word “consensus” in those 2 context as if they were equivalent and to support your beliefs, but that does not make you correct.

74. Yep, let’s put the price tag on a sub group for some feel good measures that won’t do much to help even if AWG is correct. Let’s not tax our connected pals. Wonder why they are mad … I say try a $2 a gal tax on the west coast and see if we get the same reaction.

75. In science a 99% consensus usually means some behind the scenes (or even in front of the scenes) coercion … here is employment, “research” funding, academic advancement and social inclusion. AGW is the new religion of the left.

76. Just because there is a consensus doesn’t mean it’s correct. If we went back 500 years ago the consensus would be that the Sun went around the Earth. Some things to think about: The strongest tropical cyclone recorded is still Typhoon Tip in 1979. The strongest Hurricane to hit the U.S. was the 1935 Labor Day Storm. No change in storm strength that we are all told that there is. The last inter-glacial had higher temperatures than now. The CO2 content in the age of the dinosaurs was far higher than it is now and there was no run-away melt down of the climate. That doesn’t mean we should willy-nilly abuse the environment. Much of the loss of wild-life is probably from habitat destruction because of improper development. More renewable energy is a good thought, but going too fast in that direction makes the price of energy too high now in some places. This only hurts the poor and keeps the undeveloped nations in poverty.

77. Let’s get this Us vs Them party started!

78. Let’s not move on from the past.

79. I don’t know why this lesson cannot be learned by policy makers.
    It’s the electorate. People want easy lives even if it means handouts and stasis to the point of stagnation. Most people don’t think outside the box of their tribe’s habits and values, whether that’s country or tiny lifestyle niche. Because –
    easier to build the future through engineering
    The reality of this is greek to most people. The dimensions allowed by engineering (rather all the things science and tech enable; the state of the world when you combine their near and medium term potential in *all* domains) just don’t occur to most people. Corollary: tiny number of people know about the Long Now Foundation and fraction of those see it’s an essential part of humanity’s future.

    IMHO the single most responsible cause overall is that the power of people on their environment is outpacing their environmental wisdom. Not tree hugging, but the general stewardship of the planet as the design space for tomorrow and every day after that.
    Making the solar system that canvas, and making centuries instead of a handful of decades the time to fill that canvas, would change things more than any single conventional policy or politician elected tomorrow. Something like cheap fusion would help but IMHO it would be more of the same.

    It’s only when you break, not bend, majority of global electorate’s obsolete view of human life as a <100yr of cradle to grave wage slaving, that things will change. Likewise with space.

80. Russia’s decisions are of course mostly made by Putin. Will Putin put his interests ahead of the World?

    Will other countries put their interests ahead of Russia? /s

    Historical note: Thanks to foreigners who imposed Bolshevism on Russia and then the Nazis, the Russian population is 2-3x less than it would have been under normal development during the 20th century. Russia owes nothing to the “world” and I couldn’t care less if it screws it over to usher in Tropical Hyperborea.

81. You must be from the US ?

82. Fossil fuel use does not have to go to zero, it just needs to be reduced to the earth’s co2 sequestration equilibrium point. Air transport accounts for 2% of global man made CO2 emissions.

    Keeping Arabia, Iran & Russia stable isn’t a great argument for continuing co2 emissions with reckless abandon.

83. They are not revenue neutral to the end user. Thus the yellow jackets.

84. It doesn’t matter what articles, videos, MIT professors and IPCC contributors are saying, all that matters is evidence. There are tens of thousand of research papers in the scientific literature going back over 100 years that supports AGW hypothesis.

    Sure, most people are poorly educated, but that’s not the primary driver why they choose to believe nonsense.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BLYT54q9gEQ

85. Sooo, many words to say nothing but French make good cake?

86. Why is it that I see just as many articles, videos, MIT professors and IPCC contributors saying that anthropocentric global warming is a crock?

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oYhCQv5tNsQ&t=1142s

87. No one said it was going to be easy. However NBF seems to keep ignoring obvious, straightforward policies such as carbon taxes offset to be revenue neutral. Why?

88. As a French I had a laugh at the mention of making wine and cheese. We have other products as well you know! I grew up in a rural area and farmers were raising cows for meat and milk and farming wheat and corn, not just making wine and cheese…

    However, one thing I can tell you is that after travelling a bit I realized that french food products were, broadly speaking, of a high quality, and that a lot of things I took for granted were not necessarily true everywhere.

    Sadly, now there are also people who make things worse for everyone else. After living in Paris and other big cities, I was sometimes appalled thinking of how tourists see the country if they see only that. If you go to the countryside, it’s often a much nicer atmosphere, in my opinion.

    As for the yellow jackets, for non-french people they might think that we are bordering civil war, but the truth is that we are used to go to the streets and go on strike every time the government makes any changes. It’s part of our culture, pretty much.

    I’m not saying they don’t have a point, however. I haven’t looked into it very much, to be honest.

89. It is hard to build the future by punishing people, easier to build the future through engineering. I don’t know why this lesson cannot be learned by policy makers. The inability of policy makers to grasp this fact leads me to think that they live in a world where all solutions must revolve around their actual abilities.

    Oil has a long life ahead of it thanks to aviation and 3rd world use. EVs work best in the comfy monotonous first world with its reliable power grids and well worn commutes.

    If you think the world is unstable now, wait ten years when the US is producing 25 million barrels a day and oil states (Iran, Russia, etc) are being eaten alive by US oil and EV adoption.

Comments are closed.