Don’t Look Up!

A real rock from outer space (not manmade climate change) is causing perceived rising seas

Paul Driessen

In the Netflix movie, Washington politicians “Don’t Look Up” because they prefer to remain oblivious to a special effects meteor that’s about to obliterate Planet Earth. Not surprisingly, the film is really about our refusal to recognize the “existential threat” of “manmade climate change.”

Director Adam McKay recently tweeted, “We’ve got 6-8 years before the climate is so chaotic we [will] live in a permanent state of biblical catastrophe.”

Not to be outdone, UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres called the latest UN climate report “a file of shame, cataloguing the empty pledges that put us firmly on track toward an unlivable world.” Drilling for more oil and gas is “moral and economic madness,” he insisted. If humanity doesn’t stop using fossil fuels, we will be overwhelmed by devastating floods, heat waves, droughts, fires and crop failures.

Global sea levels have already risen “a shocking nine inches,” the PurpleOrange PR Agency proclaimed, promoting a client’s Climate Neutral Certified label, which is designed to channel more money to “authentic, immediate climate action.”

Back on the non-parallel-universe Planet Earth, a truly unlivable world would be one without fossil fuels. Not just to generate electricity, cook food, heat homes and water, and power cars, boats, trains and planes – but for fertilizers and insecticides to grow more food on less land, and for plastics, pharmaceuticals, paints, cosmetics, clothing and other essential products. For us today; for billions more tomorrow.

Fossil fuels to extract and process trillions of tons of raw materials, too, and manufacture the millions of wind turbines, billions of solar panels, billions of battery modules and millions of transmission line towers that would blanket our croplands, scenic areas and wildlife habitats if we didn’t have fossil fuels.

In fact, far worse than a warmer planet with more airborne plant-fertilizing carbon dioxide would be a colder planet with less CO2. That would mean less arable land, shorter growing seasons and much lower crop yields, on top of losses from a devastated Ukraine and sanctioned Russian wheat crops.

(Why is it that Twitter twits never cancel, suppress or even fact-check climate fear porn? Why is it never just climate change, but always climate cataclysms? Why always manmade climate change, as though past natural climate changes never happened? Why do Guterres, Gore, Kerry, Biden and AOC always have to top his, her, hir, ver, zir fellow alarmists in hysteria? Why is the fear-mongering always based on computer models, never on actual data and evidence? Why does it always ignore China’s massive fossil fuel use and greenhouse gas emissions?)

One of the prevalent climate alarm themes is sea level rise.

Back on real Earth, if the DC Swamp inhabitants of 35 million years ago had looked up, they’d have been transfixed in their last moments by a non-special-effects meteor hurtling into what is now Cape Charles, Virginia on the Chesapeake Bay. The 2-mile-wide meteor obliterated and pulverized sediments and bedrock, vaporized plants and animals, sent rock fragments hundreds of miles in every direction, and launched tsunamis into West Virginia’s eastern mountain slopes.

Shattered rock settled back into a crater 4,300 feet deep and 53 miles in diameter. Over the ensuing millennia, river and ocean sediments poured into the crater – and mile-high glaciers pulled 10-million cubic miles of water out of the oceans, burying half of North America, Europe and Asia under trillions of tons of ice. Land under the ice was pressed down, while land outside the glacial zones was lifted up. Then, some 12,000 years ago, the last Pleistocene glaciers began melting.

Oceans slowly rose – some 400 feet! Land masses underwent “isostatic rebound.” Areas that had been under the ice began rising; those that had bulged upward began sinking. In much of the Chesapeake Bay region, post-glacial subsidence is compounded by continued compression of pulverized crater rock – and by the ongoing withdrawal of groundwater from sedimentary aquifers beneath urban and agricultural areas that depend on groundwater.

The aquifers include layers of porous sandstone (with water between sand grains) interspersed among layers of impermeable but water-soaked shale and clay. As water is pumped out of the sandy layers, the shale-clay layers get squeezed by hundreds of feet of overlying rock and sediment, and their water is forced into the sandstones, and then into pumps. The overlying land steadily subsides.

In the Chesapeake Bay area, subsidence averages nearly 3 mm/year; 11.5 inches per century. That’s in addition to almost 4.5 inches per century in isostatic subsidence, plus 7 to 9 inches per century in actual sea level rise. The total perceived sea level rise can be 24 inches per century – although two-thirds of that total has nothing to do with actual sea level rise. Indeed, the Norfolk Naval Station tide gauge at Sewell’s Point shows that the rate of actual sea level rise has not changed since the gauge was installed in 1927.

The situation in Houston-Galveston, Texas, Santa Clara Valley, California, and other places around the globe is similarly complicated, even without post-glaciation issues. To single out actual sea level rise – and blame the rise on humans and fossil fuels – is simply disingenuous.

However, salt-water intrusion and coastal flooding are serious, recurrent, growing problems, especially during hurricanes and as more expensive homes are built along coasts. Some communities have slowed subsidence by relocating groundwater pumping stations away from the coast, reducing withdrawal rates, increasing aquifer recharge, or substitut­ing surface water for groundwater. Others have installed sea walls, improved drainage systems, and pipelines to bring water from nearby lakes and rivers. Other options include desalination plants to create more fresh water, recycling household “gray water” to agricultural use, and switching to less water-intensive irrigation methods, as Israel does.

These approaches re far more practical and cost-effective than trying to stop seas from rising any further, like a modern King Canute, by banning fossil fuels, especially if it’s done only in some Western nations.

Meanwhile, inhabitants of Tuvalu, the Maldives and other Pacific islands and coral atolls worry about rising seas due to fossil fuels. However, most of them are increasing in land area, not decreasing – as corals grow, sediments are laid down off their coasts, and volcanic lava flows expand land masses.

Moreover, few of these islands and coral reefs even existed 12,000 years ago, when the Wisconsin Glaciation extracted 400 feet of seawater from the world’s oceans. The islands and atolls began growing as the seas rose. They’ve continued growing with every additional foot of sea level rise, and show no signs of stopping.

Cosquer Cave’s Paleolithic paintings near Marseille, France (the entrance is 115 feet below current sea level) and a Mel Fisher dive team’s discovery of charred tree branches and pine cones from a forest fire 8,400 years ago in 40 feet of water off the Florida coast further attest to steadily rising seas.

Yet, experts tell us. (1) “Snows are less frequent and less deep. The rivers scarcely ever freeze over now. There is an unfortunate fluctuation between heat and cold in the spring, which is very fatal to fruits.” (2) “We were astonished by the total absence of ice in Barrow Strait. I was here at this time [six years ago] – still frozen up – and doubts were entertained as to the possibility of escape.” (3) “The Arctic Ocean is warming up, icebergs are growing scarcer, and in some places the seals are finding the water too hot.”

It behooves to take action. Or perhaps not. Quotation (1) is from Thomas Jefferson’s diary, 1799; (2) from Sir Francis McClintock’s ship’s log, 1860; (3) from a Washington Post article, November 2, 1922.  

Instead of parroting scare stories – and demanding that fossil fuels be replaced by pseudo-clean, pseudo-renewable energy – it really behooves us to think, analyze, ponder the many ways fossil fuels improve our lives, and demand real evidence instead of GIGO computer models for any supposed climate crisis.

Paul Driessen is senior policy analyst for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow (www.CFACT.org), and author of Eco-Imperialism: Green power – Black death and articles on energy, climate and other issues.

4.9 35 votes
Article Rating
79 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
observa
April 10, 2022 6:05 am

You call a rock splashing in Chesapeake Bay a crisis? THIS is a crisis!!!
End of the line? Vintage train journeys at risk as coal supply fails (msn.com)
Kids won’t know what Thomas the Tank Engine looks like.

Vuk
Reply to  observa
April 10, 2022 9:47 am

Millennials didn’t know what snow looks like. now generation Z want know what is a petrol engine, while Russian generation Z knew it too well, but sadly they are no more.

Scissor
April 10, 2022 6:06 am

“Don’t look up,” because then you would see the video camera.

Matt Kiro
April 10, 2022 6:26 am

I’m okay with letting Washington DC sink into the Potomac.

H.R.
Reply to  Matt Kiro
April 10, 2022 8:02 am

I’ll chip in for groundwater pumps if it will help.

Rocketscientist
Reply to  Matt Kiro
April 10, 2022 9:45 am

Beware if Ned Ludd shows his face. That is where we’re headed.

April 10, 2022 6:56 am

Nobody in authority is listening.

Philip Rae
April 10, 2022 6:59 am

As usual, Paul, your articles are always great to read. They’re full of interesting facts and quirky little bits and pieces that just underscore what a wonderful world we live on and how lucky we are to have plentiful supplies of ancient energy stores in the form of fossil fuels that have been sequestered by natural biological and geological processes.

Nicholas McGinley
April 10, 2022 7:11 am

I love it when I make comments and wonder if I was a little over the top, and then see articles from other people calmy saying exactly what I said in my comments.
So, thank you for this Paul!

Nicholas McGinley
April 10, 2022 7:42 am

This link does not work:
https://www.livescience.com/chesapeake-bay-meteor-impact-crater.html%20**%20good%20images,%20explanation

I have not checked any other one’s yet.

(The link is fixed thank you for the tip) SUNMOD

Last edited 5 months ago by Sunsettommy
TonyL
Reply to  Nicholas McGinley
April 10, 2022 8:55 am
Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  TonyL
April 10, 2022 9:57 am

That garbage seems to have added itself, as all I did was copy and paste the link using a standard right click to get a menu.
Your link works, but when I click the link in the headline post, I get this:

Capture3.PNG
TonyL
Reply to  Nicholas McGinley
April 10, 2022 11:39 am

You seem to have browser troubles.
Your browser may be adding junk to the string again. Check your URL as displayed in your new window.

Everybody else, Yes/No and browser???

Thanks, all.

Janice Moore
Reply to  TonyL
April 10, 2022 12:33 pm

I had the same experience that Mr. McGinley did. That is:

1) Link in article (as it stands in above article, i.e., the extra junk is not auto-inserted, it is there already in that link — hover over it with your mouse and you will see it displayed in abbreviated form on the screen): https://www.livescience.com/chesapeake-bay-meteor-impact-crater.html%20**%20good%20images,%20explanation

2) truncating from %20 on resulted in successfully reaching the meteor article.

3) SUGGESTION: WUWT edit the article to use THIS for the link:

https://www.livescience.com/chesapeake-bay-meteor-impact-crater.html

TonyL
Reply to  Janice Moore
April 10, 2022 1:12 pm

I see what you are saying.
I open the article and check the URL link as you suggest.
My browser shows all clear. (an old Firefox)
I checked my link in the comment as well. Again, all clear.

Just a note then: If your browser adds “decorations” to the URL, clean up the “decorations (everything after the .html) manually.

Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  TonyL
April 10, 2022 3:01 pm

It is only that one.
No big deal.

Editor
Reply to  TonyL
April 10, 2022 4:50 pm

It was a 404 problem because the bad URL doesn’t find anything at the server end, NOT a browser problem because the URL in the article was incorrect in the first place.

ATheoK
Reply to  TonyL
April 10, 2022 3:07 pm

The “link” appears to have a note appended to the link: Hovering over the link in the article shows the entire “link” including comment.

“https://www.livescience.com/chesapeake-bay-meteor-impact-crater.html ** good images, explanation

Such a note is added by a person, not by browsers…

April 10, 2022 7:43 am

A small correction:

UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres called the latest UN climate report “a file of shame
pushing alarmist nonsense with contrived science so wrong, it’s an embarrassment to all legitimate science.”

AndyHce
Reply to  co2isnotevil
April 10, 2022 2:43 pm

There is nothing at that link that even suggest a glimmer of sense from Guterres.

Redge
Reply to  AndyHce
April 11, 2022 4:43 am

There is nothing at that link that even suggest a glimmer of sense from Guterres.

There is nothing to even suggest a glimmer of sense from Guterres.

You’re welcome

Nicholas McGinley
April 10, 2022 8:04 am

Paul,
I am confused by the timeline of the meteor impact you describe.
First you said it was 35 million years ago, then said the ensuing ice aged ended 10,000 years ago.
But we are still in the ice age that began way back then, which has a rather complex history:
“The Late Cenozoic Ice Age, or Antarctic Glaciation began 33.9 million years ago at the Eocene-Oligocene Boundary and is ongoing. It is Earth’s current ice age or icehouse period. Its beginning is marked by the formation of the Antarctic ice sheets.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Late_Cenozoic_Ice_Age

The latest phase of this very long term glaciation started much more recently, when the northern hemisphere transitioned into glacial conditions.
This phase that began 2.58 million years ago is called the Quaternary Glaciation, and is still ongoing:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quaternary_glaciation
The last of the ice has not gone away…it is still very much covering Greenland, and large mountain glaciers are extant in numerous locations. The northern polar regions are still perpetually frozen in shifting amounts and locations, but with considerable melting on a seasonal basis.
We are merely in a short and temporary warm phase called an interglacial or interstadial, and if past cycles are any indication, we are about due for a return to full glacial conditions anytime now.

I understand you simply gave the readers digest condensed version of a very long story, but think others with less knowledge of the history of the climate over the past 35 million years and especially the last 3 million years or so, may be misled or even think you are incorrect.

We have named the period that started with the beginning of the current interglacial the Holocene, and currently it is held that the Pleistocene ended 11,700 years ago.
I wonder if once this interglacial ends, it will not be clear why we consider the Pleistocene to have ended at all, since the ice age that characterizes this period is in fact ongoing.

None of my comment here invalidates the thrust of your essay. I simply want to expand on your synopsis of the current glacial period. I also think perhaps you mistakenly said the ice age ended, when what you meant was the full glacial conditions had transitioned to an interglacial period within the ongoing ice age.

Last edited 5 months ago by Nicholas McGinley
Michael Wassil
Reply to  Nicholas McGinley
April 10, 2022 1:16 pm

Agreed. We are still very much in the Pleistocene. Nothing has changed to indicate an end to the Pleistocene. The Holocene interglacial continues to close in on its termination.

Last edited 5 months ago by Michael Wassil
The Indomitable Snowman, Ph.D.
April 10, 2022 8:10 am

A generalized appeal.

Can we PLEASE all stop using the term “fossil fuels” – and instead replace it with something more appropriate, such as “hydrocarbon energy sources”?

“Fossil fuel” is a green propaganda term – one that inserts the word “fossil” as agitprop, to imply that hydrocarbon energy sources are somehow old and outdated – and thus their “replacement” (sic) is something new and hip and fresh. Let’s stop conceding that point (unintentionally), and use a proper term.

As Confucius once said, “If you want to understand something, you first have to call it by its proper name.”

Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  The Indomitable Snowman, Ph.D.
April 10, 2022 8:45 am

The term fossil fuels has been variously attributed, with one such attribution going to John Rockefeller and it is claimed he coined the phrase in 1892.
He was one of the robber barons, and controlled almost all of the oil in the US.

Other sources point out that the term was used in the 1700s by various people, and a specific reference is found of the term being found “in the work of the German chemist Caspar Neumann, in English translation in 1759.”

Also:
“The Oxford English Dictionary notes that in the phrase “fossil fuel” the adjective “fossil” means “[o]btained by digging; found buried in the earth”, which dates to at least 1652,[21] before the English noun “fossil” came to refer primarily to long-dead organisms in the early 18th century.[22]

Surely you know that non factual assertions have zero chance of being slipped by the crowd here?

The phrase is useful and descriptive because it refers to the fact that these fuels originated from the remains of long dead living creatures of various types.

Last edited 5 months ago by Nicholas McGinley
Slowroll
Reply to  Nicholas McGinley
April 10, 2022 10:38 am

Coal is probably a fossil fuel, but oil and gas not. Not many dead dinosaurs 5000 feet below the ocean floor. A late friend of mine, an ExxonMobil researcher, told me that the earth makes oil with heat and pressure.

Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  Slowroll
April 10, 2022 12:59 pm

Who actually thinks oil and gas originate from the remains of dinosaurs?
That is a cartoonish idea that never came from any actual scientist.
What kind of organisms does one expect to find on and under the sea floor?

Heat and pressure are physical conditions, not the raw material of tangible matter.

And what do you mean coal is “probably” a fossil fuel?
Have you ever studied geology or earth history, or bothered to look any of these terms up and read about where they came from?
Have you ever seen a chunk of coal?
Entire rainforests have been found fossilized in coal beds, even though the conditions that lead to a recognizable fossil of a part of a plant are logically very rare.
I have found fossils of plants in chunks of coal sitting in the basement of the house I grew up it, coal that was there by random chance since WWI.

1200-184644444-plants-decomposed-in-coal.jpg (1200×803) (pixfeeds.com)

Carbon Bigfoot
Reply to  Slowroll
April 11, 2022 5:22 am

It is called the Abionic Theory originally advanced by Russian Engineers. Your friend is part right the oil and gas are nuclear garbage ( daughter reactions ) from the uranium and thorium reactors inside the Earth’s core.

The Indomitable Snowman, Ph.D.
Reply to  Nicholas McGinley
April 10, 2022 10:44 am

Pedantic, misses the point.

Whatever the origin, as per the above, the term is a green propaganda agitprop phrase. Why do we use THEIR agitprop language? The key word is “fossil” and the implications that word carries.

Cede the language, lose the war…

Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  The Indomitable Snowman, Ph.D.
April 10, 2022 12:45 pm

Maybe it is just me…I am not feeling what you are.
Maybe it was dozens of geology classes, and a lifetime of reading about earth history, etc…but the word fossil has no implications beyond the commonly used meaning of the term: The remains of a living thing that has been buried under the ground and imbedded and preserved in the crust of the Earth.

Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  The Indomitable Snowman, Ph.D.
April 10, 2022 1:04 pm

How old are you?
Obviously not very old.
You sound like a troll trying to make climate realists sound like a pack unschooled loons.

Last edited 5 months ago by Nicholas McGinley
The Indomitable Snowman, Ph.D.
Reply to  Nicholas McGinley
April 10, 2022 4:29 pm

Pedantic, accusatory, argumentative, and making now making unfounded accusations.

Wrong on all counts. Please get out more.

Trying litigating some patents sometime – mess up language and you’re toast.

Ceding the language to the green fascists is a bad idea. Somewhere, Winston Churchill is shaking his head in disbelief.

Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  The Indomitable Snowman, Ph.D.
April 11, 2022 2:03 am

Factually wrong, choosing battle that no one wants to fight and cannot be won, making up nonsense about a long used phrase, completely full of shit, thin skinned, lacking credibility, changing the subject, presenting facts not in evidence, argumentative, making wild leaps without substantiation or foundation.
Move for dismissal: making stuff up, internetting while drunk, frivolous, overwrought, without factual basis.

Scissor
Reply to  The Indomitable Snowman, Ph.D.
April 10, 2022 9:22 am

I like your comment.

Perhaps “fossil” should be attached to the description of several politicians, especially to democrats: Feinstein, Sanders, Pelosi, Biden.

The Indomitable Snowman, Ph.D.
Reply to  Scissor
April 10, 2022 10:46 am

Thank you. That is how the term is used, and applying it to these antediluvian leftist politicians (and others like them) is indeed appropriate.

And the green agitprop crowd does indeed use that word with malice aforethought. So let’s not cede that ground to them – as doing so is just unnecessary.

Rational Db8
Reply to  Scissor
April 10, 2022 11:02 am

It’d have to be modified for those politicians, however – they’re not fossil fuels, they’re fossil idiocracy. 😉

Kevin McNeill
Reply to  Scissor
April 10, 2022 12:09 pm

Are you speaking of fossil fools perchance?

Rational Db8
Reply to  Kevin McNeill
April 10, 2022 2:16 pm

DOH! LOL & Bingo! Much better than my lame attempts, and can’t believe it didn’t occur to me! Thanks for the chuckle!

Reply to  The Indomitable Snowman, Ph.D.
April 10, 2022 1:18 pm

Appeal to our current necessity to use: “Geologically stored biologic solar energy”.
Then prioritize “renewable energy” funds into developing cheaper dispatchable sustainable Fusion Energy. Fusion is getting closer on multiple fronts. e.g., see “Burning Fusion achieved in inertial fusion.” 2022 Nature https://www.researchgate.net/publication/358138027_Burning_plasma_achieved_in_inertial_fusion

ATheoK
Reply to  The Indomitable Snowman, Ph.D.
April 10, 2022 3:13 pm

Can we PLEASE all stop using the term “fossil fuels” – and instead replace it with something more appropriate, such as “hydrocarbon energy sources”?”

I abhor replacing short meaningful words with long meaningless word salads

Your “hydrocarbon energy sources” is a phrase that includes trees, plants, life, even humans.

Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  ATheoK
April 11, 2022 2:26 am

Thank you.
That phrase also misses coal.
Only the left seeks to obfuscate and control via language.
The phrase is not one used as propaganda, was not invented by warmista or seen as incorrect by anyone.
Figures the guy is a lawyer. Never took a relevant class or read a geology book, thinks Churchill maintains a heavenly vigil over his obsession du jour.

There are a hundred phrases the left employs incorrectly for the purpose of misdirection, and FF ain’t one of ’em.

Carbon pollution, instead of CO2, when it is not carbon and is in no way pollution.
Climate change, when the operating idea is global warming, to implicate any weather or atmospheric condition as being caused by human actions.
Climate crisis, when there is no such thing.
Ocean acidification, which is impossible and not a thing.
Tipping points, which they claim to know precisely what value they have when in fact they have never been shown to exist by even a shred of evidence.
Tackle climate change, as if the stupidest and least informed among us have the ability to control the weather of a planet.

Fossil fuels is not even on the list of misused phrases.
Fool or troll, hard to say.
But wrong?
Yup.

Last edited 5 months ago by Nicholas McGinley
Carbon Bigfoot
Reply to  The Indomitable Snowman, Ph.D.
April 11, 2022 5:18 am

And while we are at it stop using the term EMISSIONS when referring to CO2.

Rico Suave
April 10, 2022 8:25 am

“Instead of parroting scare stories – and demanding that fossil fuels be replaced by pseudo-clean, pseudo-renewable energy

forgot one:
Instead of parroting scare stories – and demanding that fossil fuels be replaced by pseudo-clean, pseudo-renewable, pseudo-reliable energy

your welcome 🙂

Mike Dubrasich
April 10, 2022 8:26 am

Global warming, should it occur, would be a huge benefit to all life, including human beings. This is historically true, scientifically true, plain, obvious, and common sense. The entire edifice of climate alarmism is based on a glaringly false proposition.

Warmer Is Better. End of story.

Rational Db8
Reply to  Mike Dubrasich
April 10, 2022 11:07 am

Yep, and history proves it. The Medieval Warm Period, Roman Optimum, Minoan Warm Period, Holocene Optimum…. all warmer than present day temps, and all times when life, including humans, generally flourished. Colder kills – and it doesn’t take nearly as much additional cold to kill as the supposed amount of warming that AGW activists claim would be a problem. The Little Ice Age, Dark Ages, etc… all had mass famines, mass migrations, and massive death.

Heck, we even have fossil fuels because it was much warmer and life was so lush and abundant that it left all these remains to be turned into fossil fuels over time.

Yes the electric vehicle is plugged in to charge from the frozen wind power turbine - now what AGW climate change green renewable sustainable unreliable.jpeg
Andy Pattullo
April 10, 2022 8:26 am

The Hollywood wingnuts were unconsciously prescient when they chose to try and make climate change a real threat by filming an allegorical disaster move about an impending totally imaginary cometary collision. By tying the climate change cult to science fiction they put it exactly where it belongs along with UFO invasions, zombie apocalypse, triffids, giant ants, the thing, Godzilla and intelligent socialism.

Rational Db8
Reply to  Andy Pattullo
April 10, 2022 11:16 am

I have to take a little issue with your claim that they tied AGW to sci-fi… After all, often Sci-Fi has actual basis in reality and science, and a number of things that were once part of Sci-Fi now actually exist. Whereas AGW fits right in with your examples: “UFO invasions, zombie apocalypse, triffids, giant ants, the thing, Godzilla and intelligent socialism” It’s the AGW True Believers and Watermelons (green on the outside, red in the middle) that are the true science deniers. Typical of leftists, they massively engage in psychological projection – falsely blaming others for what they themselves are actually guilty of.

Andy Pattullo
Reply to  Rational Db8
April 10, 2022 1:15 pm

Yes some things in sci-if become reality but many just stay imaginary because there are physical rules to this universe we inhabit. AGW seems to ignore both the rules at times and in most cases the practice of science.

Rational Db8
Reply to  Andy Pattullo
April 10, 2022 8:10 pm

Most Sci-Fi is based on actual physics and science, not fantasy. You’d be amazed at the number of technological things which first showed up in Sci-Fi but now actually exist in real life… and any number of others which we’re right on the edge of actually having. All of the following existed in Sci-Fi, quite a few of them going back many many decades – and yet now they all really exist:

Space ships, jet packs that allow an individual man to fly without wings, CCTV, other surveillance technology such as those that let you ‘see thru walls,’ cell phones & satellite phones, video phone calls, touch screens, automatic doors, self driving cars, anti-depressants, 3D printers, hoverboards, flying cars, robots, virtual reality headsets, landing on the moon, electronic books, personal digital assistants, ipads/tablets, artificial intelligence, personalized advertising, ear buds, the internet, credit cards, facebook and other social media for communications, etc., etc., etc.

There are many more, but these are the ones that come to mind offhand. Heck, a large number of them were in the original Star Trek, over 60 years ago – and I’d bet almost all of the ones on Star Trek had been in various Sci-Fi books well before Star Trek ever came out.

That’s one of the reasons Sci-Fi can be so excellent – it builds on actual science, very often cutting edge existing science when the book was written, and just extrapolates it forward a bit – plus of course all the best Sci-Fi books are really stories about human interactions and how we’d likely respond to various situations and developments. Sci-Fi is the ultimate expression and investigation of humanity.

Andy Pattullo
Reply to  Rational Db8
April 11, 2022 9:07 am

This is likely a matter of gentlemanly dispute. I agree real physics exists in much of what is labelled science fiction, but what makes it fiction in my mind is the inclusion of physically impossible ideas like time travel, warp drive, tractor beams, particle transporters, an entire universe of diverse life forms all speaking English with an American accent, and intelligent central planners.
I share your enthusiasm for the humanism displayed by some of the best sci-fi writers. And their humour too – e.g. the late great Douglas Adams.

TonyG
Reply to  Andy Pattullo
April 11, 2022 1:03 pm

Andy, it’s quite a wide range, and much depends on the author.

Your statement “but what makes it fiction in my mind is the inclusion of physically impossible ideas like time travel, warp drive, tractor beams, particle transporters, an entire universe of diverse life forms all speaking English with an American accent” appears to me to be stereotyping all SF as Star Trek or Star Wars. Might want to try some Niven, Benford, or Forward for a little heavier on the “science” part.

Of course, in the end, it IS fiction, kinda by definition 🙂

Rational Db8
Reply to  TonyG
April 11, 2022 3:22 pm

Actually many of those things are entirely possible – and some already exist, albeit on much smaller scales than what’s in sci-fi!

Rational Db8
Reply to  Andy Pattullo
April 11, 2022 3:20 pm

Yep, I agree, it’s a gentleman/gentlewoman disagreement. :0) I have to note, however, that many of the things which were in Sci-Fi originally but now we actually have, were believed to be physically impossible by many people at the time of the stories. Some of the things you’re saying are physically impossible we actually already know aren’t – tractor beams, for example. While we sure don’t have anything nearly as large and extensive as in Sci-Fi (and may never have those – or might wind up with ’em!)… there have already been some real ‘tractor beams’ created in actual experiments. Several different types, actually. See, for example:

2012: https://www.nyu.edu/about/news-publications/news/2012/november/physicists-create-tractor-beam-for-microscopic-particles-.html

2015: https://www.science.org/content/article/researchers-create-sonic-tractor-beam

2019: https://www.washington.edu/news/2019/11/04/light-based-tractor-beam/

Time travel & warp drives aren’t theoretically impossible either. In fact recently there was a claim that NASA/DARPA accidentally created a warp bubble, but I bet that turns out not to be the case and that’s it’s measurement error or something that way.

For that matter, if we were able to travel very long distances by space ship at a high rate of speed, you’re in a sense time travelling. For those on the ship, far less time would go by than for those of us here on Earth by the time they got to their destination.

But sure, I agree, there are some things in Sci-Fi which just aren’t plausible – like a bunch of aliens all speaking. I’ve no problems with the idea of them all being able to understand/know English – but the odds of them all having the physical ability to speak so that we could understand it is pretty darned unlikely. Universal translators (ok, translators that can handle many different languages, including alien ones, even including ones at frequencies that we can’t hear) are certainly possible. Obviously those are used a lot in Sci-Fi, and now we’ve also got a good start on those with the technology in cell phones and computers.

As to particle transporters/teleportation – try looking up quantum entanglement. :0) It also already seems to exist – on the atomic level. See;

National Science Foundation: https://www.nsf.gov/discoveries/disc_summ.jsp?cntn_id=300854&org=NSF

Rochester Edu: https://www.rochester.edu/newscenter/quantum-teleportation-to-improve-quantum-computing-441352/

https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2017/07/12/first-particle-successfully-quantum-teleported-into-space-are-transporters-next/

So, again, you’d be amazed at how much of what starts as science-fiction winds up being not only possible, but actually winds up really existing.

fretslider
April 10, 2022 8:40 am

Don’t look up – it’s the energy bill

Don Howard
April 10, 2022 8:57 am

In 1800 when Thomas Jefferson made his diary entry, CO2 levels were a out 280 ppmv and steady. If “280” caused those climate disruptions, we should be burning brightly now at 400 ppmv.

Rational Db8
Reply to  Don Howard
April 10, 2022 11:21 am

Were they actually 280 ppm? There’s actually a lot of real observed measurements/data along with proxies such as plant stomata which suggest levels may have been much higher. And plant stomata numbers can be directly verified with current temperatures and temperature changes, where ice core data cannot. Plant stomata also has a far greater resolution than ice core data. Here are some links I collected quite some time ago (if any are no longer good, they can likely be found by using the wayback machine/internet archive). Here’s part of a comment I’d written for an article comment section years ago on the issue:

…A number of research papers using plant stomata to estimate CO2 levels also shows significantly higher CO2 levels than ice core data does, and they are able to calibrate compared to present day stomata v. CO2 levels, where we’re unable to do so with ice that’s been compressed for ages in glaciers.
 
<a href=”http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/12/26/co2-ice-cores-vs-plant-stomata/”>CO2: Ice Cores vs. Plant Stomata</a>
 
<a href=”http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/stomata.html”>The CO2 Record in Plant Fossils</a>
 
And then there are the ice core CO2 issues written about by Prof. Zbigniew Jaworowski:
<a href=”http://www.john-daly.com/zjiceco2.htm”><b>Climate Change: Incorrect information on pre-industrial CO2</b></a>
<i>Statement written for the US Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation March 2004</i>
 
<a href=”http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2012/03/02/doubting-oxygen-isotopes/”>Doubting Oxygen [and Carbon] Isotopes</a>…

Don Howard
Reply to  Rational Db8
April 11, 2022 6:05 am

Actually, it make no difference.
(a) If the CO2 levels were 280 ppmv for Thomas Jefferson and he made Global Warming misstatements like he did, that only proves that CO2 has virtually nothing to do with the imagined global warming. However, if Tom had waited about a decade, he was have been confused by the Dalton Minimum. In another decade, we will probably enjoy the upcoming Grand Solar Minimum. We need to give it a name.
(b). If CO2 levels were close to 410 ppmv, then the Industrial Age has nothing to do with the human race causing global warming by causing the elevated CO2.
The only possible conclusion is neither we nor CO2 have any noticeable effect on the temperature of the earth.

Rational Db8
Reply to  Don Howard
April 11, 2022 3:27 pm

Huh? Thomas Jefferson didn’t make any “global warming misstatements.” He relayed actual weather conditions in recent years. And the entire point of the author including Jefferson’s diary entry along with the other two examples was to show that the AGW claims are bogus, because such conditions have existed multiple times in the past, long before man could have possibly created and AGW.

My pointing out that CO2 levels may well have been about the same in pre-industrial age compared to current day levels was for the exact same reason – e.g., if that’s the case, the AGW claims are utterly bogus (they are utterly bogus anyhow, but it’s one more bit of proof against the AGW claims).

Nicholas McGinley
April 10, 2022 9:02 am

Regarding this quote:
“Director Adam McKay recently tweeted, “We’ve got 6-8 years before the climate is so chaotic we [will] live in a permanent state of biblical catastrophe.””, it is obvious that McKay is a noob to this topic, as he makes the obvious rookie mistake of declaring a prediction that will very quickly be shown to be wrong.
Those who have spent a longer amount of time in the lucrative business of making ridiculous predictions about the timeline of doomsday have learned the hard way they are better off making the date of the end of the world as far into the future as is practicable, preferably around the time they expect to be dead.



Last edited 5 months ago by Nicholas McGinley
Mike Lowe
Reply to  Nicholas McGinley
April 10, 2022 12:40 pm

Or at least, retired from paid employment!

John Moore
Reply to  Mike Lowe
April 10, 2022 2:58 pm

. . . “retired from USEFUL_HONEST employment “

Phil Rae
Reply to  John Moore
April 10, 2022 11:47 pm

They never were in useful, honest employment!

Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  Mike Lowe
April 11, 2022 4:55 am

Yes, that is one of the preferred alternate dates.
Still another is just beyond the date until which they expect to be holding elected office.

Richard Page
Reply to  Nicholas McGinley
April 10, 2022 3:18 pm

Feb 06 2022 and counting…..

Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  Richard Page
April 11, 2022 4:54 am

The clock always ticks far faster than they realized it would.

Danley Wolfe
April 10, 2022 9:19 am

Delete, clutter.

Gunga Din
April 10, 2022 9:27 am

Another thing we’d be affected by is the absence of “activated carbon”.
It’s used, among other things, to remove pollutants from many things. (Water, air, etc.)
Some types are made from coal. But they all are made by “burning” coal, coconut husk, wood, in the absence of Oxygen. (Different sources produce different types of activated carbon that are more effective at adsorbing different types of pollutants.)
Lots of heat required.
The “War on Carbon” will eliminate one of our best tools to clean up what we breathe and drink.

April 10, 2022 9:28 am

(Why is it that Twitter twits never cancel, suppress or even fact-check climate fear porn? Why is it never just climate change, but always climate cataclysms? Why always manmade climate change, as though past natural climate changes never happened? Why do Guterres, Gore, Kerry, Biden and AOC always have to top his, her, hir, ver, zir fellow alarmists in hysteria? Why is the fear-mongering always based on computer models, never on actual data and evidence? Why does it always ignore China’s massive fossil fuel use and greenhouse gas emissions?)

The answer to your questions is simple: The entire group of Greens believe that lying is good, that they are defending the Earth against mining. Mining is of course the source of all prosperity, but they lie, and lie, and lie some more so that mining companies must behave better.

Slowroll
Reply to  Michael Moon
April 10, 2022 10:41 am

And, most importantly in their minds, they are laying the foundations of Socialism and the destruction of free markets.

Rational Db8
Reply to  Slowroll
April 10, 2022 11:25 am

And gaining power for themselves.

2hotel9
April 10, 2022 12:02 pm

The only crisis is the destruction of society by the political left. People need to wake the f*ck up.

Bob
April 10, 2022 2:17 pm

Mr. Driessen is exactly right. I can tell you why the lying, cheating climate alarmists seem so powerful. They speak in plain language, they speak to the average Joe, they have the mainstream media with them, their message is repeated ad nauseam day in and day out, they don’t worry about being caught in their lies because no one on our side is doing a proper job of challenging them. Someone on this site or a site like this needs to be able to get a foot in the door with the mainstream media and get the truth out. Most everyone on this site is a hell of a lot smarter than me, it can be done. Simple language, honest message, short messages and dare the lying misanthropes to publicly challenge us.

Mike Dubrasich
Reply to  Bob
April 10, 2022 3:21 pm

Warmer Is Better

Bob
Reply to  Mike Dubrasich
April 10, 2022 7:15 pm

You got it.

Rational Db8
Reply to  Bob
April 10, 2022 8:13 pm

They have not only the mainstream media pushing their agenda, but all of our educational institutions too – k-12 thru advanced university degrees. The brainwashing and indoctrination is gobsmacking. Even worse in European nations than here in America, and it’s pretty horrific in America as it is.

TonyG
Reply to  Bob
April 11, 2022 8:35 am

The problem with “getting a foot in the door” and “doing a proper job” is that the MSM are the gatekeepers and control what gets out. They don’t want the skeptic position out, it doesn’t get out.

Different paths need to be pursued.

Bob
Reply to  TonyG
April 11, 2022 10:46 am

I understand that Tony. By saying we need to get a foot in the door I am not thinking we would be invited by the big boys. We need to start with anyone and everyone who will hear us out. Public Service Announcement would be a good place to start. Short, truthful, honest and cordial information that everybody needs to hear, but with a straight forward challenge for the climate alarmists to prove us wrong face to face.

Tom Abbott
April 10, 2022 7:16 pm

From the article: “To single out actual sea level rise – and blame the rise on humans and fossil fuels – is simply disingenuous.”

Exactly.

I see where Trump mocked sea level rise hysteria again at his political rally in North Carolina last night. That’s about the third time in recent weeks.

Rational Db8
Reply to  Tom Abbott
April 10, 2022 8:15 pm

No worries!! All we need is Obama – just keep him safe, sound, and healthy, and all will be well!! After all, he can halt the rise of the oceans at will!!! He told us so himself!!

dripping sarcasm.gif
%d bloggers like this: