Climate Change, Climate Deniers, and Climate Collectivists

Idle hands create mischief and idle minds of partially “educated” senior citizens with computer access maybe more.

Am I the only one suspicious of the motives of those pushing the “climate change” hysteria? The message I receive, to save us from ourselves, is world collectivist government. We, the masses, are simply too ignorant to know what is in our best interest. It follows that those who understand our best interest need to be properly compensated for their wisdom and the burden of governing the masses. Is it probable that I am wrong in my thinking?

Following along the meme of idle senior minds, consider this dated gem from 1978.

https://www.dissentmagazine.org/article/what-socialists-would-do-in-america-if-they-could

A long slog to go through all of it, to be sure and not all the points of the author are clear, at least to me.

The constant theme of the climate change alarmists is increased carbon dioxide “trapped” in the atmosphere. We read of studies of ice cores from Antarctica and Greenland being linked to our situation today. Maybe the data is accurate. Maybe it is being interpreted correctly. And, maybe it isn’t. There has been so much bullshit from the “scientific” communities that any truth is obscured. Consider a foremost proponent, Albert Gore, whose personal carbon footprint is that of a small city.

We hear all the time about, “clean renewable energy”. Colorado supposedly gets 360 days of sunshine a year. It also gets 365 nights a year. There doesn’t seem to be any economical way to store solar energy. Does that mean we shut down at night and during blizzards? Wind power? We are the Saudi Arabia of wind (except when it doesn’t blow). Oh yes, there is the “not in my backyard” syndrome.

Hydro?  Requires dams, doesn’t it? No environmental impact there, right?  Perhaps tidal power?  Perhaps for some coastal areas. Remember, the loss of energy in the transmission process needs to be considered. Plus, the structures will be built in someone’s back yard. Correct me if I am wrong but, in California, isn’t there always an uproar, by the rich, about the public using “their” beachfront?

There is emerging technology to capture carbon from the atmosphere and store it in rock formations.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/jun/09/co2-turned-into-stone-in-iceland-in-climate-change-breakthrough

Takes a lot of water and lacks any economic incentive. Opps. Back to collectivist government. We’ll demand it done, cost be damned.

To me, the least disruptive way to power is nuclear. Instant hysteria. Yet France gets 80% of their electricity from nuclear and I don’t see them glowing from radiation. Uranium isn’t all that plentiful and Shillary sold 20% of what we have to the Russians. Still, it is a proven technology.

Under the headings of figures don’t lie, liars figure in tandem with, “Don’t let a good crisis go to waste”, our local near monopoly, Xcel Energy, needs to raise rates to ???????? well, climate change, blah blah, blah.

http://www.denverpost.com/2017/10/03/xcel-energy-may-increase-customer-bills-2-percent-fund-development/

They operate in other states.

Coal continues to be our best option, IMO. YMMV

Cow Farts Will Kill Us Eventually

Methane emissions from cows is going to kill us per one George Dvorsky (if he can over dramatize so can I).

https://gizmodo.com/we-ve-grossly-underestimated-how-much-cow-farts-are-con-1818993089

He starts out with, “the new finding means it’s going to be even tougher to combat climate change than we realized.” assuming we are all in accord with the notion we need to ‘fight’ climate change.

What he doesn’t mention, while the USDA estimates the USA has about 98.4 million cattle, in 1880 an estimated 60 million bison inhabited North America. Does Gerogie not understand bison are one of about 12 species of bovine inhabiting our Earth?

 OK, some species may now be extinct. All bovines belch and fart methane. One wonders just how many bovines exist today world wide (1.3 to 1.5 billion) as to how many before, say, 1900?

Methane is an efficient “green house” gas that persists for around 16 years in our atmosphere. Could it be that methane is a necessary component to keep our atmosphere stable?

 All these climate change fanatics use the planet Venus as their justification. How sure are we that Venus’ atmosphere persists solely because of ‘green house’ gasses?  Venus lacks a magnetosphere. Apples to oranges comparison?  

Surely pleasing to his PETA readers, he slips in, "suggests we should cut back on our consumption of meat and dairy. The privilege we have over these animals, it would appear, now comes at a hefty price".

Sadly, all this “settled” science’crap obscures good science. Information that should be taken seriously gets ignored IMO.

OK, one point to the PETA types. Cattle are fed food to fatten them that causes such severe bloating that anti bloating chemicals (Tums?) must be added to the feed. A fight for another day?

Settled Science, Spin Doctor Edition

Changes in the sun’s energy output may have led to marked natural climate change in Europe over the last 1000 years, according to researchers at Cardiff University.

So reads the lead of an article appearing in Heritage Daily.

http://www.heritagedaily.com/2014/03/suns-energy-influences-1000-years-of-natural-climate-variability-in-north-atlantic/102395

Despite a reasoned report, they can’t resist inserting political correctness and environmental dogma, to wit.

Predictions suggest a prolonged period of low sun activity over the next few decades, but any associated natural temperature changes will be much smaller than those created by human carbon dioxide emissions, say researchers.

And.

The study concludes that although the temperature changes expected from future solar activity are much smaller than the warming from human carbon dioxide emissions, regional climate variability associated with the effects of solar output on the ocean and atmosphere should be taken into account when making future climate projections.

Settled science, my ass.