New Yorker: Replace Everything That Emits CO2 With Something Else
That’s a fantastic freaking idea! Of course, it won’t stop “climate change”, partly because anthropogenic global warming, if we use the correct scientific term, rather than the political term, is a mostly fake issue, and partly Warmists do not even believe in their own rhetoric enough to practice what they preach (via Tom Nelson)
You know you’re in for a doozy of a tale when the headline starts out with scientific illiteracy.
This past Thursday, the daily average atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide, as measured by the Mauna Loa observatory in Hawaii, passed four hundred parts per million. In some way it was a meaningless milestone. We know that CO2 is increasing; we knew this moment would come; we know that four hundred is no more different from three hundred and ninety-nine than it is from four hundred and one.
Still, the number should shake us, if not shock us. We’ve got more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere now than at any point since the Pliocene, when there were jungles in northern Canada. And the number hurdles ever upward, as ocean levels rise and extreme weather becomes routine. Three-fifty was the old target; four-fifty is the new one. But what indication is there that we’ll stop at five hundred, six hundred, or even more?
What indication is there that it will make any damned difference? This is one of the coldest starts to a year in US recorded history. Tornado and hurricane activity is down. Global temps have only gone up 0.28F since 1990 and 0.14F since 1997.
We’ve failed collectively. As Ryan Lizza explained in miserable detail in 2010, the United States government couldn’t pass a tepid, eviscerated law. Activists have failed. We’ve all failed morally: a problem created by the world’s rich will now crush the world’s poor. In a grand sense it’s also a failure of the creators, and deniers, of climate change: the Exxon-Mobils, say, or the Wall Street Journal editorial page. A victory isn’t worth much if your children and grandchildren will one day think of you with anger and shame.
Or they’ll thank us for not blowing massive amounts of money and instituting far left fascistic controls in order to supposedly control the weather.
…We should design our cities for a future with terrible weather. But solving the problem of climate change through the U.N. is like a small man with olive oil on his hands trying to pull a whale from the water.
Except, the weather isn’t terrible. It’s simply weather. But, Progressives want everyone in cities. Easier to control them.
Ultimately, we have to invent our way out. Everything we use that emits carbon dioxide needs to be replaced with something that doesn’t, whether a car or a cooking stove. Many people are working toward this goal. Many more need to.
Should we replace the lungs of every living being on the planet? How about we start with the mouthbreathers who yammer on about “climate change” but refuse to give up their own high CO2 lives? We should certainly replace the New Yorker, which would eliminate Nicholas Thompson’s (the fable writer) job, because producing a web and paper magazine puts out CO2.
And then there’s the dangerous, fraught, and potentially essential prospect of geoengineering. Can we suck carbon dioxide or methane down from the atmosphere? Can we shoot something up there that reduces the temperature? Every option is dangerous and complicated. But every option should be studied and tested. Geoengineering, as Michael Specter wrote last year, is the scientific equivalent of chemotherapy: it’s dreadful but it may be the only way to prevent mass calamity.
Silly, silly people.
Making a man believe that his child doesn’t exist for decades is an unusually cruel thing to do. But for Tony Trapani, a secret letter he found after his wife...Read More
This one’s a hoot: A Graphic Video Demonstration of Life After The Kunstlerian Decline of a World Dependent on Oil
Unfortunately, he doesn’t walk back his globull warming beliefs, and, more importantly, his belief in legislation and regulation to “stop”
Why? Because “There’s no compelling scientific argument for drastic action to ‘decarbonize’ the world’s economy.” After a few paragraphs describing