The Unsustainable Costs of President Biden’s Climate Agenda

[Valletta]

You need to educate yourself about what's happening. Your ignorance of the changes that have taken place, which are either intentional or through simply being ill informed (I vote the former) invalidate all the posts you make on this subject.

I could spend some time pointing those changes out and educating you as to all the problems, but you aren't interested in listening. So it would be a waste of both my time and yours.

I have noticed that quite a few of your fellow naysayers have, over the last year or so, changed their political based arguments from 'It's not happening!' to 'we're doing the wrong things to combat it!'

So please try to keep up. The small minority which you belonged to has shrunk even further. People who are still complaining that nothing is wrong are like the people I used to see wearing placards that said that then end is nigh. We've passed the point where people like you are being listened to. They are now looked upon as being...quaint? Maybe the wrong word. But I think you know what I mean.

Everyone believes the climate change, thus the name change of the movement to climate change. The disagreement is about man's contribution to global warming. While the greenhouse effect is real, the predictions of scientists have been way off. No one knows the percentage that man or cows or blue jeans contribute to global warming. Obviously there is a lot we don't understand, and moving forward with drastic changes such as forcing people in the U.S. to use EVs in the name of "climate change" at this time is foolhardy. As an environmentalist the first thing I would be doing in the administration is getting tough on China, because that will have the most impact on our future world environment. As I've said, in many circles "climate change" has been more of a religion with the masses and has been a political tool of the hard left. The "carbon tax" idea is illustrative, it was a way to redistribute wealth, take from the United States, more than it was to solve environmental problems. The blame for climate change is put on capitalism, on the evil United States "oppressor"which was founded on racism, the same Marxist political philosophy that paints Israel as the oppressor. Here's a clip of an advisor to the United Nations on climate change:

Miguel Rodriguez on Instagram: "United Nations climate advisor Ayisha Siddiqa blames White men for Climate Change. Climate change is also racist. ‍♂️ What amazes me is the applause. As always if you have info, need to connect or want to learn how to

1,623 likes, 485 comments - fiercecommunicator on April 4, 2024: "United Nations climate advisor Ayisha Siddiqa blames White men for Climate Change. Climate change is also racist. ‍♂️ What amaz...".

www.instagram.com

 

[Hans Blaster]

Everyone believes the climate change,

If only that were true. I've *definitely* seen people deny that the climate (not the weather) can change. It is less common these days, but denial of recent *increase* in temperature is rampant.

thus the name change of the movement to climate change.

First: climate change *is* a better description of what is going on. Yes, the global temperature is rising, but the local change in annual average temperature may go down in some places and wider swings in temperature (more heat waves or cold snaps) may result from CO2-driven climate change.

Second: climate change is a scientific area of study *not* a movement. There are environmental movements to combat changes in climate, but climate change itself is a fact and an area of scientific study.

The disagreement is about man's contribution to global warming.

Not scientifically. The other "suspects" would be:

1. Orbital variation: Well known and very slow. It isn't this.
2. Solar variation: We have good observations of the solar output. It is not the cause. If anything solar variation has *hidden* other drivers.
3. Coupled variation in the ocean-atmosphere system: One example is the "El Niño-Southern Oscillation" which has a few year non-regular cycle. Other longer term cycles could involve ocean circulation patterns, but when you look at the ocean the only noticeable change is a general warming of the ocean surface. (SST or Sea-surface temperature increase.)
4. Changes in particulate emission, land cover, etc.: Nope, not that either.

We know and the answer is CO2 from humans.

While the greenhouse effect is real, the predictions of scientists have been way off.

They haven't been. Climate models from 30 years ago for the CO2 emission scenario that actually played out are quite close.

No one knows the percentage that man or cows or blue jeans contribute to global warming.

It's people and fossil fuel, plus people and their methane emissions. (Cow emissions are due to us. We're the ones that drive cows to be that common and protect them from non-us predators.)

Obviously there is a lot we don't understand, and moving forward with drastic changes such as forcing people in the U.S. to use EVs in the name of "climate change" at this time is foolhardy.

Earlier would have been better to reduce CO2 emissions to avoid the need for rapid cutting now.

As an environmentalist the first thing I would be doing in the administration is getting tough on China, because that will have the most impact on our future world environment.

I think you slipped a gear. I doubt you are an "environmentalist" and you definitely are "in the administration".

As I've said, in many circles "climate change" has been more of a religion with the masses and has been a political tool of the hard left.

Please stick to labeling actual religions as religions. Climate change is a science, not a religion.

The "carbon tax" idea is illustrative, it was a way to redistribute wealth, take from the United States, more than it was to solve environmental problems.

A carbon tax passed by the US would tax US users of carbon and deposit money in the US Treasury. There are no international systems of taxation.

The blame for climate change is put on capitalism, on the evil United States "oppressor"which was founded on racism, the same Marxist political philosophy that paints Israel as the oppressor.

We could talk about specific companies that used every trick in the book to block fixes for climate change, but that is not an indictment of capitalism generally, just a few industries. (Identifying Israeli oppression doesn't require "Marxism" either, just empathy for Palestinians.)

Here's a clip of an advisor to the United Nations on climate change:

Miguel Rodriguez on Instagram: "United Nations climate advisor Ayisha Siddiqa blames White men for Climate Change. Climate change is also racist. ‍♂️ What amazes me is the applause. As always if you have info, need to connect or want to learn how to

1,623 likes, 485 comments - fiercecommunicator on April 4, 2024: "United Nations climate advisor Ayisha Siddiqa blames White men for Climate Change. Climate change is also racist. ‍♂️ What amaz...".

www.instagram.com

I don't really care.

 

[Valletta]

If only that were true. I've *definitely* seen people deny that the climate (not the weather) can change. It is less common these days, but denial of recent *increase* in temperature is rampant.

They should study the dust bowl years in the United States. Or look around them. Glaciers use to cover a good portion of North America, my house is built over glacial material. And if you look around at wide river valleys realize that the rivers were that wide at one point. The deserts in Africa were not always deserts. Climate changes. And yes the temperatures vary over time, you could say they have risen or gone down depending upon your starting point. Mankind has been measuring for such a short period of time. And everything makes a difference, even one person. Now I chose dark colors for my roof and that will absorb more heat, in warm climates people usually choose light colored roofs. That makes a difference, miniscule, but a difference in temperatures, and enough changes in temperature change climate patterns. But the United States, a country that uses so much fuel provided by nature, whether natural gas or oil, in an efficient manner that if much cleaner than the rest of the world, should be applauded, not punished. Unfortunately climate change is the newest medium for Marxism. Remember it used to be over-population. Then COVID struck and it was perfect opportunity to try and take control of the people, they even closed churches. Now though it is back to climate change.

 

[Gene2memE]

They should study the dust bowl years in the United States. Or look around them. Glaciers use to cover a good portion of North America, my house is built over glacial material. And if you look around at wide river valleys realize that the rivers were that wide at one point. The deserts in Africa were not always deserts. Climate changes. And yes the temperatures vary over time, you could say they have risen or gone down depending upon your starting point. Mankind has been measuring for such a short period of time.

Instrument temperature records go back ~365 years. Global instrument temperature record is about 175 years old, with uniform measurements being available from about 1870.

Climate proxies are available for periods further back. These are relatively certain for recent history (circa 11,000 years), with good agreement within a range of less than +/- 0.2 degrees Celsius. Further back than that, proxies are gradually less in alignment - although the uncertainty going back to about 800,000 years is still less than +/- 0.3 degrees Celsius.

If you think that professional climatologists, the people who study changes to the climate for a living, haven't studied those things, that's on you. Not them.

The notion that they are unaware that climate changes or conditions were different in the past is, frankly, immensely ignorant or disengenous. Even the most cursory glance at the actual work on climate change will bring you dozens of articles by actual climate scientists referencing these events.

The Dust Bowl ‘Then’ - Climate Change ‘Now’ Argument Deconstructed

Yes, heatwaves are likely getting worse and yes, it was hot in the 1930s. Why none of that refutes climate change.

www.forbes.com

 

[SimplyMe]

They should study the dust bowl years in the United States.

I couldn't help but note this comment. Seriously, you don't think the Dust Bowl has been studied? In fact, the evidence, from tons of study and research, suggests that the severity of the dust bowl was man made. I thought to link an article to explain some of what caused the Dust Bowl to be so bad and thought it ironic that I found this quote in one of the articles, "One cannot help but notice the similarities between the impact of environmental policies and practices then, which affected a huge region of the United States, and those of today, which affect the entire planet."

For me, the hope would be that in the same way the Dust Bowl lead to improved techniques and practices that have prevented future "Dust Bowls," despite droughts (such as in 2008) that were on the same level, in terms of weather, as the "Dust Bowl;" that we can learn from the current climate issues how to improve our relationship (or stewardship, to tie it back to God's command to Adam) with the planet and better prevent future climate problems.

 

[Bradskii]

Unfortunately climate change is the newest medium for Marxism.

Here's a list of all the countries in the world: List of Countries in the World in Alphabetical Order

Simply too many to copy and paste the whole list. I think it's 195. But the list of countries that didn't sign the Paris Agreement is a little shorter.

Iran
Libya
Yemen
Eritrea

This Marxism business seems to have taken off big time. Full marks to Eritrea and the other three for resisting it. Maybe you can log on to Wiki and change their list of Marxist states. They've only got 4: China, Cuba, Vietnam and Laos (lucky me, been to all 4). List of socialist states - Wikipedia

 

[Valletta]

I couldn't help but note this comment. Seriously, you don't think the Dust Bowl has been studied?

Hans Blaster said there were people who didn't believe in climate change and I said they should study the dust bowl.

 

[Hans Blaster]

They should study the dust bowl years in the United States. Or look around them. Glaciers use to cover a good portion of North America, my house is built over glacial material. And if you look around at wide river valleys realize that the rivers were that wide at one point. The deserts in Africa were not always deserts. Climate changes. And yes the temperatures vary over time, you could say they have risen or gone down depending upon your starting point. Mankind has been measuring for such a short period of time.

It would be nice if the general public knew and *understood* these changes in climate. The climatologists working on future climate and climate change certainly do.

And everything makes a difference, even one person. Now I chose dark colors for my roof and that will absorb more heat, in warm climates people usually choose light colored roofs. That makes a difference, miniscule, but a difference in temperatures, and enough changes in temperature change climate patterns. But the United States, a country that uses so much fuel provided by nature, whether natural gas or oil, in an efficient manner that if much cleaner than the rest of the world, should be applauded, not punished. Unfortunately climate change is the newest medium for Marxism. Remember it used to be over-population. Then COVID struck and it was perfect opportunity to try and take control of the people, they even closed churches. Now though it is back to climate change.

I'm not interested in your paranoid global control fantasies. This is about how the climate changes, what we have done to cause it, and how we can prevent messing up our global economy by destroying the climate configurations we are dependent on.

 

[mark46]

The article is by the Daily Signal which is the media outlet for the Heritage Foundation, the right wing think tank you linked to in the op. They are climate change deniers and receive funding from Exxon: Heritage Foundation – Climate Investigations Center. No too far south of a million dollars.

One of the links in the article shows a chart showing hurricane activity from information supplied by the Atlantic Oceanographic and Meterology Laboratory. It purports to show that there has been no increase in major hurricanes. But note this from here: National Climate Assessment

'There has been a substantial increase in most measures of Atlantic hurricane activity since the early 1980s, the period during which high-quality satellite data are available.,,,, These include measures of intensity, frequency, and duration as well as the number of strongest (Category 4 and 5) storms. The ability to assess longer-term trends in hurricane activity is limited by the quality of available data. The historic record of Atlantic hurricanes dates back to the mid-1800s, and indicates other decades of high activity. However, there is considerable uncertainty in the record prior to the satellite era (early 1970s), and the further back in time one goes, the more uncertain the record becomes.'

That can plainly be seen from examining the figures. For example, from the period 1850 to 1900 it shows a total of 213 hurricanes. Whereas for a similar spread of years from 1970 to 2020 there are are only 76. An almost threefold drop in hurricane activity? Obviously the figures back from a certain date can't be trusted.

Notwithstanding that, and despite the obvious fact that the numbers in the 19th century are obviously over reported, we get an average number of hurricanes per year as follows:

1890 - 1939: 1.4
1940 - 1999: 1.6
2000 - 2022: 1.8

An obvious increase. This is from a discussion we already had on the same subject back here: What a relief

Following on from that, and as per the link above which stresses that we should be using more accurate data from the last 50 years, there is, apart from an anomaly in one decade, undoubtedly an increase inn the more severe hurricanes from 1970 (category 3 and above).

1970s 4
1980s 5
1990s 5
2000s 7
2010s 3
2020s 4*

* only 4, but this is only for the first three years of the decade. It will obviously be a lot higher.

One other thing, our climate denier chum from the Daily Signal wrote this:

'Even if America stopped emitting carbon overnight, global temperatures would decline by less than 0.2 of a degree Celsius by the year 2100, according to government models.'

The aim of reducing carbon is to limit further increases in the temperature. The Paris Accord's stated aim was to keep global warmimg down to a maximum of 2 degrees above the industrial levels. Not to drop it 2 degrees. Maybe the writer didn't realise that a drop of 0.2 degrees is completely unobtainable. He doesn't appear to understand that which he is writing about.

Sigh.

You need to remember that this board is a fact-free zone and a science-free zone.

 

[rambot]

They should study the dust bowl years in the United States. Or look around them. Glaciers use to cover a good portion of North America, my house is built over glacial material. And if you look around at wide river valleys realize that the rivers were that wide at one point. The deserts in Africa were not always deserts. Climate changes. And yes the temperatures vary over time, you could say they have risen or gone down depending upon your starting point. Mankind has been measuring for such a short period of time. And everything makes a difference, even one person. Now I chose dark colors for my roof and that will absorb more heat, in warm climates people usually choose light colored roofs. That makes a difference, miniscule, but a difference in temperatures, and enough changes in temperature change climate patterns. But the United States, a country that uses so much fuel provided by nature, whether natural gas or oil, in an efficient manner that if much cleaner than the rest of the world, should be applauded, not punished. Unfortunately climate change is the newest medium for Marxism. Remember it used to be over-population. Then COVID struck and it was perfect opportunity to try and take control of the people, they even closed churches. Now though it is back to climate change.

I love posts like this. You post all this information as though the people studying it for 30 years would not know it better than you. "Listen. I've heard of these things called "thermometers" that allow one to measure temperature!"

 

[Valletta]

I love posts like this. You post all this information as though the people studying it for 30 years would not know it better than you. "Listen. I've heard of these things called "thermometers" that allow one to measure temperature!"

My you twist and turn words and then throw in false conclusions. Hans Blaster said there were people who didn't believe in climate change and I said they should study the dust bowl, and I also explained that glaciers used to cover a good portion of North America, and explained about the wide river valleys and deserts that were not always deserts. All of these should lead one to the conclusion that the climate has changed.

 

[Hans Blaster]

My you twist and turn words and then throw in false conclusions. Hans Blaster said there were people who didn't believe in climate change and I said they should study the dust bowl, and I also explained that glaciers used to cover a good portion of North America, and explained about the wide river valleys and deserts that were not always deserts. All of these should lead one to the conclusion that the climate has changed.

This is all irrelevant. That there are *some* people who would deny that the climate can even change is not relevant to anything under discussion. Then next level "up" are those who claim that all observed claim is natural and outside our bonds. I get the feeling you are dwelling there, but I could be wrong.

 

[Vambram]

Biden's green economy plans stumble as no one considered how much electricity would be needed

To grow industrial activity at the scale Biden envisions will require an enormous amount of electricity. Where all that power would come from wasn’t factored into the plans. Projects are already having trouble finding enough power.

justthenews.com

 

[rambot]

Biden's green economy plans stumble as no one considered how much electricity would be needed

To grow industrial activity at the scale Biden envisions will require an enormous amount of electricity. Where all that power would come from wasn’t factored into the plans. Projects are already having trouble finding enough power.

justthenews.com

Everyone is forgetting the ability of individuals and houses to put down solar panels.

Are there currently grants or some kind of monetary incentive to purchase and install solar?

 

[rambot]

My you twist and turn words and then throw in false conclusions. Hans Blaster said there were people who didn't believe in climate change and I said they should study the dust bowl, and I also explained that glaciers used to cover a good portion of North America, and explained about the wide river valleys and deserts that were not always deserts. All of these should lead one to the conclusion that the climate has changed.

Yes. Those changes took place....over hundreds of thousands AND MILLIONS of years.


AGW is change on the 100,000 year scale in 200 years.


That's not natural and it's beyond silly to minimize the specific temperature increase and infer (or directly state) that it isn't a big deal because the earth has been hotter/warmed quicker.

 

[Valletta]

Yes. Those changes took place....over hundreds of thousands AND MILLIONS of years.


AGW is change on the 100,000 year scale in 200 years.


That's not natural and it's beyond silly to minimize the specific temperature increase and infer (or directly state) that it isn't a big deal because the earth has been hotter/warmed quicker.

What percentage difference in temperature is caused by AGW?

 

[Bradskii]

What percentage difference in temperature is caused by AGW?

Gee, I wonder where this information might be hidden away? These durn scientists are keeping such a tight lid on the changes that it's just not possible to find any papers, articles, web pages, government information, discussions, talks, youtube videos, tv programmes, books, graphs, tables of info or news reports that will tell us. I mean, we're all completely in the dark about this, just like you.

Maybe if you could personally spend some time digging up some facts about this business you could help us all out.

 

[rambot]

What percentage difference in temperature is caused by AGW?

Do you understand the implication of what my post said because your only reaction to it to ask tangentially relevant question.

 

[Valletta]

Do you understand the implication of what my post said because your only reaction to it to ask tangentially relevant question.

You are not required to answer. But I think it would be helpful to the discussion, and by all means elaborate if you are trying to imply something.

 

[rambot]

What percentage difference in temperature is caused by AGW?

I guess first I would ask what do you think the temperature average would be without the greenhouse gases released over thr last 200 years?