There is a death cult, and it is using the global warming threat as an excuse to do bad things. But the death cult did not invent the issue. It's been around for at least a century. John von Neumann -- as staunch an anti totalitarian is as humanly possible -- mentioned the threat of global warming in a paper written in the 1950s. http:…
There is a death cult, and it is using the global warming threat as an excuse to do bad things. But the death cult did not invent the issue. It's been around for at least a century. John von Neumann -- as staunch an anti totalitarian is as humanly possible -- mentioned the threat of global warming in a paper written in the 1950s. http://geosci.uchicago.edu/~kite/doc/von_Neumann_1955.pdf He was a member of the Atomic Energy Commission, not exactly anti nuke.
And yes, there were concerns about global warming in the 1970s. See the movie "Soylent Green."
With that being said, human CO2 emissions may well be offsetting a coming ice age. And maybe human release of fossil carbon has actually saved life on this planet, as Patrick Moore has suggested. Life has been sequestering carbon for a rather long time. Some boost in CO2 levels is likely a good thing.
Significant boosting has been accomplished. And as the rest of the world industrializes, the boost factor grows. It is possible to have too much of a good thing. Too much fertilizer kills crops. Too much CO2 has the potential to cause a positive feedback effect, by releasing dissolved CO2 from the oceans and methane from the permafrost. These are the things that have real scientists concerned.
It is not a crisis that needs to be solved in the next decade. But it is a good idea push the development of viable alternatives to fossil fuels so we have them available to but the brakes on CO2 emissions should problems arise. That means nuclear for the north, and solar for the sunny, but politically unstable regions of the world.
Just because demoncrats are running with the global warming threat issue doesn't mean solving the problem is an inherently demoncratic or lefty thing. Conservatives and/or libertarians could use the issue to push their agendas. To quickest way to reduce fossil fuel use it to make cities safe enough that workers with families can live near their workplace. You can argue welfare reform, drug legalization, more gun ownership, more funding the police, or caning shoplifters and muggers for anti global warming reasons. To my mind, solar energy is ideal for those of us with a survivalist mentality -- if the energy gets stored in batteries vs. using solar to supplement the grid. (But for long haul transportation, batteries are a terrible solution. Green electricity to synthetic methanol is a much better solution.)
A conservatarian approach would be radically different from what AOC and company are pushing. I intend to push a Green Old Deal in future posts on my site.
There is a death cult, and it is using the global warming threat as an excuse to do bad things. But the death cult did not invent the issue. It's been around for at least a century. John von Neumann -- as staunch an anti totalitarian is as humanly possible -- mentioned the threat of global warming in a paper written in the 1950s. http://geosci.uchicago.edu/~kite/doc/von_Neumann_1955.pdf He was a member of the Atomic Energy Commission, not exactly anti nuke.
And yes, there were concerns about global warming in the 1970s. See the movie "Soylent Green."
With that being said, human CO2 emissions may well be offsetting a coming ice age. And maybe human release of fossil carbon has actually saved life on this planet, as Patrick Moore has suggested. Life has been sequestering carbon for a rather long time. Some boost in CO2 levels is likely a good thing.
Significant boosting has been accomplished. And as the rest of the world industrializes, the boost factor grows. It is possible to have too much of a good thing. Too much fertilizer kills crops. Too much CO2 has the potential to cause a positive feedback effect, by releasing dissolved CO2 from the oceans and methane from the permafrost. These are the things that have real scientists concerned.
It is not a crisis that needs to be solved in the next decade. But it is a good idea push the development of viable alternatives to fossil fuels so we have them available to but the brakes on CO2 emissions should problems arise. That means nuclear for the north, and solar for the sunny, but politically unstable regions of the world.
Just because demoncrats are running with the global warming threat issue doesn't mean solving the problem is an inherently demoncratic or lefty thing. Conservatives and/or libertarians could use the issue to push their agendas. To quickest way to reduce fossil fuel use it to make cities safe enough that workers with families can live near their workplace. You can argue welfare reform, drug legalization, more gun ownership, more funding the police, or caning shoplifters and muggers for anti global warming reasons. To my mind, solar energy is ideal for those of us with a survivalist mentality -- if the energy gets stored in batteries vs. using solar to supplement the grid. (But for long haul transportation, batteries are a terrible solution. Green electricity to synthetic methanol is a much better solution.)
A conservatarian approach would be radically different from what AOC and company are pushing. I intend to push a Green Old Deal in future posts on my site.