Jane Fonda: “If we don’t cut our fossil fuel emissions in half by 2030, … democracy … will become impossible.”

Jane Fonda lapping up the attention while sitting on a North Vietnamese Anti-Aircraft Gun during her infamous visit to Hanoi. Fair use, Link

Guest essay by Eric Worrall

Perennial revolutionary Jane Fonda has predicted that unless society acts to reduce CO2 emissions, democracy will become impossible.

‘Civil Disobedience Has to Become the New Norm.’ Jane Fonda on the Fight Against Climate Change

BY JUSTIN WORLAND UPDATED: SEPTEMBER 3, 2020 4:28 PM EDT | ORIGINALLY PUBLISHED: SEPTEMBER 3, 2020 7:00 AM EDT

Jane Fonda wants to teach you about climate change. In the fall of 2019, Fonda regularly convened with fellow climate activists—and some of her Hollywood friends—on the steps of the U.S. Capitol Building to call for a Green New Deal and other government action on climate change. The protests, which she called “Fire Drill Fridays,” deliberately ended in arrest.

Do you think your book will get older voters to think about climate change and affect the way they vote? 

They’re already thinking about it! The young climate strikers globally have had a lot to do with that. I’m targeting the people who notice the climate crisis and don’t know what to do about it. I’m teaching them more and then giving people things to do… Civil disobedience has to become the new norm. No matter who is elected in November.

Because of climate or everything else going on in the world? 

Because of everything—and out of everything, what looms is the climate crisis. If we don’t cut our fossil fuel emissions in half by 2030, everything will not only become much, much harder, but a lot of things—equality, democracy, stability in our society—will become impossible. What I want to tell voters who say, “I can’t decide who to vote for. I don’t really believe in Joe Biden,” is, “Hey, I’d rather push a moderate than fight a fascist.”

Read more: https://time.com/5885452/jane-fonda-climate-change-what-can-i-do/

Greens like Fonda completely fail to explain why life would become so much harder so quickly if the world warmed by a few degrees. Every degree of warming is like moving a bit closer to the equator – just not that big a deal.

185 thoughts on “Jane Fonda: “If we don’t cut our fossil fuel emissions in half by 2030, … democracy … will become impossible.”

    • Dear Jane,
      Go sell your ICE cars and buy a Teslas.
      Install hundreds of Solar Panels on your home (denying yourself the subsidy funded by fossil fuel intrests) and sever your tie in to grid sourced energy.
      Install several Tesla Powerwall systems to power your home at night and allow for recharging your new EVs
      Eliminate any and all of the 6000 products either sourced by fossil fuels or petrochemicals (keep in mind that those Solar Cells in the panels require Coal in their manufacture and plastic insulation in the wiring)
      .
      Remember you’re among the Large Majority who BELIEVE in Climate Change so If You ALL stopped using fossil sourced energy and being hypocritical, legislation would be unnecessary and fossil fuels would disappear

      • Lets create an easy formula for Jane by applying the 80/20 rule.

        Using net worth as our unit of measure. The top 20% of the population reduces their fossil fuel use by 80% and the bottom 80% in net worth reduce their energy use by 20%.

        Of course that would never fly (literally and figuratively). The p…ant celebrities would immediately stop preaching to the masses and go about enjoying their luxurious lifestyles, leaving the rest of us in peace.

        Go top off LearJet2’s fuel tank Leonardo, you have a party in the South of France tonight. I hear Jane Fonda will be in attendance. So many of the most important people are going to be there.

    • As someone pointed out a few weeks ago, Eric does like his dumpster diving.

      It mostly does have comedic value though, like this election year.

    • A clever politician who was very effective at winning office, whom I once knew a long time ago, explained the secret of defeating activists. His advice, you have to challenge every lie or mistruth, otherwise the lie stands.

      • “…you have to challenge every lie or mistruth, otherwise the lie stands.”

        This.

        Think how much grief we would have saved ourselves if we had taken the drug-induced babblings of the 60s seriously. No mas.

      • “His advice, you have to challenge every lie or mistruth, otherwise the lie stands.”
        Which is why the Dems have to daily challenge Trumps lies.

        • And why Trump has to constantly expose the Dems. The difference being that every single policy action of the Dems is based on lies; and other than using twitter, the accusations by the left against Trump (fascism, division as a political tactic, voter suppression, use of foreign agents to influence elections, policies that damage the environment, direct government funding as a kickback to donors, deliberately anti-science, etc.) are a really just a projection of their proven actions. Trump is far from ideal, but the worst case actions from Trump equal the best case actions from the Democrats.

          • So why bring up twitter? Trump uses twitter for several reasons:
            1. The MSM is a con game, he is playing by their rules.
            2. He is not a politician.
            3. He can’t be bought.

            There may be more, feel free to add to the list.

          • Yirgach, I only bring up Twitter because it is the one qualifier that would make it dishonest to say the left have absolutely no plausible arguments to favor their politicians over the President. Every other accusation by the left against Trump is really a description of one of the Democrat’s leading elected officials. Possible overuse or unfiltered tweets that could be viewed as unprofessional is one thing they mostly leave to the press or other minions, giving the left’s politicians a claim that they have a veneer of respectability.

        • Trump’s “lies” are actually Democrat distortions of what Trump said.

          The Democrats claim they have caught Trump in 13,000 lies or thereabouts. What they are really describing are 13,000 distortions of what Trump said.

          A very good example is the recent claim that Trump hates the U.S. military. Anonymous sources for the Atlantic magazine claim Trump said of the U.S. military: “What’s in it for them? They don’t make any money.”

          Jennifer Griffin, a Fox News Pentagon corrspondent “corroborated” this statement by Trump with the anonymous sources.

          I, personally, have heard Trump make this statement in public on more than one occasion. Jennifer Griffin should have sought me out for confirmations. Or anyone watching tv at the time.

          As I said, Trump has made this statement publicly on several occasions. The two times I saw and heard him do it, he was meeting with military people.

          So what does Trump mean by: “What’s in it for them (the military)? They don’t make any money.”.

          Trump is praising the U.S. military with this statement. He is “marveling” that those who join the military don’t do it for the money, they do it for a higher purpose. Trump, in saying this, wants those hearing it to marvel at the people who join the military.

          So Trump did say this and he meant it in a positive way. The Leftwing propagand Media takes his words and distorts them to make them appear that he is disparaging people who join the military because the military doesn’t pay very much.

          And although Jennfier Griffin merely confirmed the words Trump said, where she went wrong was to apply the same interpretration as the Atlantic magazine did to those words. Griffin got the quote right, but got the interpretation wrong. That’s why Trump is upset with her.

          I would hate to have to try to debunk 13,000 Trump “lies” put out by the Left, but I’m sure it can be done. I’ve heard just about every distortion they make about Trump and as far as I’m concerned they are all distortions of what Trump said. They never quote him properly. They are always looking to spin the words to make him appear as bad as possible.

          The radical Left pose a great danger to our Republic. The Truth is not in them, and they are more than willing to lie and cheat and steal, and oppose a sitting president in every way possible, legal and illegal, in order to get their way.

          Trump has to have a landslide victory this November. The House of Representatives needs to be swung to a Republican majority. Electing a Democrat to the House is a grave danger to the United States. This may enable Nancy Pelosi to remain as speaker, which would be a disaster, in and off itself. Even if you have a good Democrat in your district, you can’t afford to vote for him because that may enable Nancy Pelosi. Think of the country when you vote.

        • A lie is halfway around the world before the truth has got its clothes on. (it might not be the exact quote but is close)

      • “you have to challenge every lie or mistruth, otherwise the lie stands.”

        And this is exactly the reason for Cancel Culture.
        It follows that the only way to prevail is to cancel culture.. before it cancels everyone else.

        “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.” -Edmund Burke

  1. Eric says “Every degree of warming is like moving a bit closer to the equator – just not that big a deal.”

    I agree but I believe Earth is about to enter a prolonged period of “Global Cooling” because another “Grand Solar Minimum [Eddy Minimum]” is imminent starting about now (SC 25). So every degree of cooling will be like moving a bit closer to the poles – this is a big deal – loss of cereal crops especially in mid / high latitude N. Hemis nations.

    • Actual warming since 1979 was mainly at higher latitudes, mainly in the six coldest months of the year and mainly at night. All those details hidden within a single global average temperature that not one person lives in.

      Our planet has supported more life when it was warmer and had more CO2 in the air. Of course I am including plant life too. The CO2 level is now unusually low based on geologic history. And it is nonsense to claim that the perfect climate was in the mid-1700s and any change from then is bad news. Only stupid people would believe that. and leftists (I repeat myself).

      • It really to bad that the useful idiots of the world have not figured out we been cooling down for the last 8000 years and each warming period in that cooling down is less warm the the last. Do I expect that to change, NO!

      • Global Warming due to the CCP China giant industrialization the last decades?

        Those who’s stock positions depend on China (Apple, Amazon, Microsoft, Alibaba, Tencent etc) don’t want you to find out, that why they send their Extinction Hanzels & Gretas only to the EU and US.

    • King,

      If the world would get colder, then moving from northern latitudes makes sense, AS PEOPLE DID DURING THE GLACIATION PERIOD, which had its low point about 26,500 years ago, and during at least 3 other such periods in the past 420,000 years

      NO BIG DEAL THEN; on foot, no wheels
      No big deal now; with wheels

      With 10 billion people in a narrow band of latitudes, it would become crowded.
      Better start planning to reduce to about 1 billion, which would not be so crowded.

    • Perhaps the US could just randomly incarcerate for having wrong political views and explain to her this is how things work without democracies. China is already holding a number of foreign journalists and business people without charge in exactly that way.

        • Hanoi Jane just gets the Ron White Lifetime Gold Medal Award for proving he is correct about people like Hanoi Jane. She’s got 50+ years of proving him correct – that’s Golden.

        • Yeah but then she gets legal proceedings, none of those China holds get that … why even give her a platform.

          • See the hollow tube being held behind Jane’s head? In her communist utopia, an annoying scold gets a rifle held behind her head.

          • I think it is an old school boom Mic or similar.

            The grip on the hand shown is completely wrong for anything weighted.

            Also I doubt Jane needed any encouragement.

        • No David, there is not statute of limitations on treason, ie, giving aid and comfort to the enemy. In early 1969 several of us soldiers in Ft. Rucker, Alabama, went into town to see Jane Fonda in the movie “Barbarella”, two points of which I remember. Ladies from a local Baptist Church were telling us if we went in to see the movie we would go to hell. We replied, you got that right, we’re on our way to Vietnam. In 1972 Jane made the infamous trip to Hanoi and gave aid and comfort to the enemy, documented in the picture you post. She should have been tried for such obvious Treason, but her father saved her.

          • Believe? Don’t be absurd. Simon is much more sophisticated than that. He knows that there is no such thing as objective truth. He pushes a narrative to advance the party line. Believing it is utterly irrelevant. The narrative is active as long as it helps bring about the communist revolution.

          • Gregory…..

            The “official” version is “As thick as two short planks” I believe! No real logic to it, obviously, but I guess that may be part of its charm!

        • We need a direct Presidential quote in context, Simon. Also, I use reasoning, not feelings. You appear to have it backwards.

          • The “quote” is alleged hearsay from anonymous sources. Probably made up from whole cloth by the propaganda ministry. Or made up by disgruntled swamp critters.

            Trump gave them the opening by his stupid bluster about McCain, which makes their fabrications seem more believable. Any damage this causes is his own fault.

            The target audience is the low information voter who used to vote for Democrats, but doesn’t blame America first. The goal is to demoralize the Deplorables so they don’t vote.

            I wonder if they considered the fact that a lot of Bernie LoserBros might find this fake comment endearing and remind them that Trump is anti-war.

          • “Trump gave them the opening by his stupid bluster about McCain”

            Try asking a sailor from the USS Forrestal…

            They agree with Trump . Those that didn’t die from McCains fire …

          • McCain was a complete jerk, he would go out of his way to betray Republicans just so he could be praised by the newspapers.
            There are quite a few of us who are glad when his political career came to an end.

          • Sorry if I don’t participate in the personality cult.

            I don’t disagree at all that McCain was a loser for pretty much everything he did after coming back from Viet Nam. I’m not familiar with the details of his war record other than his time in Hanoi, maybe he wasn’t heroic, but it’s irrelevant.

            My point is that Trump was a dipshit to denigrate someone for getting shot down, even if that guy was a total jerk. Especially since he himself didn’t serve. He’s his own worse enemy sometimes.

            I’ll stand by that comment. Trump will always be the lesser of two evils in my book.

          • Not liking McCain means you are part of the Trump personality cult?
            McCain has been an a*hole since Reagan was president.

          • Where in the video did President Trump call me a loser, Simon?

            Even a cursory review of McCain’s record reveals a mean-spirited opportunist.

        • One person, who wasn’t even there makes a claim and automatically everyone in the left proclaims it the latest truth that must not be contradicted.

          • The problem Trump has denying these accusations(some of which have been confirmed by Fox news) is that it certainly sounds like Trump. He does use the term loser all the time.

          • Simon I am sorry but virtually no one here believes a word you say and what you are saying has absolutely nothing to do with that stupid Jane Fonda. So go and beat your drum elsewhere.

          • mikebartnz

            My reply was to Dave Fair “We need a direct Presidential quote in context, Simon. Also, I use reasoning, not feelings. You appear to have it backwards.”
            If you don’t want to be part of that then go beat “your” drum somewhere else.

            And I see an old quote from Trumps new fwend Lindsey Graham has just surfaced when asked about the horrific comments by Trump re McCain
            “At the heart of [Trump’s] statement is a lack of respect for those who have served,” he wrote. “A disqualifying characteristic to be president.”
            Seems he has been disrespecting veterans for some time.

          • I am sorry Simon but you are still beating a drum no one is interested in.
            Trumps actions are far loader than your words.
            What has any of this to do with that stupid cow Jane Fonda?

      • That’s good because it may take a couple of more years to indict Obama and Biden on treason charges for their attempted coup of the Trump administration.

  2. Because of climate or everything else going on in the world?

    Because of everything—and out of everything, what looms is the climate crisis. If we don’t cut our fossil fuel emissions in half by 2030, everything will not only become much, much harder, but a lot of things—equality, democracy, stability in our society—will become impossible. What I want to tell voters who say, “I can’t decide who to vote for. I don’t really believe in Joe Biden,” is, “Hey, I’d rather push a moderate than fight a fascist.”

    Aside from the fact that Joe Biden’s handlers are hardly “moderate”, to actually cut fossil fuel emissions in half for no other reason than to reduce CO2 without a proven, reliable replacement for energy in place (the market, absent Government regulations, will tell you when it is in place) will make civilization itself, well, Portland.
    (Or The Hunger Games … without the happy ending.)

    • “…to actually cut fossil fuel emissions in half for no other reason than to reduce CO2” without a proven need for it, regardless of the method, is crazy. Basically the same as “Let’s drink this sour tasting Kool-Aid because the people shouting the loudest tell us it’s absolutely necessary, and we can’t bother to think for ourselves anyway…”.
      I really despair for our world. Socialism has great marketing (basically a ripoff of Christianity’s consideration of the poor without the need for morality) and ends up taking over, and ends in tragedy.

    • Let’s cut the 50% that makes Janes life comfortable, privileged and secure. Perhaps a bucket of cold hard reality will be refreshing for her.

  3. Democracy already seems pretty much impossible today, with the Democrats insisting on allowing voter fraud with mail-in ballots.

    • The Democrats are doing their best to destroy Democracy.

      Who needs Russian or Chinese interference in the U.S. election when you have Democrats underming the whole process. The Democrats are domestic enemies of the United States. Just as dangerous to our freedoms as any Russian or Chicom.

  4. Jane HATES Democracy, because she HATES Trump … who was fairly elected according to the American-style of Democracy. 289 Electoral votes made him President. Diverse people … from diverse States voted for Trump. Voted for Change. That’s how OUR Democracy works.

    Sorry Jane, most of the DIVERSE people of America have read and observed the fear mongering of “global warming” … and have shrugged. So the only thing left for the fear-mongers … is more fear-mongering. Pro Tip: Hey Jane … the people of Hollywood, California, and New York are NOT diverse. They all believe the same thing. Do the same thing, and preach the same thing. Extreme Leftism. More rioting in the streets. Thankfully, it their own streets they’re trashing.

    I LOVE our change

    • Everybody gets this wrong. We have a Republic and not a Democracy and that explains the strange election process. It was designed to restrict mob rule and give the minority a voice. It’s probably the reason we have lasted as long as we have as Democracies tend to fail pretty quickly once the mob gets control. Unfortunately the progressive are aware of this and are doing their best to end the Republic by pushing for a popular vote. The first action was in 1913 when we started voting for Senators. The next step is to end the Electoral college and stuffing the Supreme Court.
      Something both parties have done is to allow the unelected government officials to write “Rules and Regulations” or in other words, pass laws without the approval of congress. We are on shaky grounds and I fear for the Republic.

      • Not everybody gets this wrong, Dena, but I endorse the rest of your comment. Our Republic is on its deathbed. It is only suited to a virtuous public, which has long since disappeared over at least half of the states.

      • In a republic, there would be no Affordable Care Act (“A”CA).

        It started out as a republic. It is now it is something else.

        (I can’t even remember anymore … did I pay a fee, or a tax, for refusing to participate in the specific governmental scheme that is neither affordable, nor provides care?)

    • Leftists have always defined “democracy” as “we win”. Any time they don’t win, it’s a failure of democracy.

      • MarkW
        “Leftists have always defined “democracy” as “we win”. Any time they don’t win, it’s a failure of democracy.”
        Lets see how your man on the right Trump views democracy if he loses in November?

        • It really is sad how leftists actually believe others are guilty of the sins they promote.
          It’s easier than thinking for yourself.

          • Markw
            “It really is sad how leftists (rightists) actually believe others are guilty of the sins they promote.”
            Snap.

          • Poor simon…

            DENIAL of the utter contempt that the Dumbocrats have held for the duly elected President, and the deceit and lying they have gone to to try to negate that election.

            You can LIE to yourself, if it helps you….. but if you have any conscience, it must hurt badly to know that you have to do it.

            But wait.. you are far-left…. you have no conscience, just CON-Science.

        • It’s funny, in 2016 the left proclaimed Trump wouldn’t accept the results of the election if he lost. Hillary lost and the left spent the next 4 years not accepting the results.

          Now they’re at it again. Biden has already suggest violence will increase should Trump be re-elected, showing once again that it’s the left that can’t accept when they lose.

      • I suspect the 289 the previous poster claimed comes from the early tally in the days after Election day when there were still a couple of states in the “too close to call” column. When all was said and done, Trump won 306 electors however 2 were “faithless” and didn’t cast their votes for him (thus leaving him with 304 electoral votes). Hillary, meanwhile, had 5 such “faithless” electors. The “faithless” electors votes went to: Bernie Sanders(1), John Kaisch(1), Ron Paul(1), Colin Powell(3), and Faith spotted Eagle(1).

  5. Now for some fun-
    “ Did you see parts of your younger activist self in them?
    Oh my God. They’re so much better than I was. I’m blown away. They are really smart. They’re also depressed- these young people are also carrying grief.”
    So the debate is, “ Jane Fonda , brighter than Greta Thunberg or not?”

  6. So, what if we did cut fossil fuels in half by 2030, and it didn’t change anything weather/climate wise? Would the alarmists still think this was all worth it? Of course, this isn’t about climate change or global warming, but access to resources and energy. She and her ilk are the enemy of the poor, which isn’t surprising, which coming from such a privileged background, she is just rubbing it in the faces of the poor people who desperately want access to energy to improve their lot in life. Is Jane Fonda going to cut all her extravagant life stye and donate all her wealth to the poor? I doubt it. She was wrong to go to Hanoi and she is wrong now. If she had a spine, she would be advocating for the safe implementation of next generation nuclear and increasing the prosperity of the poor, which all comes full circle back to energy utilization. And grid scale solar and wind just won’t be a solution to that. We finally cleaned up a lot of the pollution and related issues from the last century regarding fossil fuels which was the argument 30-40 years ago, including increasing energy efficiency, so why keep the complaining and blame it on a straw man argument that we can change the weather, as if there is really anything wrong with the climate anyway.

  7. Democracy? Actually the United States is a Constitutional Republic, but it doesn’t matter to her, it’s a throwaway term. THIS is what she prefers: I would think that if you understood what communism was, you would hope, you would pray on your knees that someday we would someday become communists. – Jane Fonda, 1970, Address to Michigan State University

    Full Disclosure: I am one of the U.S. military pilots Hanoi Jane wanted her North Vietnamese gunners to shoot down. A few months after she committed treason sitting in that AAA gun seat, I arrived at Da Nang, South Vietnam. A week before I arrived, they did shoot down an Air Force A-7 pilot from Da Nang, LtCol Anthony Shine. Years later his daughter went to the crash site and recovered relics, and a peasant returned her father’s flight helmet, which he had scavenged from the wreckage.

    Daughter solves mystery of pilot’s Vietnam death – CBS News
    https://www.cbsnews.com/news/daughter-solves-mystery-of-pilots-vietnam-death/ttp://virtualwall.org/ds/ShineAC01a.htm
    http://www.vvmf.org/Wall-of-Faces/47203/ANTHONY-C-SHINE

    • ….you would pray on your knees that someday we would someday become communists.

      But, but…. If you understood what communism was you would have no one to pray to.

      I suppose her inferential skill has not improved with age.

    • Why a vile traitor like Hanoi Jane is even acknowledged by the msm is utterly beyond me. It must be the hard clean that Hollywood provided its celebrities for so long. Why Harvey Weinstein is more vilified these days that Hanoi Jane perhaps says it all. She all but celebrated the deaths of all those young American conscripts and lauded their killers as heros.

    • I want to click the equivelent of a ‘Like’ button but that is too trivial. How about ‘I see you’?

    • The only people who truly understand communism are those who have been forced to live under.
      Funny how communists have to build walls in order to keep people in.

  8. She says “what looms is the climate crisis.” Lets hope she defines that in her book. She implies we have a way to solve the crisis. Lets hope she explains what we will need to do and gives us a solid cost/ benefit analysis of that action. I remain skeptical that either of those hopes have crossed her mind.

  9. It disgusts me to even see her name in print. She is a traitor and should be ignored completely. It would be appropriate to delete this entire article to remove her filth off the pages of this website.

    • I’m utterly disgusted Fonda still has enough influence to rate a Time interview, and I’m sorry for any upset or offence seeing her name in print causes.

      But I think it is important to challenge ridiculous claims, otherwise in the absence of a challenge such claims could win wider acceptance.

      • Eric, as much anger and hatred as seeing the name Jane Fonda or any likeness of her causes for the millions of people her actions and words have caused, continuing to expose the real Jane Fonda, the spawn of Satan for who she is, is a public service well worth the price. Otherwise, the history revisionists will scrub her image and her history and reinvent her as a saint. You are to be commended.

  10. Jane Fonda has never known a moment’s financial want in her life. She was once married to Ted Turner. She has no social connection to anyone outside her immediate economic class. I doubt if she’s ever cooked her own dinner, washed her own kitchen floor or made her own bed in her life.

    Terrific actress, though. I loved her in Cat Ballou. I really, really loved her in Barbarella which I saw when I was sixteen.

    Anyway, she doesn’t have a lot of authority, either scientific or moral, and she should take a clue from Elvis, who, when asked his political opinions, declined to give them, saying “I’m just an entertainer.”

      • Dave, That is fair comment against Barbarella (Be honest, does anyone watch Barbarella for the quality of the acting? didn’t think so), but not so much for Cat Ballou, or other movies she’s done. As actresses go, she’s not terrible even if she generally doesn’t make the types of movies I’m interested in seeing. Being a good actor, however, doesn’t mean she has anything worth saying on any particular subject (such as climate) after all an actors deliver the words written by others, it’s not their own words/thoughts/ideas that they’re delivering in those movies.

  11. Jane Fnda and Eric Worrall — they deserve each other, as only true putzes do! (BTW, I hope everyone reading this knows what a putz is…)

    • I want you to know, Ms. Cohen, that I am a putz. A proud putz from Putzylvania. in the space on my passport for occupation, I have put putz. I will not tolerate putzophobia.

    • putz
      (noun)
      \ ˈpəts \
      Definition of putz
      1 US, informal : a stupid, foolish, or ineffectual person : JERK,
      Example: see Paula Cohen, the “___”.

    • Yes, Paula most here know what a putz is. For those who don’t, I thank you for your service as an example of one so that they may finally know what a true putz is.

  12. I remember her in Playboy and Vietnam. Seems to be a lot of this around. Petersen, A.M., Vincent, E.M. & Westerling, A.L. Discrepancy in scientific authority and media visibility of climate change scientists and contrarians. Nature Communications. 10, 3502 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-019-09959-4
    “Discussion–“CC is a wicked multidimensional problem, whereby individual dimensions—i.e., environmental, socio-economic, technological, science communication—while separately challenging, together pose the 21st century’s pre-eminent grand challenge.” I looked at this, clearly just an example of an appeal to authority, them picking the authorities. Still amazed not so much that an academic would do that but a [pick a superlative] scientific journal would publish such wicked trash. They really think that communication is the future science. However,–

    https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2020/09/trump-deserves-re-election-for-this-alone.php
    Now if Nature, AAAS, etc. would do the same thing maybe we could get our science back.

  13. Equality and Stability will never occur in a Democracy. Democracies are “mob rule”. Mob rule is always unequal because the majority will punish the minority, which will cause in-stability.
    That is why we have a Constitutional Republic.
    The public only has to decide who is wise enough to represent them. The public is bombarded with emotional appeals instead of logical arguments.
    And the ones who are not selected, need to refocus their agenda on what benefits the voters. Not try to bully and intimidate voters into submitting to rulers they don’t want. Civil disobedience is about forcing your opinions on people that disagree. It is criminal behavior and the social equivalent of gang violence intimidating the residents of a neighborhood.

  14. Popular actors, actresses, sports figures, and others think their opinions are worth something. Unfortunately they are given media attention. Here’s today’s heroes for your enjoyment.

    • They will tell you that they know more about the complex issues in life because only they have the privilege of having the free time to properly think about these things, not having to spend the whole day grovelling for sustenance and shelter as the rest of us apparently do.

  15. I have long observed that those who, one way or the other, become rich and powerful become disconnected from conventional morality. They are insulated from the consequences of their actions and, in that way, also become disconnected from reality. I think it goes double for actors because they start to think everything is just a script anyway.

    What happened to all the hippies? As far as I can tell, the vast majority of them settled down and made their living in the conventional manner. You could say they grew up. That apparently never happened for JF. She seems like she’s stuck in perpetual adolescence.

    When I started this comment I was thinking dark thoughts so I did a web search for california “the big one”. My ambition is to live well past 100 so “the big one” could happen in my life time. Hmmm … I think I overdosed on grumpy pills this morning.

    • commieBob,
      I was raised a stupid hippie in Commiefornia. But I repeat myself.
      Having eventually realized that, like many people, drugs made me a stupid @$$hole; I spent ten years trying to clean them out of my system and counteract the damage done to my brain. Sadly, since it is an amazing game, I will never be a good chess player due to loss of some memory function.
      Nowadays I’m a hardcore libertarian with many “far right” conservative beliefs, like thinking the US system of government is THE BEST developed so far by humankind! I love God, my family and the good old US of A, and will die fighting to protect them and those like me!
      Sadly, the DemoKKKrats seem intent on starting a new Civil War if they can’t steal the 2020 election! Like their belief in CAGW, the thinking that the Biden Riots will convince Americans to vote for them is pipe dream! But they’re stuck with Biden Loves Marxists!

      • The 20th Century had many examples of right-wing thugs fighting in the streets with left-wing thugs. The winners, left or right, went on to establish totalitarian regimes. 120 million-plus people paid the ultimate price for allowing the street battles to play out.

        After years of left-wing thugs dominating the U.S. streets, we are seeing the beginning of a response from right-wing thugs. Peaceful demonstrations on both sides are used as cover for agitation to violence, although the left is way ahead of the curve on this.

        If we don’t stamp out the street violence soon, we run the risk of decades-long totalitarian rule. And don’t say it can’t happen here; history is not kind to sheep.

        • Yes, we need to stop the street violence, no matter who starts it. Allowing these riots to continue only encourages more psychos out there to get involved.

    • Yes.It’s called celebrityitis. In the UK we have hundreds of them who can set the world to rights from their grand London houses or ” nouveaux riche ” mini country estates- pop stars ,actors,models etc .
      We can even export Royal celebrities to the USA.( Although one of them was originally yours.)

  16. If communism is so grand, why have all the people wanting it so bad not moved to where it is already practiced?
    Go there and prove to us it’s greatness.

  17. Ooooh look celebrity advice on something. I think I will choose to ignore the rich girl. Just as bad as the Gretans since neither have a clue nor an audience.

  18. If we don’t cut our fossil fuel emissions in half by 2030, . . .

    Reminds me of an old joke:

    Doctor advised me to cut out half my sex life.

    Only problem is, I don’t know which half I should cut out.

    The half I spend talking about, or the half I spend thinking about.

  19. This is just more of the Mob Style Threats from the Left.

    “Hey that’s pretty nice Democracy ya’ have there. Be a shame if something were to happen to it.”
    – “Bugsy” Hanoi Jane, ATB.

    more Bugsy Hanoi Jane, the ATB: “Just hand over the keys to Treasury and we’ll leave you alone. Capeesh?”

    • Therein, is it deadly or dead?
      I do have a tendency to stay away from “waste water” — so not a big deal.

    • That the virus can be excreted by those who are infected has been known since March.
      In the early days testing waste water was proposed as a way of measuring the level of infection in a community.

  20. Jane Fonda who thinks she is presently living in Hell, says:
    “If we don’t cut our fossil fuel emissions in half by 2030, everything will not only become much, much harder, but a lot of things—equality, democracy, stability in our society—will become impossible.”
    What she actually means is:
    “If we don’t cut our fossil fuel emissions in half by 2030…tyranny…will become impossible”

      • 82. According to a life expectancy calculator based on WHO data, she could be expected to live another 9.7 years before she gets to see what hell is really like.

  21. “If we don’t cut our fossil fuel emissions in half by 2030, … democracy … will become impossible.”

    That’s just wishful thinking on the part of Jane Fonda and her Marxist friends.

  22. Keep the republic, dispel the democracy. Keep the hydrocarbons, cut the emissions. Whack the wind turbines, save the birds, right? Remove the Green Blight. Baby Lives Matter.

  23. Bless her little heart. Jane must have dissociative identity disorder.
    One person couldn’t be so stupid.

    Dissociative identity disorder (DID), previously known as multiple personality disorder (MPD), is a mental disorder characterized by the maintenance of at least two distinct and relatively enduring personality states.

  24. Every degree of warming is like moving a bit closer to the equator – just not that big a deal.

    In fact the same degree of warming as has been measured in the last 40 years would have been achieved by the reduction in altitude of every Green stepping down off his or her high horse…

  25. Fonda is only a useful idiot. It is best to go after the organ grinder, not the dancing monkey. The West is supposed to cut its fossil use by half – which leaves all the oil in the ME to the Chicoms. Who coincidentally will sell us solar panels and wind turbines. Are you getting it (as the late Steve Jobs might say)? Who is benefiting here. Follow the money. The Soviets had the nuclear disarmament and environmental groups well infiltrated. They probably set up the Club of Rome. Now the Chinese have hitched their caboose to the disinformation train, and their booming economy incredibly is using almost half of the world’s resources. They plan to keep on buying SUVs and building condo towers and triple-story wedding-cake mansions and eating lots more meat. Seemingly WE are the only ones who must cut back.

    • Zane,
      Don’t forget Coronaviruses! They’re really good at developing new Coronaviruses and convincing others to commit economic suicide by shutting down their countries!
      Do you think the DemoKKKrats do all the ChiCom’s propaganda work pro bono, or are they well remunerated for their efforts!
      Jane Fonda seems to have had some pretty good acting chops, but a deep thinker she’s not! Deep or thinker!

  26. “Much of the social history of the Western world, over the past three decades, has been a history of replacing what worked with what sounded good.” – T. Sowell
    “The problem isn’t that Johnny can’t read. The problem isn’t even that Johnny can’t think. The problem is that Johnny doesn’t know what thinking is; he confuses it with feeling” – T.Sowell
    “The most effective way to destroy people is to deny and obliterate their own understanding of their history” – G. Orwell
    “A system of morality which is based on relative emotional values is a mere illusion, a thoroughly vulgar conception which has nothing sound in it and nothing true” – Aristotle

    • To Dr. Sowell’s point a recent video shows a BLM criminally harrassing a US Congressman by yelling in his face “How do you FEEL about… (police murdering Blacks)”.

      It made me extraordinarily uncomfortable that the focus of this useful idiot was on “feelings”.
      She would not accept rational answers from her “victim” who agreed any murder is wrong and just kept shouting “how do you FEEL…”

      Aside from starting from a false premise, she phrased her shout in the classic “When did you stop beating your wife?” model, where NO satisfactory answer to the accusation exists.

  27. “The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding yourself in the ranks of the insane.” – Marcus Aurelius

  28. I pledge to never have a “Carbon footprint” larger than Jane Fonda’s, or Al Gore’s, or Obama’s, or Clinton’s, or Bill Gates’…

  29. One of Jane Fonda’s best Green friends is Emma Thompson. I will be happy to restrict my energy footprint to that of our Emma’s. I am also willing to fry half way across the world to advocate for moderation of air travel like Emma does, and I promise not to arrange any hen party in NY that can be organised in Estonia as an alternative venue to reduce air miles, just like Emma has asked.
    There that should allow me to be a good Fonda type buddy person. Shouldn’t it?
    NB My hen party organisation is not very developed….

  30. I had a patient in the 80’s who was a personal trainer. Jane was one of his clients. She was with Tom Hayden at the time. They lived very nicely in Santa Monica near the beach . He of course was a “revolutionary” so they shared the same ideas. My patient observed that Tom was very often intoxicated.

  31. Eric wrote, “Every degree of warming is like moving a bit closer to the equator – just not that big a deal.”

    True, and it is easy to quantify what “a bit closer” means, by looking at an agricultural growing zone map. Here’s one, shared by permission from the Arbor Day Foundation:

    https://sealevel.info/2015_zones_highres.png

    From eyeballing the map, it looks to me like 1°C (1.8°F) = about 50-70 miles latitude change.

    Here’s James Hansen and his GISS friends reporting a similar figure:

    “A warming of 0.5°C… implies typically a poleward shift of isotherms by 50 to 75 km…”

    (100 to 175 km = 62 to 93 miles.)
    Source: https://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abs/ha02700w.html

    So, the 0.4 to 0.9 °C of warming which we’ve seen since 1958 (when Mauna Loa CO2 measurements began) has caused, on average, a growing zone shift of only about 40 to 135 km (24 – 84 miles).

    Ho hum. 🥱

    In most places climate changes can be compensated to by farmers, simply by adjusting planting dates.

    For example, in Kansas, 0.4 to 0.9 °C of warming can be compensated for by planting 2 to 6 days earlier in springtime:
    https://sealevel.info/wichita_spring_temperature_averages.png

    In order to find a result in which warmer temperatures cause significant crop damage, you either have to use wildly unrealistic tests (like the Jasper Ridge wild grass study, which used heat lamps outputting 20 times the IR radiation that would be caused by a doubling of CO2), or else assume that farmers are too stupid to adjust their planting dates (like PNAS’s Zhao C, et al. 2017 did). The claim that temperature increases from manmade global warming are significantly damaging to agriculture is crackpot nonsense.

    That’s important to know, because the most important effects of climate, weather & CO2 are on agriculture.

    At high latitudes, a slightly longer growing season reduces risk of frost damage to crops, and may enable use of high-yielding, slower-maturing cultivars, in some cases. But that’s minor compared to the large benefits of “CO2 fertilization.”

    Fortunately, those effects have been heavily studied. The best place to look for such references is in the agronomy literature (which most so-called “climate scientists” apparently never read).

    Here’s what eCO2 does for wheat:
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26929390

    Here’s what it does for corn:
    https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00103624.2018.1448413

    eCO2 is especially beneficial for legumes, like beans, peas, and alfalfa, which are grown for their protein content. So eCO2 helps mitigate protein shortages in poor countries. Here’s a paper:
    https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpls.2017.01546/full

    Hundreds of studies show that eCO2 is very beneficial for all major crops.

    eCO2 also enables plants to use water more efficiently. It does so by increasing carbon uptake relative to transpiration. In other words, when grown with higher CO2 levels, plants need less water to get the carbon they need from CO2 in the atmosphere. That is especially helpful in arid regions, and during droughts. Here’s a paper:
    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0168192310003163
    Excerpt:

    “There have been many studies on the interaction of CO2 and water on plant growth. Under elevated CO2, less water is used to produce each unit of dry matter by reducing stomatal conductance.”

    That’s one of the reasons that eCO2 has contributed to the sharp decline in famines, especially drought-driven famines, which is documented here:
    https://ourworldindata.org/famines
    Graph:
    https://sealevel.info/Famine-death-rate-since-1860s-revised-annot1.png

    To make the case that eCO2 is net-harmful, you would need to show that it has had measurable harmful effects which exceed the value of those measured benefits. Of course there are many modeling studies which speculate about a wide variety of climate-related calamities in the future. But, in science, measurements trump predictions, and it would be very difficult to make a case, on the basis of actual measurements, that manmade climate change has been net-harmful.

    Secondary effects on other things, like sea-level, hurricanes & tornadoes, droughts, etc., are also well measured. None of them have significantly worsened, due to the last six decades of rising CO2 levels.

    Sea-level trends have been substantially linear since the 1920s. Here’s the best Pacific measurement record, from NOAA. It’s trend is very typical:
    https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_station.shtml?id=1612340

    Here’s the same data, with quadratic regression analysis, and contrasted with CO2 levels:
    https://sealevel.info/1612340_Honolulu_vs_CO2_thru_2020-03_annot1.png
    Interactive version:
    https://sealevel.info/MSL_graph.php?id=Honolulu

    Hurricanes have not worsened, either. Here’s a paper:
    https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms8182
    Graph:
    https://sealevel.info/frequency_12months_2018-09-30_with_trendlines.png

    The frequency of large tornadoes has declined. Here’s a graph, from NOAA:
    https://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/images/tornado/clim/EF3-EF5.png

    Here’s an article:
    https://web.archive.org/web/20190331105309/https://www.woodtv.com/weather/bill-s-blog/strong-to-violent-tornadoes-in-the-us-trending-downward/1148127409

    Lately, I’ve seen people like Michael Mann blame forest fires on climate change. But they haven’t worsened, either. NASA measures such things:
    https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/145421/building-a-long-term-record-of-fire
    https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/90493/researchers-detect-a-global-drop-in-fires
    Graph:
    https://sealevel.info/NASA_building_a_long_term_record_of_fire.png

    There’s no evidence that warmer temperatures worsen forest fires. In the United States, the worst fires have mostly been at chilly high latitudes. Here’s a list of the deadliest US fires:

    1,200+ dead, 1871 (Peshtigo Fire, WI)
    453+ dead, 1918 (Cloquet Fire, MN)
    418+ dead, 1894 (Hinkley Fire, MN)
    282 dead, 1882 (Thumb Fire, MI)
    87 dead, 1910 (Great Fire of 1910, ID & MT)
    85 dead, 2018 (Camp Fire, Paradise, CA)
    65 dead, 1902 (Yacolt Burn, OR & WA)

    Droughts haven’t worsened, either. In fact, they’ve declined slightly. Here’s a paper:
    https://www.nature.com/articles/sdata20141
    Graph:
    https://sealevel.info/Fraction_of_the_Globe_in_Drought_1982-2012_fig5c.png

    Way back in 1908, Arrhenius predicted that CO2 emissions and rising CO2 levels would be very beneficial, rather than harmful.
    Excerpt:

    “By the influence of the increasing percentage of carbonic acid in the atmosphere, we may hope to enjoy ages with more equable and better climates, especially as regards the colder regions of the earth, ages when the earth will bring form much more abundant crops than at present, for the benefit of rapidly propagating mankind.”

    https://tinyurl.com/arrhenius1908p63

    On the basis of measured evidence, the case is compelling that Arrhenius was exactly right

    • Dave, the truth is Arrhenius got half of it right. What he couldn’t have known from the sparse data in hand then was CO2 is a by-product of ocean warming driven by the sun.

      https://i.postimg.cc/9MkD2b33/Sun-powered-Climate-Extremes-2019-09-02.jpg

      In the above image, the CO2 plot (circled #17) peaks in the 1990s, at the same time of peak uptake.

      From Asynchronous carbon sink saturation in African and Amazonian tropical forests “Overall, the uptake of carbon into Earth’s intact tropical forests peaked in the 1990s. ”

      Nature is finely tuned. The outgassing temperature for CO2 is 25.6°C, which is near the mean ideal temperature for subtropical ‘carbon’ uptake vis photosynthesis, 24.1°C to 27.4°C.

      https://i.postimg.cc/cLnq0mFG/Nino3-4-and-Henry-s-Law.jpg

      Climate change, rainfall/drought cycles, and CO2 are naturally solar-driven.

      • Bob, that is incorrect. Arrhenius got it right. The oceans are removing CO2 from the atmosphere, not adding it.

        CO2 has not peaked. Annually averaged atmospheric CO2 concentration has risen every year since precise measurements began.

        You might have been listening to Dr. Murry Salby, who claims that atmospheric CO2 levels are rising, not because of anthropogenic CO2 emissions, but because global warming is causing the oceans to outgas CO2. It’s not, and they aren’t. He is confused.

        As CO2 levels climb, the rate at which nature (mainly oceans & biosphere) removes CO2 from the air increases.

        The rate of CO2 absorption by water is controlled mainly by atmospheric CO2 partial pressure, per Henry’s Law. It’s a bit more complicated than that, but not much. The CO2 levels in ocean and air are far from equilibrium. The atmospheric CO2 partial pressure has increased by nearly 50%, and the dissolved CO2 concentration in the ocean has increased only slightly. The ocean’s carbon storage reservoir is vast, compared to the atmosphere, and calcifying coccolithophores transport carbonates from surface water, where the CO2 dissolves, to the ocean depths. So return of that carbon to the atmosphere would take a very, very long time, and some of it will never return.

        The terrestrial biosphere’s removal of CO2 from the atmosphere is more complicated, but that rate also increases as CO2 levels rise:
        https://sealevel.info/C3_and_C4_Pflanze_vs_CO2_Konzentration_2018.png

        The difference between the amount of anthropogenic CO2 emitted, and the amount by which CO2 level increases year-to-year, is the “CO2 removal rate.” That’s the rate at which negative feedback mechanisms, like terrestrial “greening” and dissolution into the oceans, remove CO2 from the atmosphere. It has been greater than zero every year since precise atmospheric CO2 level measurements began.

        The CO2 removal rate is affected by many factors, but principally by the atmospheric CO2 level. Dr. Roy Spencer examined it, and found that it is closely approximated by a very simple function:

            (co2level – 295.1) × 0.0233
            (units are ppmv CO2)

        Mankind is currently adding about 5 ppmv of CO2 (about 10½ PgC) to the atmosphere each year, but the atmospheric CO2 level is only rising at a rate of about 2.5 ppmv per year. The difference is the rate at which natural negative feedbacks (mainly terrestrial greening and absorption by the oceans) remove CO2 from the air: currently about 2.5 ppmv per year.

        When Salby claims that nature is raising the atmospheric CO2 level, it makes me wonder how he can be incapable of subtracting 2.5 from 5.

        The solubility of gases like CO2 (or CH4) in water does decrease as the water gets warmer (per the temperature dependence of Henry’s law), so as the oceans warm they would outgas CO2, if nothing else changed. The capacity of the water to hold dissolved CO2 decreases by about 3% per 1°C by which the water warms.

        The measly 3% per °C, by which CO2 solubility in water decreases as the water warms, is dwarfed by the 48% by which solubility increased as atmospheric CO2 concentration rose by 48% (from 280 ppmv to 414 ppmv). As the atmospheric CO2 level continues to rise, the rate at which the oceans remove CO2 from the air will continue to accelerate.

        So, when the oceans are absorbing CO2, as is currently the case in most places other than the tropics, if the water warms then the oceans absorb CO2 just a little more slowly.

        The CO2, in turn, works as a GHG to cause warming, which is one of the reasons that atmospheric CO2 levels swing up & down by about 90 ppmv over glaciation/deglaciation cycles. (There are almost certainly also biological [2] and/or ice sheet burial mechanisms at work, which increase the magnitude of glacial-interglacial CO2 swings.) That’s a slight positive feedback mechanism.

        That positive feedback loop is undoubtedly one of the causes for the apparent hysteresis [2] in the temperature and CO2 records: Over the last million years, the Earth’s climate has tended to be either mild, as in our current interglacial (the Holocene), or, more of the time, heavily glaciated and cold, with relatively brief, unstable transitions between. (But see also: Deglaciation / Volcanism / CO2 Feedback.)

        In paleoclimate reconstructions from ice cores, CO2 level changes generally lag temperature changes by hundreds of years, which is consistent with the fact that higher CO2 levels not only cause higher temperatures, but are also caused by higher ocean temperatures, and ocean temperature is slow to respond to air temperature changes.

        BTW, you don’t need Henry’s Law to understand, intuitively, why the rate at which the ocean absorbs CO2 from the air increases with CO2’s partial pressure in the air. Just remember that the concentration of CO2 in the air determines the rate at which CO2 molecules collide with and are absorbed by the surface of the ocean, and falling raindrops.

        For a more complete treatment of this issue, I strongly recommend this essay by Ferdinand Engelbeen:
        http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/co2_origin.html

          • Bob Weber wrote, “Didn’t you see 1997 CO2 peak?”

            Here’s a graph:
            https://sealevel.info/co2.html

            Here are the CO2 concentration numbers (Mauna Loa annual averages), for 1990 – 2019:

            year CO2 (ppmv)
            1990 354.39
            1991 355.61
            1992 356.45
            1993 357.10
            1994 358.83
            1995 360.82
            1996 362.61
            1997 363.73 ⟸ does this look like a peak?
            1998 366.70
            1999 368.38
            2000 369.55
            2001 371.14
            2002 373.28
            2003 375.80
            2004 377.52
            2005 379.80
            2006 381.90
            2007 383.79
            2008 385.60
            2009 387.43
            2010 389.90
            2011 391.65
            2012 393.85
            2013 396.52
            2014 398.65
            2015 400.83
            2016 404.24
            2017 406.55
            2018 408.52
            2019 411.44

            If you see a 1997 CO2 peak, Bob, this might help:
            https://www.zennioptical.com/

            I’m sorry my explanation wasn’t clear enough. Please tell me what part was confusing?
            https://sealevel.info/atmospheric_co2_increase_is_not_from_ocean_outgassing.html

            Ferdinand Engelbeen did a better job. I encourage you to study it:
            http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/co2_origin.html

          • Dave if you can’t figure out how to replicate this plot from Mauna Loa data and show me you did it yourself, you’re flat out incompetent and have no business scolding anybody.

            https://i.postimg.cc/RVkVLRGs/Departure-from-Average-of-Detrended-Integrated-Annual-Change-ML.jpg

            On an annualized basis adjusted for the trend, 1997 was the peak year for CO2.

            I also suggest you know nothing about CO2 outgassing.

            What is confusing is how you can fool yourself for so long.

          • Bob Weber wrote, “…adjusted for the trend, 1997 was the peak year for CO2.”

            Translation: “If you ignore the increase in CO2 level, 1997 was the peak year for CO2 level.” Or something like that.

            Perhaps you’re trying to say that the rate of increase in CO2 level peaked in 1997? That would be irrelevant, even if it were true, but it’s not true, anyhow. Note the slight upward-curve in this plot of annually-averaged CO2 concentrations; concave-upward means accelerating:
            https://www.sealevel.info/co2.html

            There was a spike in the rate of CO2 increase in 1998 (not 1997), due to the El Niño. 1998’s average CO2 level at Mauna Loa was 2.97 ppmv higher than 1997’s. Maybe that’s what you’re talking about?

            But so what? That’s what happens during El Niños. The 2016 El Niño was accompanied by an even larger 3.41 ppmv CO2 level increase.

            In 1997, the average CO2 level for the year increased by 1.12 ppmv over 1996’s average level, at Mauna Loa.
            In 1998, the average CO2 level increased again, this time by 2.97 ppmv over 1997.
            In 1999, the average CO2 level increased again, this time by 1.58 ppmv over 1998.
            In 2000, the average CO2 level increased again, this time by 1.17 ppmv over 1999.
            Etc.

            The annually-averaged atmospheric CO2 concentration has continued to increase, every year since 1958, when precise measurements began at Mauna Loa. More recently:

            In 2018, the average CO2 level increased again, to 408.52 ppmv, which was an increase of 1.97 ppmv over 2017.
            In 2019, the average CO2 level increased again, by 2.92 ppmv ppmv over 2018.

            Because CO2’s warming effect is logarithmically diminishing, the climate forcing trend from rising CO2 level has been close to linear for the last forty years or so, as you can see in this log-scale plot:
            https://www.sealevel.info/co2.html?co2scale=2
             

            Bob previously asked, “…I do my own work. If there’s a similarity to Salby maybe you can tell me what it is.”

            You both think that when mankind adds CO2 to the atmosphere it doesn’t increase the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. Or something like that. 🤔
             

            Bob also boasted, “I know outgassing better than you or Ferdinand.”

            You have my sympathy. I’ve found that switching to lactose-free dairy products helps.

          • You both think that when mankind adds CO2 to the atmosphere it doesn’t increase the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. Or something like that. 🤔 – so sayth Dave Burton

            Ocean carbon sink processes not understood and driven by natural variability

            McKinley et al. (2017) analyzed ocean carbon sink estimates and was willing to admit that due to a lack of observation, we lack a “detailed, quantitative, and mechanistic understanding of how the ocean carbon sink works…

            In addition, because internal variability in oceanic carbon uptake is so massive and largely unobserved, we cannot yet detect an anthropogenic influence.

            McKinley and co-authors go so far as to acknowledge the “change in CO2 flux over 10 years (1995-2005)…is due almost entirely to the internal variability” because in most ocean regions “the forced [human-induced] trends in CO2 flux are too small to be statistically significant” and the “variability in CO2 flux is large and sufficient to prevent detection of anthropogenic trends in ocean carbon uptake on decadal timescales.”

            from <a href=https://notrickszone.com/2020/09/07/scientists-just-discovered-our-past-carbon-budget-guesses-have-all-along-been-twice-as-wrong-as-we-thought/?utm_source=feedly&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=scientists-just-discovered-our-past-carbon-budget-guesses-have-all-along-been-twice-as-wrong-as-we-thought<NoTricksZone

            You have a major gaslighting problem Dave Burton, aside from your inability to so science.

          • Bob Weber wrote, “McKinley et al. (2017) analyzed ocean carbon sink estimates and was willing to admit that due to a lack of observation, we lack a ‘detailed, quantitative, and mechanistic understanding of how the ocean carbon sink works…'”

            Thank you, Bob for at least admitting that the ocean IS a carbon sink, rather than a net source of atmospheric CO2. I’ll take that as your acknowledgment that “The oceans are removing CO2 from the atmosphere, not adding it,” and that, therefore, the ongoing rise in atmospheric CO2 levels is not due to outgassing from the oceans.

            Thanks, too, for the link and quotes from McKinley et al.

            I wonder, though, why you didn’t quote the very first sentence of the McKinley’s abstract, since it directly addresses this topic:

            Since preindustrial times, the ocean has removed from the atmosphere 41% of the carbon emitted by human industrial activities.

            That’s number is actually too high.

            Estimated industrial CO2 emissions (1751-2019) were about 452.3 PgC = 206 ppmv
            source: https://cdiac.ess-dive.lbl.gov/ftp/ndp030/global.1751_2014.ems
            spreadsheet: https://sealevel.info/global.1751_2014.ems5.html#:~:text=Sum%201751-2019

            But over that time period atmospheric CO2 concentration rose only about 412 – 277 = 135 ppmv. That means nature removed about 206-135 = 71 ppmv, which is 34.5% of anthropogenic emissions.

            We also know that some of that carbon went into the biosphere and soil, rather than the oceans. If the oceans removed half of that, and the biosphere removed the other half, that would mean the oceans removed only about 17% of industrial CO2 emissions, not 41%.

            Oh, well. At least they got the sign right, which puts them ahead of Dr. Salby.

    • I remember citrus groves in north Florida in the 50’s. And I don’t notice it being appreciably warmer today. However it was cold enough during the 70’s and 80’s to regularly kill citrus. Funny thing about climate. It changes.

  32. Jane has it backwards. If she and her fellow travellers don’t stop demanding the end of fossil fuel use, democracy will become increasingly impossible by 2030, so it looks like we’ll get ten more years of their whining to look forward to since their real goal is the elimination of our freedom, democracy and republican form of government.

  33. She’s still alive?

    WOW.

    Guess that’s all this was–a publicity stunt to say, “Hey, I’m still breathing over here!”.

    She pops up whenever she thinks the public has forgotten about her……it’s nothing more than that. She normally has nothing of substance to say–and gets arrested. I think her goal is to be arrested more times than any “activist” (in quotes for a reason….people that really don’t believe what they are shilling but want the press for it).

  34. So if half is cut by Dec 31, 2029, OK, but if not until Jan 2, 2030, democracy dissolves. Notice that Jane does not even begin to provide any logical reasons for her bizarre prediction. N one will be able to notice any changes between now and 2030, so why will anything as ridiculous as “democracy dissolution” occur?

  35. Thanks to her movie The China Syndrome back in ’79 she helped destroy the nuclear power industry. She is no fan of human progress. Fear mongering is her stock in trade.

  36. I think Jane has got the “solution” completely ass-backwards.

    If we don’t eliminate democracy, we won’t be able to cut our fossil fuel emissions by 50% by 2030.

  37. Poor Jane Fonda. She is living proof that one’s intellectual capacity does not increase with age if one does nothing to develop critical thinking skills.

  38. Jane Fonda did apologize for her behavior in North Vietnam. I would have to say that is a step forward.

    I served two tours in Vietnam from 1968 through 1969, so I think I have a right to voice an opinion on this subject.

    I don’t know if Jane was sincere or not. If she was, I would accept her apology.

    I think Jane Fonda is spectacularly clueless.

  39. A timely NYTimes article:

    https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/02/style/jane-fonda-maureen-dowd.html

    No matter how many times she has apologized for an ill-advised photo op on a North Vietnamese antiaircraft gun, explaining that being antiwar did not mean she was against American soldiers, she knows that some on the right will never let her live it down.

    “I think, just as there are some people who actually believe that Trump is doing a good job and has fulfilled all his promises {TA: He is, and has], there are people who think that I was against the troops and that what I did was treasonous, and that probably will not change,” she said. “I never did let it stop me. I apologize. I try to explain the context. And then I move on.”

    end excerpt

    Jane Fonda is naive and clueless but she is not an evil person. That’s why I accept her apology.

    • She may not be an evil person and one can accept her apology. Still doesn’t change the fact that what she did *was* treasonous.

Comments are closed.