The climate change consensus extends beyond climate scientists

[oil pan 4]

The further away from the little ice age, the better.

[redpoint5]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

Blaming every disaster on climate change cost the US 91 billion dollars last year. The government wants a few hundred billion dollars per year to fix it.
I have a feeling that if the government confiscates 200 billion dollars per year we will still have natural disasters....
The only thing that will change is my account ballance.

No, then the argument will be just imagine how much it would have cost if we hadn't confiscated 200 billion dollars.

It's like homeopathic medicine; if a person is healthy, they will attribute it to crystals, magnets, milk thistle extracts... but if they get sick, they will blame it on not enough crystals, magnets, milk thistle extracts...

[NeilBlanchard]

Originally Posted by freebeard

What a convenient hook to hang your political intention on. Much better than the Sixth Animal Extinction.

Was she arguing for or against? (I guess I should put the videos in my queue. Joe Rogan (ecological collapse at Easter Island) at the moment)

Political intention? Facts are facts - and if one's politics ignore the facts - then they are guaranteed to be wrong.

Margaret Thatcher was a strong proponent for addressing the extremely serious problems, that we humans are causing.

The quote of her saying otherwise - is BS.

[sendler]

Originally Posted by NeilBlanchard

Margaret Thatcher

She was also unfortunately Reagan's partner in promoting the short sighted (on geologic time scales) globalized neoclassical big growth economic system that is pressing us now.

[redpoint5]

Which politician has campaigned on economic contraction?

Obama might have been the closest to that mentality without actually overtly stating it, and even then it wasn't so much he wanted economic contraction as he wanted global parity (which implies contraction).

Barney was roundabout campaigning this to a further extent with his socialistic ideas, but not too many people are thrilled to achieve what Venezuela has.

Either way, a politician can't be successful with that platform for at least the currently living generations.

Sadly, I see consumption problems being somewhat mitigated in the future by the development of VR and other low-resource leisure activities. As people become even more sedentary, we will consume greater amounts of digital entertainment, which is very easy on resource consumption.

VR/robot porn will decimate population growth, so that will help to alleviate the population growth end of resource depletion.

[sendler]

9 billion people will still need food, shelter, and heat. All of which is currently provided by fossil fuel inputs.

[redneck]

NeilBlanchard


Originally Posted by redneck View Post
.


“Global warming ‘provides a marvelous excuse for worldwide, supra-national socialism.”

~Margaret Thatcher



>
That is a BS quote. Margaret Thatcher was a scientist, and she was well aware of the FACT that humans are causing climate to change.

RedDevil

So it wasn't a global effect. That '2.5 degree change' wasn't even 0.25 degrees globally. It falls way short of the current situation.
It must be another distortion of science by a right-wing politician, which she happened to be.

Thanked by NeilBlanchard

I’m confused.

One minute she’s a scientist that was well aware of AGW and your praising her.

Then...

The next she’s distorting the science because she’s a right-wing politician.

Then...

Political intention? Facts are facts - and if one's politics ignore the facts - then they are guaranteed to be wrong.

Margaret Thatcher was a strong proponent for addressing the extremely serious problems, that we humans are causing.

The quote of her saying otherwise - is BS.

And.... your back to praising her.

So, which is it ?


Maybe this will help.

From the book she wrote.

https://www.masterresource.org/clima...st-to-skeptic/

In Statecraft: Strategies for a Changing World (2002), Thatcher declared war on “the doomsters’ favorite subject … climate change.”

Here is her full reconsideration (pp. 449–50):

The doomsters’ favorite subject today is climate change. This has a number of attractions for them. First, the science is extremely obscure so they cannot easily be proved wrong. Second, we all have ideas about the weather: traditionally, the English on first acquaintance talk of little else.

Third, since clearly no plan to alter climate could be considered on anything but a global scale, it provides a marvelous excuse for worldwide, supra-national socialism. All this suggests a degree of calculation. Yet perhaps that is to miss half the point. Rather, as it was said of Hamlet that there was method in his madness, so one feels that in the case of some of the gloomier alarmists there is a large amount of madness in their method.

Indeed, the lack of any sense of proportion is what characterizes many pronouncements on the matter by otherwise sensible people. Thus President Clinton on a visit to China, which poses a serious strategic challenge to the US, confided to his host, President Jiang Zemin, that his greatest concern was the prospect that “your people may get rich like our people, and instead of riding bicycles, they will drive automobiles, and the increase in greenhouse gases will make the planet more dangerous for all.”

It would, though, be difficult to beat for apocalyptic hyperbole former Vice President Gore. Mr Gore believes: ‘The cleavage in the modern world between mind and body, man and nature, has created a new kind of addiction: I believe that our civilisation is, in effect, addicted to the consumption of the earth itself.’

And he warns: “Unless we find a way to dramatically change our civilisation and our way of thinking about the relationship between humankind and the earth, our children will inherit a wasteland.”

But why pick on the Americans? Britain’s then Foreign Secretary, Robin Cook, has observed: “There is no greater national duty than the defense of our shoreline. But the most immediate threat to it today is the encroaching sea.” Britain has found, it seems, a worthy successor to King Canute.

The fact that seasoned politicians can say such ridiculous things – and get away with it – illustrates the degree to which the new dogma about climate change has swept through the left-of-centre governing classes….

Her words...




>


.

[RedDevil]

Originally Posted by redneck

I’m confused.

I take it NeilBlanchard thanked my post for exposing the error in the claim about the Medieval Warm Period, not for the quote in the end that only mirrored the assault to the side that did have the facts wrong.

But no amount of fact checking will ever change the ways of those who earn from spillage. They just keep producing unfounded claims, exaggerating or misquoting to make it align with what they prefer to believe.
As often, when an accusation is proven to be false it does however apply to the accusing party.

So, to use her own words again:
The fact that seasoned politicians can say such ridiculous things – and get away with it – illustrates the degree to which their dogma about climate change has swept through the right wing governing classes….

The Guardian is a proper left wing British newspaper. So to balance things out look what they had to say about it.
https://www.theguardian.com/environm...eptic-monckton
Hey, there's a tie with Anthony Watts again.

Please don't tell me that all you do is just picking up the pieces of junk there and throw them on this thread one by one?

[oil pan 4]

Did any one see the dead on arrival Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez new green deal Web site before it was taken down?
Appears she got so much heat from her own dems over it they are going to have to do a revamp.
The Democrats couldn't even pass a sensible by compairson "carbon tax and cap" bill with the super majority in both houses.
What makes them think a way more extreme verson will ever pass?
One of the more extreme points was to provide economic security for people unwilling to work.

They want zero CO2 power generation, transportation and agriculture.
Well anyone who has ever been formally educated in any kind of power generation knows that's not going to happen.
And they will not build any additional nuclear power plants under this plan.
About 1/3 of the energy the United States consumes goes to transportation.
Eliminating all CO2 from agricultural sounds like a good way to starve a few million people to death.

So they want to replace all energy going on the power grid with renewables and replace all transportation with electric with out using nuclear power.
That's their plan. That means they dont have a plan or have any clue how they are going to do it besides not build any additional nuclear power plants. All the nuclear plants in the country couldn't even power the transportation used in the US. This is unprecedented stupidity.
Even CNBC says that nuclear power plants generate 2/3 of the carbon free electricity used in the United states.
It's not like we are going to run out of fissile fuel, there is enough depleted uranium sitting in ID to power the United States for about 700 years. Maybe by the time it runs out nuclear fusion will work.

[redneck]

.

Thatcher realized that she was duped on AGW and wanted to go on record accordingly in her book that she made an error, a hugh error.

She accurately points out that this is more about politics than science and that it provides a excuse for Supra-National Socialism .



Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and her “New Green Deal” proves,,,, she was right.




>