Biden Names John Kerry Climate Envoy

[CitizenBBN]

When the body of evidence becomes overwhelming—and sorry, but it is—scientific theory becomes accepted fact. Sure there’s a possibility it could still be wrong, but there’s also the possibility—a much greater one per decades of research—that the climate denial side (sorry, I don’t know what to call it) is wrong. One of these possibilities ends in worldwide catastrophe; the other forces us to replace fossil fuels a little sooner than we inevitably will have to anyway. The better course of action scientifically, ethically, philosophically, and morally is to act now. That’s all I’m going to say about it.

The problem isn't us replacing fossil fuels, though you'll notice Biden has shut down a lot of US production WITHOUT any offsetting rise in production of energy through other means, which is kind of important.

Thus the rising prices.

Then the contradictory stance that he wants OPEC to INCREASE production. Huh?

But the fundamental problem is that even if the US completely changes, it won't move the needle on climate change projections due to the massive use of fossil fuels in other nations like China and INdia and the entire developing world.

So what will happen is that the US costs of production of EVERYTHING WE MAKE will be even higher than the Chinese and INdian production, making us completey uncompetitive in the global marketplace, meaning that the US economy will shrink significantly, and we won't even do anything to prevent climate change.

Hope is something best left for prayer. Policy decisions need to be based on the harsh realities of what we can accomplish in the real world. In the real world even if we accept the most dire predictions of climate change the only hope is to browbeat the rest of the world into changing while we change, or there isn't much point.

And the most dire of those predictions will no doubt be proved wrong. As VirginiaCat said, if you follow the doomsayers since the 1970s, like the Echrlichs, the Wordwatch Institute, etc. you'll see they are far more dire than reality on a consistent basis.

I have no doubt that humans are polluting our planet, and that pollution is bad. But there are numerous threats facing us there and some are even more of a risk than climate changes. I'm all for us and the world reducing their pollution footprint, but we have to be sober about what we can accomplish or we will not make any real changes.

Making policy b/c it makes us feel like we're doing good is useless and harmful. We need to make policy that ACTUALLY DOES good, and right now that's not what we're doing. Shutting down pipelines and drilling unilaterally with no plan for replacement will only move production back to OPEC and strengthen nations like Russia and China, and not really shift energy use on a global level enough to measure.

[catmanjack]

Citizen you are adding too much logic to your post, democratic rule has zero logic.

[dan_bgblue]

I'm all for us and the world reducing their pollution footprint, but we have to be sober about what we can accomplish or we will not make any real changes.

I take it that you are not a supporter of the Paris climate accord nor our participation in same?

[KeithKSR]

When the body of evidence becomes overwhelming—and sorry, but it is—scientific theory becomes accepted fact. Sure there’s a possibility it could still be wrong, but there’s also the possibility—a much greater one per decades of research—that the climate denial side (sorry, I don’t know what to call it) is wrong. One of these possibilities ends in worldwide catastrophe; the other forces us to replace fossil fuels a little sooner than we inevitably will have to anyway. The better course of action scientifically, ethically, philosophically, and morally is to act now. That’s all I’m going to say about it.

Warming is taking place, but it hasn’t led to the catastrophes predicted by the climate change peddlers of doom.

[KeithKSR]

In the case of Bowling Green, it is not even the placement of the automatic weather monitoring station placement as the weather station is where it has always been which 40 years ago was out in the country at the small county airport. It is still there, but the Bowling Green heat island has grown around the monitoring station.


My daughter bought a house within a mile of the BG airport about 8 years ago. My wife and I live in the country about 6 miles outside the BG heat island. When visiting our daughter I would notice that the temperature would always be 3 to 4 degrees warmer at her house than it was at our house in the country. This did not vary for temps in the winter or summer.

Bowling Green installed a new weather station about 3 years ago, outside the heat island, that they plugged into the WKU statewide Mesonet. One can monitor the temperature differences between the 2 stations but they still use the readings from the station at the airport, which NOAA considers to be the official station, to gather official local temp data. This is truly man made warmer temps, but only for a very small area around Bowling Green

Most of the monitoring stations are positioned like that. Concrete and blacktop absorb a lot of solar energy during the day and radiate the heat at night.

[CitizenBBN]

I take it that you are not a supporter of the Paris climate accord nor our participation in same?

Not at all. It was a giveaway where we give the most, Europe gives a small amount, and the rest of the world gives up almost nothing.

Further complicating it is that the US is and Europe are far more likely to live up to their actual agreements. Nations like China can choose to obey the laws and agreements they write as they are held to the rule of men and not the rule of law.

I don't think anyone is against "clean energy" or reducing pollution. The question is how we get there both as a nation and, far more problematically, as a planet.

Paris and the current Administration's approach (along with Obama's etc.) is nothing more than the equivalent of the movement in the 1980s to unilaterally disarm our nuclear stockpiles in the name of peace. It wasn't going to bring peace and it wasn't going to benefit the US's position in the world economically or otherwise.

LIkewise this won't bring about a change in our climate future nor will it in any way benefit the people of this nation. We will still have all the ill effects of climate change but without the economic resources to combat them as we will become a second rate power.

[VirginiaCat]

I take it that you are not a supporter of the Paris climate accord nor our participation in same?

They are a CF for Western Society and nothing but a wealth shift.

[KeithKSR]

Not at all. It was a giveaway where we give the most, Europe gives a small amount, and the rest of the world gives up almost nothing.

Further complicating it is that the US is and Europe are far more likely to live up to their actual agreements. Nations like China can choose to obey the laws and agreements they write as they are held to the rule of men and not the rule of law.

I don't think anyone is against "clean energy" or reducing pollution. The question is how we get there both as a nation and, far more problematically, as a planet.

Paris and the current Administration's approach (along with Obama's etc.) is nothing more than the equivalent of the movement in the 1980s to unilaterally disarm our nuclear stockpiles in the name of peace. It wasn't going to bring peace and it wasn't going to benefit the US's position in the world economically or otherwise.

LIkewise this won't bring about a change in our climate future nor will it in any way benefit the people of this nation. We will still have all the ill effects of climate change but without the economic resources to combat them as we will become a second rate power.

The Paris Climate Accord, NATO, the United Nations all seem to get funded basically the same way. America pays the most, Europe promises and fails to pay to the level of their promises, others pay nothing.

The key to renewable energy will always be the ingenuity brought about by competition via capitalism.

[dan_bgblue]

Hurricane Ida Isn’t the Whole Story on Climate

China Linkage

It’s become popular for progressives to proclaim that climate change is the top threat to America’s national security. China’s Communist Party, by far the world’s top emitter of greenhouse gases, has taken note. This American delusion turns climate change into a major source of strategic leverage for Beijing.

Foreign Minister Wang Yi made this leverage explicit in a Wednesday lecture to U.S. climate envoy John Kerry, who is back in China pleading with its leaders to reduce the country’s carbon consumption. “The U.S. side wants the climate change cooperation to be an ‘oasis’ of China-U.S. relations,” Mr. Yi said, according to a Foreign Ministry readout of the meeting. But he insisted that “China-U.S. cooperation on climate change cannot be divorced from the overall situation of China-U.S. relations.”

Linkage

The number of landfall hurricanes isn’t rising and the world is getting better at mitigating their destruction.

Editor’s note: As November’s global climate conference in Glasgow draws near, important facts about climate change don’t always make it into the dominant media coverage. We’re here to help. Each week contributor Bjorn Lomborg will provide some important background so readers can have a better understanding of the true effects of climate change and the real costs of climate policy.

Hurricane season has arrived in the Atlantic Ocean. Already this summer Hurricanes Henri and Ida have caused headline-generating damage and flooding in the Gulf states, the Southeast and the Middle Atlantic states. Yet despite what you may have heard, Atlantic hurricanes are not becoming more frequent. In fact, the frequency of hurricanes making landfall in the continental U.S. has declined slightly since 1900.

[dan_bgblue]

Media Can’t Handle the Climate Truth
If, after four decades, scientists see less warming and lower emissions, isn’t that good news?


If “news” is about how today differs from yesterday, the press missed a lot of news in the long-awaited new report from the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that was issued a few weeks ago.

After 41 years of promoting a fuzzy and unsatisfying estimate of how much warming might result from a doubling of atmospheric CO2, the world’s climate science arbiter has finally offered the first real improvement in the history of modern climate science.

Through five previous U.N. assessment plus their predecessor, the 1979 Charney Report, the likely worst-case was a rise of 4.5 degrees Celsius. This came from averaging the result of inconsistent computer climate simulations about which the IPCC knew only one thing: They couldn’t all be right and perhaps none were.

Using real-world data, the new report now says the worst case is a 4-degree rise. More important, with much greater confidence than before, disastrous outcomes above 5 degrees are now found to be very unlikely.

In another departure, the U.N. panel now says the dire emissions scenario it promoted for two decades should be regarded as highly unlikely, with more plausible projections at least a third lower.

[Doc]

The left loves to present that hurricanes are becoming more frequent. They are not

https://www.wunderground.com/hurrica...ricane-seasons

When I see bullshit, I call it bullshit.

[catmanjack]

Typical media driven narrative that fits the democratic approach.

[KeithKSR]

The left loves to present that hurricanes are becoming more frequent. They are not

https://www.wunderground.com/hurrica...ricane-seasons

When I see bullshit, I call it bullshit.

Look at Hurricane Katrina in 2005 and Hurricane Ida this year. They both had landfall at the same approximate time, August 28-29. If the number of named storms were increasing Ida would have a name with the first letter L or later in the alphabet.

[dan_bgblue]

Rubio says time to fire Kerry

[bigsky]

For the United States itself to stop global warming would require a decrease in the standard of living of about 90%. You don't read those articles anymore; they got scrubbed. But back in the Oughts it was acknowledged. China's and India's increasing energy use and affluence could barely be offset by all of us sitting around in a yurt roasting bits of rat over a dung fire. The language of the climate scientists is so anti human it should get them exposed. "There are too many humans." And the humans are living better lives. Why isn't there a very cheap effort to provide clean water to every human? Far more achievable and comparatively cheap. Solving Starvation could be next. Both of those increase human numbers, tho...

[CitizenBBN]

That's the crux of the problem. The Paris Accord is useless, b/c it gives India and China (and some others) an out, and without them clamping down hard there is no change.

All that happens is the US cedes global leadership to the chinese, and we dont' even make a dent in global CO2 and other gas/pollutant output.

it's not a matter of believing or not believing in warming, or wanting to make a change. The problem is how to make a change, and the simple truth is that the US will need the agreement of nations that, after years of negotiations with the rest of the world, have no intention of agreeing.

[dan_bgblue]

I always viewed yurt living as mansion dwelling. I had my cave picked out in southwestern KY. It was a dwelling for humans until the nasty invaders ran all the indigenous peoples off their nomadic hunting lands. 45 feet below ground, with a walk in entrance and a river running thru it. Plenty of firewood around and no bats. Only negative is that every few years it would experience a 10 inch rainfall in 24 to 36 hours and the river would flood the cave and push one out onto higher ground. This only happened in the spring so I would not freeze to death. I would have to raise and breed my own rats.

[KeithKSR]

All that happens is the US cedes global leadership to the chinese, and we dont' even make a dent in global CO2 and other gas/pollutant output.

Isn’t that the entire goal of the socialist movement? They are very pro CCP.

[dan_bgblue]

Joe Biden’s Blue Jay Yarn

News that President Biden wants budget authority to drop more than half a trillion dollars into the fiscal chasm of climate control reminds us of “Jim Baker’s Blue Jay Yarn.” That’s the tale told by Mark Twain about a Blue Jay who, spotting a hole in the roof of an empty cabin, starts dropping in acorns, only to get madder and madder as he discovers that the hole won’t fill up, while the acorns are gone.

[bigsky]

Biden fell asleep in the big meeting today. Asked if he had any other faux pas, a spokesman said, “Depends.”

[dan_bgblue]

Arrrgghhhh

[dan_bgblue]

I wonder which one of his cabinet idiots wrote that speech for him? I hope he is not stupid enough to start his plan in motion before the major polluters agree to do their part, but I suspect I am hoping with no chance of my hope coming true. If Congress does not step in to stop the foolishness, I will start building wood stoves and flu pipe.

I am taking advanced orders

[KeithKSR]

I wonder which one of his cabinet idiots wrote that speech for him? I hope he is not stupid enough to start his plan in motion before the major polluters agree to do their part, but I suspect I am hoping with no chance of my hope coming true. If Congress does not step in to stop the foolishness, I will start building wood stoves and flu pipe.

I am taking advanced orders

There is no bounds to the stupidity in the current White House. These are the same idiots that curtailed US energy production and are now begging Russia, the Middle East and others to produce more oil. I guess that helps if your son owes the Russians, Ukrainians and Chinese big favors, but it does nothing but hurt Americans.

[dan_bgblue]

Kerry, "The Climate Guy"

He deserves his own TV show. He and some smart guy can show how to build solar panels without child labor and keep track of the cost and show the cost of kilowatt hour production.

[dan_bgblue]

Kerry rambles on about his thoughts on the Glasgow climate summit. He managed to tell al of us that this decade is a critical one in reducing the temperature of the globe. The last 3 decades have been critical and impending doom was supposed to already have happened if the goals were not met.

Wall Street Journal

[catmanjack]

What has actually been the temp increase these past 30 years.

[dan_bgblue]

NOAA data is a .17 degree F rise per decade. This does not match some other data sets but appears to be a good averaage

[catmanjack]

Population, eliminating the rainforest, cutting down trees these things all have a huge negative impact on the climate.

[dan_bgblue]

https://www.foxnews.com/media/jesse-...rican-taxpayer

[blueboss]

Ok let’s cut population back to the late 1800’s and we could control it a bit.
But I really think eliminating cows is the first order by this group.

I have a potentially stupid question.

Are there more cows now than there were Buffalo then? Plus, I guess we should account for all of the other animals that contributed to methane build up who’s numbers are no where near where they were then.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk