Climate Action World War III++?

User Peter L writes:

Some groups taking “climate action” into their own hands, be they activists or governments, could lead to a war and potentially a world war as others attempt to use violence to stop their “climate action”. One can easily imagine scenarios where this grows out of control quickly.

From MIT Technology Review

Sustainable Energy

This alarmingly simple hack could let anyone tinker with the climate

The possibility poses troubling new questions about the ability to regulate the technology.

The scenario would go something like this.

It’s the year 2051. A decade of drought, crop failure, and famine has killed millions across East Africa, sparking violent clashes over food and water. Similar scenes of death and devastation are playing out in other parts of the globe.

In response, an environmental group, or maybe a humanitarian one, or perhaps just some individual with a huge social-media following, calls for a radical response: every citizen should launch high-altitude balloons into the sky, each carrying a small payload of particles that could reflect heat back into space.

Peter L adds.

At what point do groups doomsday “climate actions” become a threat to the welfare of millions or billions of other people? Being climate doomsday belief driven as many demonstrate can lead them to take drastic and irreversible actions.

The sum of all their fears drive people to act irrationally when they believe the doomsday propaganda be it from Harold Camping, Al Gore, Michael Mann, and the other prognosticators of doom. It’s definitely reached a fever pitch of late with no signs of slowing down, a reaction in many ways to the climate doomsday brick wall that is Trump and his policies in that regard. They don’t like that and they are mustering their forces waiting for the end of his term(s) in office.

As a scientist I don’t see any convincing evidence of any climate doomsday other than potential asteroid collisions or possible nuclear war winter effects. As an environmentalist we really need to deal with actual pollutants and the waste of our civilization using technologies such as large scale Recycling Disintegrators that break down carbon chain molecules into smaller reusable chains with temperature and pressure.

Full MIT Technology Review article here.

 

Advertisements

140 thoughts on “Climate Action World War III++?

  1. Most “activists” are willing to spend their time for a good cause. Not their money – they usually have none, because they have no time left for work. To do anything beyond demonstrations and destruction they need a rich sponsor.

  2. Perhaps a new study of Climate Activists should be conducted. We should go out into a protest group and, using air gun distributed tranquilizer darts, subdue as many black masked individuals as possible, remove their masks and take their images for future reference. Then place radio tags around their necks and track their movements and release them back into the wild.

  3. The problem is that most of those who proclaim their hatred of capitalism actually are convinced that all of the products they love would still be produced by socialism/communism. It will just cost less and won’t hurt anyone.

    Yes, they are that clueless.

    • There is a balance. I place the balance point quite a bit to the left of where you put it, but I think we agree that the balance point exists.

      For the ideologically possessed, there is no balance. As Jordan Peterson points out, they perceive the world differently and wouldn’t even agree on seemingly obvious facts.

      • Where is the balance between fact and fiction?
        The belief that socialism/communism can provide the same material wealth as capitalism is pure fiction. Evidence, everywhere it’s been tried.
        The belief that capitalism hurts/exploits people is also pure fiction.

        • Norway proves you wrong. Norway is socialistic, and provides plenty of wealth for the Norwegian people.

          • A nation with a population smaller than Houston, living off of huge oil wealth invested in a national mutual fund is not socialism.

          • Norway is one of the highest taxed countries in the world…..almost 50% of GDP
            25% vat..personal over 50%…and corporate ~75%

          • Norway’s petroleum reserves, sold into the capitalist world market for a capitalist profit, provides “…wealth for the Norwegian people.” Take away the profit from petroleum and what do you have? The USSR, Cuba, Venezuela…

            Prove me wrong.

          • Norway is a free market capitalist society with a huge, expensive welfare state bolted on top. Without their productive free markets, they would have no way to pay for their welfare state. It is also worth noting that Norway benefits hugely from their offshore oil fields. Their per capita oil revenues really are remarkable, and allows the country to do things it otherwise could not.

            If and when the oil runs out……

          • Lets see, homogenous populations with nongovernmental social institutions that are uniquely adapted to the modern world. High levels of trust, a strong work ethic, civic participation, social cohesion, individual responsibility, and long standing family values that predated the welfare state.

            Yeah, that sounds like so much of the rest of the world.

          • 1) hunter: the wealth is owned by the entire population of Norway. Since no “private” interest owns this wealth, it is pure and unadulterated socialism.
            ..
            2) Latitude, taxes do not define socialism.
            ..
            3) Red94ViperRT10, irrelevant, the people of Norway benefit from the wealth.
            ..
            4) TonyL, same thing for the people of the State of Alaska. Now tell me, is the Alaskan arrangement “socialism?”
            ..
            For everyone reading this, Norway is an example of the success of socialism.

          • Keith dear, for once, think for yourself. How much wealth does that oil generate on a per capita basis (you do know what per capita means?), now subtract that wealth and see how “wealthy” Norway becomes.

          • Keith, socialism would be if the government owned the oil. If it’s owned by the people, then it isn’t socialism.

          • The people and the government are indistinguishable Mr. MarkW. In any case, “ownership” by either the government, or by the people has no effect on the fact that every single individual in Norway benefits from that oil. Let me put it in terms that even you can understand. The oil is not privately owned. Only in a capitalist system would that oil be owned by private interests.

          • Keith, you’re on a site that is focused on greenhouse gases and fossil fuels. Did you somehow forget that bit when talking about Norway’s socialistic wealth? Are they socialistically going along with the Paris agreement? ….. or did you you just post something that a parrot could be taught to say.

          • People and government are indistinguishable????
            Now I know for a fact that you are delusional.

            Government is power, power of the few over the many. That’s all it ever has been, all it will ever be.
            Tell me what happens in your precious utopia when a small group of people decide they don’t like the laws that are being passed? Tell me then how government is indistinguishable from the people.
            Government is mob rule. Period.

          • Someone who chants mantras like government is indistinguishable from the people wants to argue about reality?

          • ” you are delusional.”

            Nice example of pot calling kettle black.

            ” Government is power, power of the few over the many.”

            Let me give you a clue since you do not appear to have one……

            The first seven words of the US Constitution are: “We the People of the United States”

          • Why am I not surprised that Keith actually believes that words written on paper matter more than reality.

            Government is two wolves and a sheep voting for what to have for dinner.
            Fine for the wolves, not so fine for the sheep.
            Like most socialists, Keith is convinced that government will always be there to give him stuff, since as far as he’s concerned, that’s what it is there for.

            BTW Keith, since you like to read so much, why not read the rest of it.
            The rest of it indicates that we the people are only gathering together to create a government.

          • MarkW says: “Keith actually believes that words written on paper matter ”

            Yes they matter.

            The only way to rid ourselves of the elected incompetent POTUS is via the 25th Amendment, or Article II, Section 4.

          • And now Keith proves that he doesn’t believe what he claims.
            He wants to over turn the will of the people because the man currently elected is standing between Keith and free stuff.

            How can government be “indistinguishable from the people” if someone so evil can be elected to the highest office?

            Like most socialists, government is only “the people” when it’s doing what he wants and giving him lots of other people’s stuff.

          • LOL @ MarkW: “He wants to over turn the will of the people because the man currently elected”

            The current POTUS did not win the popular vote, therefore he was not elected by the “will of the people.”

            He was elected by ( in MarkW’s words) “words written on paper”

          • And once again, Keith reveals that he’s his own worst enemy.
            First he claims that words on paper matter, then he claims that Trump doesn’t count as president, despite the fact that Trump won, using the method written down on that same piece of papeer.

            Regardless, as both campaigns in almost every election over the last 100 years has stated, if the election had been a popular vote election, they would have run vastly different campaigns. Had the election been popular vote, we don’t know who would have won the popular vote. Of course given the already documented level of cheating, it’s not really possible to say who won the popular election.

            Like all socialists, Keith is only willing to accept the results when he agrees with them.

          • Since little Keith has managed to thread jack this article, I’ll let him get the last word.
            Do your worst, and try not to undermine your own position again.
            You are so funny.

          • Thank you very much Mr. MarkW for letting me have the last word. It warms my heart when someone like you acknowledges that they have lost the argument.

            1) there is nothing written in Constitution about campaigns, so any/all references you make to them are irrelevant.

            2) You state: ” Had the election been popular vote, we don’t know who would have won the popular vote.” You are dead wrong. Had the most recent election been by popular vote, Hillary would have won 65,853,514 votes versus Donald’s 62,984,828
            ..
            3) MarkW posts: ” the already documented level of cheating”…..please post a link for this assertion. Unfortunately the popular vote totals mentioned above have been certified by the 50 States. If you have any evidence of cheating or fraud, I suggest you go to the Federal Election Commission with your evidence.

          • “…You state: ‘Had the election been popular vote, we don’t know who would have won the popular vote.’ You are dead wrong. Had the most recent election been by popular vote, Hillary would have won 65,853,514 votes versus Donald’s 62,984,828…”

            Ummmm…no. If you tallied the most recent election by popular vote after-the-fact, that would be the case. But had the public known that the election would have been by popular vote, the turnout would have been different. Are you just being obtuse or are you actually this ignorant?

          • Michael Jankowski the popular vote totals were 65,853,514 votes for Hillary versus Donald’s 62,984,828.

            If you dispute these totals, please provide a link to your evidence.

            With these totals, if the popular vote elected the president, Hilary would have won.

          • “But had the public known that the election would have been by popular vote, the turnout would have been different.”

            What evidence do you have for this baseless assertion?

          • Keith Sketchley February 15, 2019 at 6:36 pm

            We have a electoral college system where electors are won according to State votes. The Campaigns are waged on winning states thus the electors.
            If a State is certain to go for the “other” side you don’t waste time and resources, on it.
            Thus many people don’t vote because it does not matter. Also once it is clear that one candidate has won, some who have not voted don”t bother, saying game over.
            Last election this practice changed. On the west coast Democrats kept going to the polls despite Mr Trump having won. They wanted to get a popular vote win, to be able to play the games you are playing.
            In 2020 I think everyone on both sides will go to the polls irregardless of how tilted the vote count is in their state.

            You can’t just win the popular vote of like minded people, To win you get diverse sections of the country to support you. Its not easy.

            michael

          • Keith Sketchley

            Norway is socialist in name only.

            The population has the right to vote, freedom of speech, freedom of movement, the right to work and earnings are not ‘levelised’ (for want of a better expression).

            The country is, I understand, the largest single investor in the stock market which is a capitalist endeavour, from which they derive substantial profit.

            It’s just Capitalism with a welfare state bolted on, much like the UK.

          • Keith Sketchley

            Michael Jankowski the popular vote totals were 65,853,514 votes for Hillary versus Donald’s 62,984,828.

            You (presumably) engaged in the election process in the full understanding there was an electoral college system in place. You therefore accepted that system as proper and correct.

            No use whining about it now. You sound much like the squealing ‘remainer’ crowd in the Brexit fiasco.

          • Keith,

            Norwegians don’t consider themselves socialists. Their top income tax rate is 38%, v. 37% in the US. Their North Sea oil and hydropower company Equinor (ex-Statoil) is public, but with 67% government ownership.

          • Also, in 2017, Norwegians reelected their Conservative prime minister against a Labour (socialist) candidate who was bron rich. Her Center-Right coalition has a majority in the Storting as well.

          • If you want to consider Norway’s oil wealth “socialist,” that still doesn’t mean Norway is a socialist country or that socialism as a form of economic organization works. The oil is pre-existing wealth that is then distributed to the people. And if a government-run enterprise, it may be distributed less efficiently than if it was privately-run.

          • Kyle,

            Norway wisely runs its energy industry with a private company, ie publicly traded, corporation, whose major shareholder is the national government.

            Here in Chile, copper, lithium and other mineral wealth is handled similarly. The source of revenue from the government’s share helps pay for much of the national budget. The rest comes from a sales tax or VAT, the 19% IVA.

            The Social Security system was designed by “Chicago Boys” from the Uncle Miltie’s school of conservative thought. Here people own the money paid into their retirement accounts, but just can’t access it until retired.

          • Having lived in Norway for several years in the 80’s and 90’s, it was obvious how the Norwegian economy was (and still is), utterly dependent on its oil and gas income. Every barrel was taxed and the income injected into the economy. Of us and our 9 nearest neighbors, I was the only one in a private job. All the rest were in a government job of some type, or “retraining” while drawing a government stipend, or long-term unemployed, etc. This was only possible because other countries who actually produced wealth bought Norwegian oil and gas. Prior to the discovery of oil, Norway was desperately poor. Sorry Keith, but your claims are simply not consistent with the reality we experienced.

          • Norway is white. Really, really white. Vermont-like white.

            Easy to get along—easy to agree to share things—when everyone looks, talks, and pretty much thinks exactly the same.

          • I think Keith is off his meds. He says that “no “private” interest owns this wealth” in Norway. Makes me wonder why there is a Norway Stock Market (OSEAX). The ignorance is strong with this Keith character.

          • Joey the Government of Norway is the largest shareholder of Equinor with 67% of the shares.

            That makes Norway “socialistic” by the defintion of socialism.

          • ‘For everyone reading this, Norway is an example of the success of socialism. ‘

            Norway is an example of the success of an ant-farm.
            A small, isolated, homogenous culture where everyone is on board.

            And this new ‘Sketchy Keith’ troll is an example of thinking that starts backwards from a conclusion.

        • MarkW December 8, 2018 at 7:44 pm

          What is about socialists? Everytime someone says that there is too much government, they declare, you want no government.

          Then again, it’s not like socialists have ever actually thought through the problems they are demanding that others solve. link

          At least you seem to advocate that there is a place for some government.

          • I’m not speaking for MarkW; but from what I’ve seen over the years, very few people advocate no government, as this would guarantee the rise of anarchy which would lead to fiefdoms and kingdoms once again. Might makes right, and all that.

            Government is need for international diplomacy, standing armies, and basic human needs of infrastructure (roads, water, electricity). And rule of law.

            Everything over and above this is simply fluff; and is where the politicians get to promise free stuff.

          • @Greg Cavanagh February 15, 2019 at 7:22 pm I disagree that government is needed for “…infrastructure (roads, water,electricity)…”. A road good enough for wagons and buggies drawn by horses, mules or oxen wasn’t nessarily good enough for an underpowered automobile on too-narrow tires, so they needed upgraded. And roads got built, some 2,500 of them, with very little government interference. What government does is levelize things, through taxation, so that everyone pays for the community services (police, fire departments, etc.) provided by the government, not just those that voted for it. BTW, a nit to pick, a fiefdom IS a government, of a sort, though not necessarily organized under a constitution.

          • Red94ViperRT10

            A nit to pick with your claim about early “underpowered automobile on too-narrow tires”. Underpowered – yes, but too-narrow.
            While wider tires enable carrying heavier loads, wider tires do not help when driving on soft or low traction surfaces. The explanation is that the smaller the foot print, the greater the loading per unit area, which increases friction(traction). This has been tested and confirmed by off-road magazines, and by every person who has added weight to the bed of their pickup to increase traction in winter.

            Yes, extreme mud caused autos difficulties, as it did for horse-drawn wagons. The solution for wagons was to add another team. This is when autos’ low power became evident.

            I suggest the motivation for paving roadways was speed. Oxen are limited to walking speed no matter what, so no gain was to be had by paving the road. Horseless carriages could manage that same speed as oxen on sand and some mud, but paving the roads enabled faster speeds.

            SR

        • Peppy,

          Yes, Norway still has almost twice the public employment rate of the US, but spends surprisingly little to pay them. In part that’s because many chores done by private enterprise in the US and other developed countries, especially in Asia, are performed by public operations in Scandinavia and some other parts of Europe.

          https://www.forbes.com/sites/niallmccarthy/2017/07/21/scandinavia-leads-the-world-in-public-sector-employment-infographic/#eedcd5b18204

          https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/8696/how-can-norway-have-such-a-high-public-employment-rate-while-keeping-a-low-publi

        • You guys will soon learn that in Keith’s mind, he is never wrong. Even when all of his facts are.

          Allowing someone the last word is not an admission of defeat. Though I have no doubt that Keith can convince himself of anything if there is enough money involved.

        • Keith Sketchley February 16, 2019 at 5:35 pm

          Equinor is one company. Please see my list of the many Norwegian companies owned entirely by private individuals and groups.

          By your definition, if the Norwegian government sold 26% of its Equinor shares tomorrow, Norway would cease being socialist.

  4. The Fermi Paradox notes that there is a high probability of intelligent life in the universe but that we see no evidence of it.

    One possibility is that any sufficiently advanced civilization destroys itself. Suppose that technology allowed a small group to kill all life on the planet. What is the chance that there is a group that would do that? I would posit that it’s about 100%.

    There is also the possibility that well meaning folks do something that causes a chain reaction and we end up back in the stone age. The balloon idea is such a possibility. Another is the rogue dumping of iron in the ocean. link We know that people will do that kind of thing because they have done it. Scott Adams nailed it in two comics: link 1, link 2

    People will keep trying stuff and it will eventually end in tears because increasing technology ramps up the consequences of a mistake.

    • It may be that said intelligent life forms spent some time observing our planet and concluded that life as it currently exists on Earth does not meet their definition of intelligence.

      • “…life as it currently exists on Earth does not meet their definition of intelligence.”

        This reminds me of a bumper sticker I saw many years ago, it said “Beam me up Scotty, there’s no intelligent life on this planet”

    • The Fermi paradox is only a paradox because most of the assumption that go into the belief that the galaxy is full of intelligent life is based on belief driven guess work.

      Solar systems will always create gas giants and these gas giants will always spiral into the inner solar system unless something stops them.
      The inner rocky planets will always be dry planets, unless something disturbs the Oort cloud late in the formation of the solar system causing a bunch of comets to plummet sunward.
      In our solar system, a fortuitous spacing of Jupiter and Saturn stopped Jupiter from spiraling into and destroying the inner solar system. The gravitational dance between them also caused the Late Heavy bombardment which gave the earth most of it’s water as well as most of the heavy metals in our crust.

      • If your contention were true Ferd (that near light speed travel by an intelligent race was achieved), it would only take a few million of our stationary years for such an intelligent race of ETs to have completely populated the entire habitable planets of the Milky Way galaxy.
        But every indication we have is our life here on Earth is organic to this planet with no sign of an ET tech or presence coming at some intermediate time.

        Sorry. Try again.

        • Joel O’Bryan – February 15, 2019 at 7:47 pm

          But every indication we have is our life here on Earth is organic to this planet with no sign of an ET tech or presence coming at some intermediate time

          Joel, I agree, as far as anyone knows, the life forms hereon planet earth are organic (carbon based) to this planet, …… but that is not proof that the earth was never subjected to the presence of an intelligent ET prior to the current culture of H. sapiens that populate the earth.

          There are dozens n’ dozens of examples of historical evidence whose origins cannot be factually attributed to have been built, constructed or produced by humans during the past 12,000 years, some of which are, to wit:

          The Great Pyramid of Gisa was not constructed by the Egyptians;
          The origin of the stone ruins of Puma Punku in Bolivia is a mystery.
          The origin of the stone ruins of Gobekli Tepe in Turkey is also a mystery.
          And Machu Picchu in Peru was not constructed by the Incas.

          If one uses common sense thinking, logical reasoning and intelligent deductions along with learned memory “recall”, …. it beats the ell out of the per se “experts” subserviently nurtured “beliefs”.

          • I don’t know of anyone who has actually spent time studying the pyramids who doesn’t believe they were built by ancient Egyptians. Methods how they could have done this have been proposed, tested and found to be doable.

            None of the other things you believe to be mysteries, are. Viable theories for human origins for all of them exist.

          • MarkW, the Egyptians never constructed ANYTHING out of stone that they didn’t carve their “signature” on, …… on both the inside and outside surfaces. The Great Pyramid has no such “signature(s)”. And besides, the Egyptians did not possess the tools or the technology to construct said pyramid, ESPECIALLY the white limestone casing that originally covered all four (4) sides of the pyramid with a perfectly smooth finish from top to bottom.

            And “NO”, there has not been any realistic building methods proposed for the GP, … NOR tested and found to be doable.

            And there is no known technology that existed that can explain how the stonework at Puma Punku was created.

            “ MarkW, Viable theories for human origins for all of them exist.

            “YUP”, and viable theories exist for AGW, CAGW, etc.

    • The Fermi Paradox relies on a estimate of intelligent life based on the Drake Equation. The problem is, we have no idea what the values should be for any of the parameter. We are just starting the crack the question of how many Earth-type planets there might be based on the search for extra-Solar planets. OK, one variable on the way to being answered, 6 to go. Wake me when we get there.

    • Intelligent life might also be undetectable because it doesn’t use broadcast EM radiation to communicate. Maybe it did briefly, for perhaps a century long ago, but no more.

      However, that said, it’s possible that the most advanced civilization in the galaxy at present is ours.

      • I wonder what sort of methods it would use to communicate then. If it’s not EM radiation broadcasted then what?
        What is it than can be used for communication that we can not detect and is better than EM radiation?

        • Fiber optics and cable, for instance. Earth is already transitioning away from broadcast EM signals. Or if broadcast transmissions, then over shorter distances without the power to reach distant star systems.

        • Go back in time 500 years. And ask our ancestors how anyone could communicate with someone other than words or writing?
          How many of them would have guessed we would one day be using the EM spectrum? They didn’t even know that such a thing existed.

          Demanding to know what technologies a civilization that is more advanced than ours is useless speculation.

          For all I know they could be using sub-space.

        • Alien communication methods that humans wouldn’t be aware of —
          Entropy encrypted gravity waves.
          Encoded duality particle mirrors.
          Pseudo-chaotic encryption of the speed of light.
          etc, etc.

          Just because ‘we’ can’t think how it can be done at this moment in our history, doesn’t mean it will never be done.

    • The Fermi paradox, while well intentioned, it is meaningless because it has no referents. We know of no extraterrestrial civilizations(term used lightly). A simple equation that consists solely of dimensionless, unmeasured and unmeasureable factors can’t supply any output. We don’t know which factors, their sizes, or their connections to choose what and how much to include.

      It’s great for speculation, but, unlike E=mC^2 it has never made any useful predictions, other than the obvious one that Earth has a civilization and that other planets that might exist may also have civilizations associated with them

  5. The whole scenario is ludicrous. Dumb to even talk about it. Whatever man tries to do to alter climate, which is a wrong-headed idea to begin with, would be hugely expensive, and very likely have negative environmental consequences. Furthermore, for all we know, by mid-century, we could be experiencing LIA conditions, or something similar.

  6. My liberal gf is planning to fly to Italy from san francisco in July, oh boy am i going to give her sh!t about that, Dims are such hypocrites. I think the main thing libs want is just to “soak the rich” somehow, and get this, my gf gets $100k per year pension as a retired math teacher.

    • John Bell

      I presume your GF has contributed to her pension over the years.

      If she gets $100k per year from a pension she’s substantially contributed to then good luck to her. She earned the money and saved it in a pension, didn’t she?

      My wife is head of a University department. She’s been continuously employed since she was 18 with unbroken pension contributions. She might make £40k if she’s lucky in three years time when she retires from the Teachers Pension scheme.

      I don’t know about the US but in the UK we are all entitled to a state pension of around £150 per week assuming we have paid enough into it during our working lives. Despite what people may say, it is not free money!

      The same with contributory pension schemes in the UK. Civil servants pay into these schemes all their lives, no choice, it’s simply taken from their salary by the government. The idea is, of course, that the government invests the pension contributions in infrastructure etc. and as the economy grows, so does the return on investment over a 40 year working life.

      Except successive governments have screwed up so badly, the pension schemes have become a burden, which is wrong, but even more wrong is that people who have paid into a government pension scheme are now being painted as parasites on the state.

      • If she’s a public school teacher, then it’s unlikely she contributed much to that pension fund. We the taxpayers are paying for it.

        HotScot, whether you paid for that pension fund depends entirely on how much you put it.
        If it’s anything like Social Insecurity here in the states. Those drawing out now are getting back way, way more than they ever put in. As a result, those of us who haven’t retired yet are either going to get back much less than we put in, or taxes are going to have to be raised to ruinous levels for those still working.

        • I’m just guessing, but it’s possible the pension plan administrators have invested, successfully, in various natural resource (i.e. oil) companies.

        • my social security return on investment is about 3%
          return on my private investment in the same period is about 10%
          inflation has run an average of 3%

        • Mark: You are both right and wrong wrt teacher pensions. Yes the taxpayer paid the money into the pension fund, but the taxpayer paid the teachers’ salaries, too. They were employees of the taxpayer. The money paid into the pensions was in lieu of greater salaries to teachers. It is no different than employer-paid SS payments. Yes, the employer paid the money, but it was payment on behalf of the employee based on his work. Neither employer-paid SS payments nor teachers’ pensions are ‘gifts’. They are part of the employees’ earned benefits, so teachers’ earned those pensions, and they potentially came at the sacrifice of higher salaries.

          • For the most part, big pensions were given to teachers to buy labor peace with the unions.
            Politicians loved it, because it pushed the payout problem into the future, long after the politicians had retired.

          • Big government employee pensions were exchanged for large blocks of union votes for the politicians handing out the benefits–quid pro quo.

            Why shouldn’t politicians hand out big pension benefits like candy? It’s not their money.

        • If she’s a public school teacher, then it’s unlikely she contributed much to that pension fund.

          1 – Where I live, the teacher’s contribution is around 10% of annual salary matched by the employer. example

          2 – The teachers’ pension fund gets a much better return on investment than could be done by an individual investor.

          • In the US most, if not all public pensions are severally underfunded. That situation seems to be caused by public agencies continually increasing benefits as demanded by the public unions. The books are “balanced” by assuming an investment rate of return which in some cases may exceed 10%.

            Akin to making promises which cannot be kept…
            But the chickens are coming home to roost!

            Taxes are going up as the promised pension benefits are going down.
            There are many unhappy campers.
            Those who live in the wrong states are voting with their feet…

      • How much of that money has been wasted on your GREEN infrastructure with projected negative returns on the investment??

    • @John Bell;
      If that’s your plan, I suppose your intent is to very quickly make her your ex-girlfriend. 🙂

  7. The movie series “Game of Thrones” has a pretty good portrayal of how humans variously react in the face of impending global climate change (less the creatures north of the wall, of course).

    Humans aren’t the only animals known to “eat their own” when times get really tough.

  8. “As a scientist I don’t see any convincing evidence of . . .”
    followed by the next sentence,
    “As an environmentalist we really need to deal with . . .”

    Ummm, a little slight of hand there?

  9. Might have read this before, Michael Crichton novel or CIA scenario! Surely MIT has something better to do? The only path to a decade of famine and fighting over water resources is if we adopt the Green New Deal and other hair brained climate solutions.

  10. We have drought in areas that have a history of drought. Floods in areas that have a history of floods. Same with all the rest of the catastrophic results of a gradual warming of roughly 0.1.*C / decade, since our climate IMPROVED from the Little Ice Age.
    We are experiencing a climate optimum.
    Are some people dumb enough, or evil enough, to try and ruin that for everyone else?
    Maybe, but they are not going to be very popular. And cold people don’t have a high tolerance for people that want it colder, and want to take away what you need to stay warm.
    We have weapons that will take out a missile in flight. Do you think it would be difficult to shoot down a balloon? If it contains material to reflect sunlight, it would also reflect radar. A sitting duck, for a very slow ride to the stratosphere.

  11. ‘could lead to a war and potentially a world war as others attempt to use violence to stop their “climate action”

    Note how he immediately presumes the ‘violence’ is coming from the opposition to their just and Holy cause. Once again pretending to the high moral ground.

    In progressive world, ‘violence’ is when someone hits BACK.

  12. I bothered to read the MIT article. What a waste.
    Seems the real story is we have a wanna-be tin pot dictator angling for control. In other words, a typical lefty. Wade through the pseudo-scientific nonsense and we find some real gems.

    “raises troubling questions about the ability to regulate such technologies”
    Let’s have more regulations, that did not take long.

    “another category of unsanctioned scenario”
    Heavens no, we can not allow an unsanctioned scenario.

    “the technology could even be harder to regulate than previously imagined”
    But he sure wants to try.

    “feasible or not … poses incredibly vexing governance questions”
    Who cares if it is not even possible, we need to work on the “governance”

    And Incredibly:
    “But geoengineering is so cheap and simple”
    *speechless*

    And Finally:
    “strive for workable if imperfect regulatory frameworks”

    True colors revealed.

    • Perhaps that was just Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Ortez’s economic thesis, stored at the wrong university and under the wrong subject heading.

      • Mea culpa . . . Ocasio-Cortez, not Ocasio-Ortez.

        ctm: when, oh when, oh when, will WUWT posters ever be allowed to edit their own posts after the fact?

  13. What would the climate warriors bring to the fight?
    -sticks and stones?
    -spears?
    -bow and arrows?
    – bicycles?

    Me? I’m bringing diesel smoke belching tanks, jets, and armored hummvees with 50 cals on top.

    Let.Us.Rumble!

    Of course the Chinese, Russian, and Indian leaders know the climate scam is designed to destroy US and European economic power. So they’ll just sit back and watch from the sidelines for their opportunity.

    • Abrams’ Honeywell AGT1500 is a gas turbine engine. capable of burning a variety of fuels, including diesel grades, but its most common type is JP8, a kerosene-based jet aircraft fuel.

  14. So a climate warrior has began to realize that not everybody will be on board. In fact millions in fly over country might rebel. What to do about non compliance? Obama put much of the “frame work” in place but then started working on gun control…..

  15. The movie “Logan’s Run” comes to mind… Very prophetic.

    “Plankton!!! Sea greens!!! Proteins from the Sea!!” -Box the robot.

  16. “…using technologies such as large scale Recycling Disintegrators that break down carbon chain molecules into smaller reusable chains with temperature and pressure.”

    Actually, incineration using temperature and oxygen is adequate to the task. It is traditionally called fire, and also releases useful amounts of energy which can be used to help construct whole civilizations.

    • . . . and plant food the feeds the world’s forests and grasslands and crops, if you release the major combustion gas into the planetary atmosphere.

  17. Another similar scenario from our European point of vue.

    Greens finally manage to recover the power and waste no time in catching-up for lost business. Economy confusion and general poverty ensues. Unrests gloom here and there.

    Sure of the green ideology infiltration in enemy territory, an international organization, think UN, issues warnings and statements against Russia, the only non-abiding to green precepts power.

    Greens seek motivational advertisement stunts.

    A squirmish incident ensues which quickly escalades because, happens, the planned green coup fails to take ownership of Russia.

    Europe and it’s strategic installations is vitrified. Baltics / Nordics realize what time it is.

    China joins the party stating that until properly subdued, it will not really allow the vitrification of Russia as Green America realizes it’s inability to sustain an industrial war effort of this magnitude.

    Treaties are signed, lots of hugging, environmentalism joins fascism in the list of shame.

    Third world countries leaders mourn lost income, Australian policymakers exile in Antarctica after being rejected by Dubai.

  18. It’s the year 2051. A decade of drought, crop failure, and famine has killed millions across East Africa, sparking violent clashes over food and water. Similar scenes of death and devastation are playing out in other parts of the globe.

    That scenario is so stupid, so unintellectual, ignorant, anti-scientific, and against all evidence it boggles the imagination.

  19. USA media seems to have a new WX hysteria bone to ‘wag’ everyone’s dog with:

    ==
    FOX – Weather 1 day ago
    ‘Atmospheric river’ bringing threat of mudslides, flooding to California
    A weather system known as a “atmospheric river” is unleashing heavy rain across California, bringing the threat of mudslides and flooding Thursday to a region that’s seen days of rain and heavy snow.
    https://www.foxnews.com/us
    ==

    I looked up the latest models and obs and there seems to be no such ‘river’ present.
    https://on.windy.com/26f90

    The faker who cried, “Wolf!”

  20. Wow, the commies/socialists are oozing out of the walls & coming out of the woodwork. Seems they WANT some kind of disaster — maybe projecting the coming civil wars they’re fomenting.

  21. What about the amount of heat given off of the bodies of 7 billion people in 24 hours ? Does that significantly change the heat balance point for earth’s air temperature at ground level.

    I get somewhere around 1.68E13 watt hours in 24 hours, using 100 watts per body radiated. What I can’t easily find is the total sun energy that makes it to the earth’s surface. Is it 1000 watts/meter sq ?

    If I use the disk approach for the earth and pi x radius squared for area, I get 1.28E14 square meters illuminated by the sun.

    Dividing one into the other, I get an additional 0.132 watts per square meter present in the environment.

  22. Fine, as long as they fund the war on climate change with voluntary ultra-low-interest government War Bonds.

  23. I have written, others have as well. The entire AGW religion is nothing more than a Trojan horse for the world’s far left to try and force socialism upon the world. We have even had UN leaders say as much.

    Some will believe those behind the New Green Deal are just crazy people. They are not. Remember we are not hearing from the wizards behind the curtain but their “pretty” mouth pieces they have put to the front.

    So long as we have more “true believers” in the world then skeptics, even if they don’t necessarily want socialism, then we are at risk. Combined with the socialists, if the true believers believe action must be immediate to avoid catastrophe then civilization as we have known it is at grave risk.

Comments are closed.