Millions of Americans were horrified when Charlie Kirk was murdered in cold blood. Then came an even bigger shock: large numbers of people celebrated his death and danced on his grave.
Sickening as it is, this shouldn’t surprise anyone. The left has long harbored—or at least tolerated—an anti-human streak, and nowhere is it more visible than in its radical environmental wing.
Leftwing misanthropy rears its ugly head when it comes to issues like abortion, euthanasia, and criticizing the traditional family. But radical environmentalism carries the same core belief: human beings are the problem. If we just had fewer human beings doing less, the idea goes, the world would be a better place.
Radical environmentalists preach the gospel of demographic decline, arguing that having fewer children cuts carbon more than a lifetime of bike riding and composting. Some environmentalists made the not-so-subtle point that thanks to the death and lockdowns of COVID-19, “nature is healing.” One recent study found that environmental activists, consumed by their mission, often tend to “manipulate and deceive others” and demonstrate “callousness” and “lack of empathy.” When saving the planet is the goal, who has time for people’s feelings?
The logic is clear: humans are the problem. Not the behavior of industry or the pace of innovation—but people themselves.
Of course, that doesn’t mean environmental activists have their fingers on a trigger. Thinking the world would be better off with fewer people doesn’t make one a killer. But a movement that treats human beings as the enemy breeds a mindset where life itself can be dismissed, devalued, or even cheered when lost.
How do you get so many people celebrating the death of Charlie Kirk? You get it in a movement that finds an environmental bright side to a deadly pandemic, that sees people as problems to be overcome, and that holds up abortion as a win for the earth. To too many, life becomes unwelcome when, in their opinion, that life starts causing more harm than good.
The result of this line of thinking brought to its logical conclusion is the despicable display recently put on by prominent University of Pennsylvania professor Michael Mann.
Despite being one of the most prominent climate “experts” with a perch in the lofty heights of the Ivy League, Mann callously wrote after Kirk’s assassination that “the white on white violence has gotten out of hand” and retweeted a post calling Kirk “the head of Trump’s Hitler Youth.”
Mann has long blurred the line between science and politics. In fact, his fierce partisanship has actually been a significant obstacle to common-sense bipartisan action. Yet few conservatives noticed his tirades because most ignore the climate issue entirely. It took Mann mocking the murder of a free speech activist for the general public to finally wake up to his radicalism.
Yet Mann isn’t just morally reckless; he’s factually wrong. A review of 1,500 climate policies found that his preferred approach of top-down government regulation fails, while free market solutions actually reduce carbon emissions. President Trump’s pro-energy policies and embrace of cleaner natural gas helped cut carbon emissions to the lowest level in 25 years in his first term. President Trump is also laser-focused on holding China accountable for its economic practices. China is the world’s foremost polluter, yet this appears to be an “inconvenient truth” for environmentalists on the Left.
Sadly, the activists on the environmental left seem immune to the facts. Or, maybe, they just haven’t heard them.
Radical environmentalists like Michael Mann are organizing, teaching, and shaping the next generation in ways that are anti-human, anti-freedom, and anti-Western. Thus far, they’ve done so unopposed. But conservatives can’t continue to cede this battlefield.
If we want to effectively combat leftwing misanthropy, we must engage in the climate debate—and we must offer a hopeful counterpoint to the left’s dark narratives, wherever they take hold.
No matter what many of the left seem to believe, people aren’t the problem. In fact, if Charlie Kirk’s life proved anything, it’s that even one person can change the world for the better.
Chris Johnson is President and Co-Founder of the American Energy Leadership Institute, a conservative energy policy research and advocacy organization working to ensure America leads and dominates the 21st century.
This article was originally published by RealClearEnergy and made available via RealClearWire.
But how to get the necessary change when the entire western establishment has been captured?
Bankrupcy will take care of that, sadly only for a limited time…hardly restored and out of the woods the same idiocy starts again. Root cause? “But we do need a government”…
I make it 94% of the global population does not give an active policy fig about climate change. We poor people in Australia, Britain and a few other nations make up the 6% with governments with Acts and Regulations dominated by dogma, zealotry, missions, ambitions, ratbaggery – call it what you will.
WHY????
Geoff S
Follow the money (the other people’s). Assorted useless w@nkers and witch doctors like Miliband and the other scumbags get paid, and birds of a feather flock together and get to preen each other on the BBC fake news channels, etc.
Then they run out of other people’s money, and squawk the loudest on their way out.
I am surprised by nothing from the left. One byproduct of the covidiocy is more and more people are seeing through them and their crap. I for one share articles from here and other sites freely using social media in a lot of circles, several of them contain a substantial proportion of left-leaning folks. Some have actually talked about them.
Find cracks, drive in wedges.
the tide is definitely turning – keep posting
His Holiness, Michael Mann, is just another activist like Paul Ehrlich. The Holy Cause is everything, and bourgeois standards do not really matter anymore.
Mann has put quite a lot of effort, including lawfare, into defending his “hockeystick”
paper (MBH 98), which really should have been withdrawn for using an egregious algorithm that produces hockey sticks out of red noise, autocorrelated sense free data.
Given the immense damage that fraud has done to the provisions that underpin civilization -reliable energy, food and transport – he ought to have been locked up long ago.
And think of the children Michael Mann has terrorized and is still terrorizing with his unsubstantiated claims about CO2 and the Earth’s weather and climate. Young people are deciding not to have children because they believe the lies about Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming (CAGW), i.e., Climate Change told by Climate Alarmists, and every Climate Alarmist’s basic toolkit is made up of two things: The bogus temperature record portrayed by Michael Mann’s Hockey Stick chart, and the bogus “blade” of the Hockey Stick chart, the instrument-era temperature record (1800’s to the present) created by Mann’s fellow traveler Phil Jones, both of which convey the idea that temperatures started rising sharply after the end of the Little Ice Age and temperatures got hotter and hotter and hotter until today the temperatures are the hottest in human history, and these Climate Alarmists attribute all this warming to increasing amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere.
But the truth is it was just as warm in the recent, instrument-era past, as it is today, and it was even warmer in the past in the Medieval Warm Period and the Roman Warm Period and at other times, but all these warm eras are erased by Michael Mann and Phil Jones and they present a bogus, bastardized Hockey Stick chart as their “evidence” and EVERY other Climate Alarmist in town points to this bogus temperature chart as their evidence that CO2 amounts and temperatures are correlated.
It’s all a BIG LIE created in a computer. Historical, original, written, regional temperature records put the lie to the Phil Jones bastardization, and weather history puts the lie to the Michael Mann bastardization of the temperature record.
Unfortunately, most children are not told this story. They are told they have no future because of CO2. It’s all a cruel lie, that has caused untold psychological damage to several generations.
The Human-caused Climate Change narrative is the biggest science scam in human history.
While I agree with Chris our problem goes far beyond misanthropy. We are dealing with power hungry control freaks who will do and say anything to gain more power and control. If pointing out that humans are to numerous that they pollute the planet that they use up valuable resources or any other vice we may be guilty will further their cause they will use it without regret whether they believe it or not.
How dare the government take away our right to pollute the air and water and destroy the planet! Those evil bureaucrats!
Every breath you take pollutes. Every time you take a piss or a dump, you pollute.
The house you live in and the car your drive pollutes.
The computer you typed that nonsense on, pollutes.
If goad is a life that doesn’t pollute, then your only option is to end yours.
In reality we are talking about how much pollution can be handled by the environment.
The evidence is in, the planet is easily handling to levels of pollution being produced. Yes there are some areas where there are problems, however the solution to those problems is to let people become richer, not the grinding poverty that you wish on others.
The planet is not being destroyed, it is quite healthy, and with all this new CO2 in the atmosphere, it is getting healthier, fast.
It seems like your argument dismisses the need for regulation by suggesting that pollution is inescapable and universal, and therefore we shouldn’t attempt to reduce it at all.
That’s a false equivalence.
Yes, humans produce waste, but you’re missing the scale and context of pollution here.
The amount of carbon dioxide released by human activity far exceeds what occurs naturally, and the scientific consensus is clear that this level of CO2 is creating a dangerous disruption to the Earth’s climate system.
Maybe it’s best to hold off on bringing up your ‘skepticism’ on climate change, especially considering that you and others tried defending that recent total piece of shit blog post claiming a single cold day in Antarctica somehow disproves anthropogenic global warming.
Economic growth alone does not guarantee environmental protection. In fact, without deliberate regulation and innovation, unchecked growth can actually lead to more resource extraction and environmental degradation.
This is exactly what we saw during the Industrial Revolution, which eventually gave rise to the environmental movements of the 1970s.
I love the “creating a dangerous disruption to the Earth’s climate system” assertion. Whether the changes are dangerous or not is a whole other argument but regardless CO2 emissions are going to increase and no wailing about it is going to stop it. Prohibition has never worked on anything drugs, nuclear and chemical weapons and if you think it will work on CO2 then you are an idiot.
So if you green loons really believe it;s dangerous why don’t you come up with some non prohibition ideas because you are on a hiding to nowhere with your current plan.
That status quo that ‘CO2 emissions are going to increase no matter what’ is not sustainable.
You truly must be from out of this world, so please tell me you “alien”…is there any intelligent life from where you came or are you on a quest to find a place so idiotic that makes your home planet look good?
CO2 levels on earth fluctuate due to natural causes, always have and always will. Human contributions are irrelevant, so get over it or off this planet.
I don’t need to search far. Looks like here is a good contender.
Yes, it’s ignored by CO2 calamitists that humans are an integral part of “nature” too.
Ergo, if “nature” can produce and deal with CO2, then “nature” can handle humans’ contributions to total CO2 as just another element of the whole makeup.
And lovin’ it, by all accounts from the vegetation sector.
🌶 🌽 🍅 🍉 🍒 🍆 🥦
What isn’t sustainable is the horrendous pollution and environmental degradation from wind and solar.!
It is CO2 that SUSTAINS all life on the planet.
And is currently at very low levels compared to the desired optimum for plant life…
Eclang,
We like references and links for assertions here at WUWT.
Geoff S
I appreciate references as well. Perhaps you could pass that along to Stephen Wilde, bnice2000, and davidmhoffer?
Notice how the troll gives lip service to a virtue he has never demonstrated.
Here are references I have cited in just this forum:
https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide
https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-global-sea-level
https://www.mdpi.com/2225-1154/7/2/19
Links to propaganda sites. Better than nothing I guess.
Deflects to a new point. Better than nothing I guess.
The first sentence in your first link shows your stupidity.
Read that sentence carefully to understand what it is saying. It does NOT say “carbon dioxide released by human activity far exceeds what occurs naturally,”!
Your inability to understand scientific language places you far below the average intelligence of the human race.
Jim scored a “point”.
My later reply makes clear I was referring to the recent build up of concentration that far exceed natural variability:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2025/10/26/surprised-by-leftwing-radical-rhetoric-look-closer-at-the-climate-movement/#comment-4124795
ROFL have you actually looked at the CO2 emissions graph 🙂
2024, hitting an all-time high of 37.8 Gt CO2
Global emissions in the first half of 2025 were slightly higher than the previous year, with a 0.13% increase …. DOH
Here is a funny graphic for you and your emission control 🙂
Why not. For most of the Earth’s history, CO2 levels were well north of 5000ppm. 400 ppm is too close to the point at which plants start dying for comfort.
Why not? Earth has seen nearly 20 times today’s atmospheric CO2. It survived just fine. CO2 is life, not pollution.
It’s not the existence of CO2 that’s the issue. It’s the rate at which we are increasing it. Yes, CO2 was much higher in the distant past, but those levels likely developed over tens of thousands to millions of years.
“The amount of carbon dioxide released by human activity far exceeds what occurs naturally . . .”
No it doesn’t, you have no idea what you are talking about.
https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide
And the temperature is still about here…
Agree bnice is closer to truth than Eclang troller, but a temperature data point does not belong on a graph with only one y-axis labeled “carbon dioxide (ppm)”. The dot could be true or false anywhere because it has neither range nor numeric value.
Ok , try this one
Thanks yes. Your point is correct either way, but the new chart is better.
(Funny you picked temperature in Antarctica, but why not?)
Its a generic graph of Vostok core CO2, from the Antarctic, against Antarctic temperatures.
Except that the ice cores do not appear to be accurate.
They are accurate because within the layers of ice, accumulated over long periods, air bubbles are trapped. These air bubbles contain concentrations of greenhouse gases.
Between 1827 and 1829, Nicolas de Saussure conducted no less than 225 attempts to measure atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations in the vicinity of Geneva. These yielded the following results:
An average of 410 ppm.
Today, we stand at around 425 ppm.
This would indicate little difference to pre-industrial levels and further, the yearly increase shown by the Keeling laboratory is complete fiction. This measurement is averaged annually from much higher and lower daily figures which can fluctuate by as much as +/- 150 ppm in a few hours. Does it seem plausible that they calculate the level to an accuracy of 2 ppm annually? The historical level is said to be confirmed by Antarctic ice cores. However, these measurements are not well replicated and have many serious limitations. Some of these include:
1. Surface layers are loosely packed, and air bubbles can migrate between these layers. It takes years for the bubble to be trapped in the ice. Which year does the final bubble represent?
2. As the ice gets thicker, it becomes impossible to determine the layers and, therefore, the relative dating sequence. Some say that at 2000 meters it requires 245 cm of ice to obtain a single sample, but under the compression and melding that represents one bubble for several thousand years. Aside from which, any level chosen for sampling was once the surface and subject to the same conditions that make today’s surface layers unreliable.
3. Meltwater on the surface, which occurs every summer, moves down through the ice contaminating the bubbles. As Zbigniew Jaworowski said in his testimony to the US Senate,
“More than 20 physico-chemical processes, mostly related to the presence of liquid water, contribute to the alteration of the original chemical composition of the air inclusions in polar ice.”
4. A study by Christner (2002) titled “Detection, Recovery, Isolation and Characterization of Bacteria in Glacial Ice and Lake Vostok Accretion Ice.” Found bacteria were releasing gases at great depth even in 500,000-year old ice.
5. Wind speeds in Antarctica can reach 200 mph and decades of layers can be scoured away in a few hours. The record is hardly what you would call ‘contiguous’.
Yes, just one more example of the serious PROBITY problem with climate “data”.
You cannot get accurate CO2 level readings anywhere near cities. Even before we started burning fossil fuels, there was still widespread burning of wood.
It might be the best data we have, but we are relying on the air bubbles remaining stationary and hermetic for 1million years.
The air bubbles are not a “closed system.” There is multilateral brine present in glacial ice at temperatures as cold as 70 below zero. All of the ice core numbers are likely understated.
And there is no actual “problem” caused by the 100% beneficial CO2, so what are you worried about?
Take your ice core bubbles and cram it. Look at the Keeling curve. It’s easy to figure out that the human contribution to atmospheric CO2 is half of what normal respiration and other natural oxidation produces to create the Keeling curve’s ever upward saw tooth pattern. It’s about 2 ppm annually and it’s making the world greener. Here’s that NASA page that says so.
I read his argument, that’s not what he said. But thanks for playing.
I quoted his words. You don’t see them? Attached is a screenshot of MarkW’s reply on my end.
Let me know if you see the same words on your end, so we can get this sorted. I would love for you to join the discussion.
CO2 is not actually pollution.. That is a “climate hypochondriac” scam.
CO2 is absolutely essential for all life on Earth.. even yours.
And it is currently at quite low levels.
Were you absent from school the day they covered reading comprehension?
” unchecked growth can actually lead to more resource extraction and environmental degradation.”
You mean like the massive pollution caused during manufacturing wind turbines and solar panels..
… and the massive environmental degradation during installation..
… and all the avian and other creatures destroyed..
.. and the massive waste and landfill at the end of their short erratic, intermittent parasitic existence ?
The funny thing is, there never was such a thing as unchecked growth. That has always been nothing more than a fevered nightmare of the left.
How dare those peons think they have a right to be comfortable.
If I were to replace a 1980’s era desktop with a 2020’s era lap top, how much more resources am I consuming? However my lifestyle has improved noticeably.
The socialists deepest fear is that somebody, somewhere, is improving their life.
“The socialists deepest fear is that somebody, somewhere, is improving their life.”
I want to contradict the statement but it might be a natural side effect of an ideology that values equality over freedom. If early adopters fail, that’s bad because the losers are now unequal. If early adopters succeed, that’s also bad because the winners are now unequal. Therefor there can be no losers or winners? Feels sad.
As Winston Churchill so eloquently described socialism. “The equal sharing of misery.”
Climate Puritans. The Stone Age or bust!
“unchecked growth” is an interesting idea. The first example I can think of for why it might be a bad thing is cancer – but then the question “why is cancer bad”? At the bottom of the argument has to be a value statement, death from cancer is bad. So to make “unchecked growth” a bad thing, I need to define unchecked growth of -what- is bad for -whom-? I don’t especially care if it’s bad for “the planet”. The planet seems to have survived worse. I’m more worried about Aunt Betty. Is Aunt Betty in danger from “unchecked growth”? And if that’s my concern, I should probably find a web page dedicated to ending high fructose subsidies.
Growth is always checked by funds available.. ie what is produced by that growth.
As Germany is finding out.. 😉
Kill your production base.. growth stops..
The socialist mentality writ large.
Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant.
Humans are responsible for about 4% of the carbon dioxide emitted, and the current concentration is still very near the starvation level for life on this planet. There is no climate crisis, and no evidence that one will ever occur due to our minor contribution to the availability of the necessary trace gas.
Alarmists are a curious lot. One warm day is an apocalypse, but a cold day is not evidence of anything. No matter how many failed predictions accumulate, the imaginary “consensus” based on faulty computer models remains the only “evidence” in their arsenal. You kids are very faithful in your religious fervor, but still have not managed to understand what science is and what it is not.
Demanding compliance at the point of a gun is the last resort of those who cannot support their position with evidence, reason, and persuasion, whether it is the lone gunman ostensibly responsible for the assassination of Charlie Kirk, or the organized violent force of the government through unrestrained “regulation” and oppression.
Ice core records show that today’s CO2 levels are unprecedented compared to the last 800,000 years.
There needs to be an appropriate balance in atmospheric CO2: I acknolwedge your point that CO2 is essential for plant life and that very low levels would be harmful, but that doesn’t mean continually increasing it is beneficial. Beyond a certain threshold, rising CO2disrupts Earth’s radiative energy balance, leading to long term climate consequences that are not ideal for human societies or ecosystems.
My NASA reference notes that around 3 million years ago (when CO2 concentrations were similar to today’s) global sea levels were possibly up to 82 feet higher. That level of rise would be extremely costly and disruptive for modern coastal cities to adapt to.
3 million years ago was before the closing of the Isthmus of Panama, and the world was significantly warmer than it is today because of that. 3 million years ago was when the current ice age started.
The last 800K years is just a blink of an eye in the Earth’s history.
Nonsense. CO2 has never been the control knob of climate. It is quite impossible for any potential human enhancement of CO2 availability to reach a level that would be in any way harmful, particularly since the radiative properties of CO2 are logarithmic, that is, each additional unit of the gas has less of an effect until increasing it becomes essentially irrelevant. Water vapor will always dominate the greenhouse effect.
In addition, negative feedback and emergent phenomena such as cloud formation and energy transport maintain the conditions on Earth within a remarkably narrow window despite perturbations far greater than a few thousandths of a percent change in CO2 concentration. If the planet were in such a delicate balance as you insist, we would not be here to talk about it.
Indeed, for the last 800,000 years and more, the planet has been at dangerously low levels of the necessary gas with high levels of continental ice, both of which were not particularly conducive to the flourishing of life.
Current CO2 levels are still far below the optimum for C3 and some C4 varieties of plants, which comprise 95% of the plant species that exist. Commercial growers often enhance concentrations to 1000 ppm or more, and most life evolved at levels far above that. Increased CO2 also reduces water stress and water use, making even some marginal areas more productive and reducing the need for irrigation.
Sea levels have been rising at a fairly constant rate since long before humans had much effect on atmospheric composition, and few sites are doing so at a rate that modern society, with the wealth provided by abundant, affordable energy, will be unable to adapt to. There is no evidence that the rate has increased as a result of human emissions or from any other anthropogenic activity. Coastal subsidence represents a far greater concern for many locations.
.
Logarithmic means each doubling of CO2 adds roughly the same amount of warming. Going from 280 –> 560 ppm has a similar warming impact as going from 560 –> 1120 ppm.
And this is precisely why scientists already use doubling benchmarks for equilibrium climate sensitivity.
And water vapor is a positive feedback of warming.
It depends on what you consider “narrow.” Earth’s global temperature has shifted by about 5–6C between glacial and interglacial periods. These changes were initially triggered by the slow Milankovitch cycles, but most of the resulting warming came from positive feedbacks, such as changes in ice and snow cover that altered Earth’s albedo. So even small external forcings can produce large temperature changes when amplified by feedback mechanisms.
This is confusing a controlled agricultural environment with the planet’s climate system. In natural systems, warming and drought stress can offset any CO2 fertilization benefits.
This is false. And even if sea level rise were linear in the past, that doesn’t mean it will stay linear in the future as the world warms.
Water as a positive feedback, acceleration of sea level rise, and projected future climate states are model artifacts. They remain undemonstrated and are pure speculation. Most climate models are demonstrated to run hot and are not representative of reality. Indeed, the entire edifice of climate alarm is reliant on imaginary processes that have failed to be observed in the real world.
Estimates of ECS have failed to narrow and have, in fact, increased in range. That alone indicates the vast uncertainty of how the system operates. We are far from doubling the pre-industrial concentration of CO2, and a second doubling is not remotely possible.
As I mentioned, drought stress IS offset by CO2 fertilization since increased CO2 reduces stomata open time, reducing transpirational water loss. The evidence of increased global greening due to increased CO2 is demonstrated and indisputable.
As you indicate, natural variation far exceeds any changes we have witnessed during the short duration of industrial advance. What you call small external forcings are actually large combined changes in total insolation, far in excess of the estimated 3.2 Watts per square meter attributed to the enhanced greenhouse effect.
The only false thing is the insistence that increased CO2 has resulted, or will result in anything other than a net benefit to the biosphere, and that the planet and its inhabitants are so incapable of adaptation as you insist.
The Clasius Clapeyron relationship tells us that a warmer atmosphere holds more water vapor.
Likewise, accelerated sea level rise from more ice sheet melt is not a theoretical projection. These are simply fundamental physical laws.
Uncertainty in climate sensitivity doesn’t mean the effect might be small. It also means it could be on the higher end of the range. You seem to be interpreting uncertainty as a reason for inaction, but in reality it does not reduce the risk.
Pre-industrial CO2 levels were about 280 ppm. Today, they are around 420 ppm. Yet, we’ve already seen nearly 1.5C of warming.
And the Earth is still in an energy imbalance and to restore equilibrium, the planet must warm further to increase its emissivity.
IOW, even if the radiative forcing from CO2 stopped rising today, additional warming would still occur due to the existing imbalance and its associated feedbacks.
Milankovitch orbital cycles do not significantly change the total amount of sunlight Earth receives globally. Instead, they alter the distribution and timing of solar energy by slightly reducing summer sunlight in the Northern Hemisphere.
This small reduction allows more snow and ice to persist year round, increasing the Earth’s reflectivity. The higher reflectivity then amplifies cooling through a positive feedback loop.
“Yet, we’ve already seen nearly 1.5C of warming.“
From the coldest period in 10,000 years.
And that warming has been highly beneficial to human existence.
The planet is still well below the Holocene average..
cooler than the MWP,
cooler than the RWP..
and cooler by far than nearly all the 8000 years before that
very much at the cool end of the Holocene.
And you still haven’t produced one bit of measured scientific evidence that CO2 has been responsible for that highly beneficial warming.
I provided evidence of it down below.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2025/10/26/surprised-by-leftwing-radical-rhetoric-look-closer-at-the-climate-movement/#comment-4125014
LOL. That post contains absolutely zero scientific evidence…
It is just more mindless and scientifically baseless blather and speculation..
Sorry, but if you understood remotely about actual science, you would know that regurgitated mantra is the very opposite of science.
Just because you say so.
Not because it’s true.
Simple solutions for simple minds.
While warmer air COULD hold more water vapor, all other things being equal, in the real world, things are never equal.
For example, more water vapor in the air accelerates the rate at which heat is transported from the surface to the upper atmosphere where it quickly escapes to space. The end result is that more water vapor cools the planet, not warms it.
When moist air rises and condenses, the latent heat is released within the atmosphere. It does not escape directly to space. Lol, clouds don’t form in space.
I’m constantly amazed how little you actually know.
By the time you get high enough for water to start condensing, that water is above about 80% of the CO2 and almost 100% of the water vapor. It’s a trivial matter for the heat being released to escape to space.
The failure of uncertainty to narrow means that we simply do not know enough about the dynamics of the system to assign a value, and all said values are theoretical. Based on observation to date, that value is most likely at the lower end of the range. Adding CO2 to the atmosphere certainly has some effect, but so far that effect remains beyond detection except in theoretical models. On the other hand, the benefits of fossil fuel use and increased CO2 are well demonstrated.
Warming has occurred. It began long before human emissions of CO2 were significant, and it began after the coolest period of the last 10,000 years. Most of that period since the Younger Dryas was as warm or warmer than today, even while levels of CO2 were lower.
Basic physical principles measured under controlled laboratory conditions do not necessarily translate to actual sustained processes in the climate system and certainly do not directly apply in a linear fashion as you insist. Negative feedback absolutely dominates the system, or life could not have persisted.
Model projections have a wide range of outputs, and few come even close to observed conditions. All predictions of doom have proven false, except the ones safely confined to the distant future. They are no more than science fiction. They do not constitute evidence, and they do not justify “action”. There is no evidence of a climate crisis. There is no evidence that anything unusual is occurring in the climate system.
What is certain is that the best hope for the future is the elimination of poverty, and that is only accomplished by abundant, affordable energy. Sunbeams and breezes do not qualify as such, and never will.
Hopefully, there is sufficient effect from increased CO2 to postpone the next ice advance. Even the Little Ice Age was to be considered in the realm of climate crisis. Another big one certainly will be.
What observations are you basing that statement on?
The effect of CO2 has been directly observed: the cooling of the stratosphere is one clear indicator.
Your comment about excess CO2 also depends on context. A warmer world like the Eocene can be pleasant if life has time to adapt, but reaching those temperatures over just a few centuries would be profoundly disruptive.
Even if warming began before human emissions became significant, that doesn’t mean CO2 isn’t having a major impact now.
Do you have a link to a global temperature reconstruction supporting your claim that the world was as warm or warmer than today during that period?
You’d have a hard time modeling glacial interglacial cycles if negative feedbacks dominate
See Hausfather, 2019
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2019GL085378
They can. It just depends on where they’re deployed. Solar power isn’t ideal for Great Britain, but it’s highly effective in the U.S. Southwest.
That same geographic optimization principle applies to other renewable sources.
Don’t worry. There is.
The problem is that by the time CO2 levels reach around 280ppm, about 90% of the so called greenhouse effect is already occurring. Each doubling above that point is chasing ever tinier fractions of what is left.
The claim that water vapor is a positive feedback is built into the models, however it was never actually measured in the field.
The problem for the alarmists is that when some heretic decided to flaunt orthodoxy by actually measuring the effect, it was found that water vapor was a medium to strong negative feedback.
Even more when evaporation and transpiration are taken into account.
Warm air with lots of water vapor in it takes the express elevator to the upper atmosphere where two things happen. First, lots of heat is lost directly to space. Second, clouds form, blocking incoming short wave radiation.
There are no environmental factors that limit CO2 fertilization.
Since CO2 enables plants to handle water more efficiently, they actually negate any drought stress. Not that CO2 has any impact on the number or severity of droughts.
There is no sign out here in the real world that sea level rise is accelerating.
Your claim that water vapor feedback has never been directly measured is simply incorrect. Arctic amplification provides clear observational evidence of real world positive water vapor feedback.
When sea ice melts, more ocean is exposed to the atmosphere. In autumn, the open water is warmer than the overlying air, which causes heat and moisture to transfer from the ocean to the atmosphere. This increases atmospheric water vapor and enhances back radiation, warming the surface further.
This process and the ice albedo feedback is why autumn is the fastest warming season in the Arctic.
Not even close to being true.
All the alleged Arctic amplification proves is that water vapor is a green house gas, which we already knew.
Melting sea ice is another strong negative feedback. At the angle at which sunlight hits Arctic waters, most of it is reflected back into space. Because the Arctic air is so cold, there is almost no water vapor in it, which allows the heat being released a free path to space.
And yet the Arctic warms much, much faster than the rest of the globe.
That’s because there is little to no H2O in the arctic atmosphere, as a result CO2 has more impact than it does elsewhere where H2O captures most of the energy available.
It has nothing to do with feedback of any kind. Please try to learn even a little science.
Maybe there’s too many CO2 belching termites in the world?
Let’s get rid of them before we start eliminating ourselves, ok?
Dear Eclang, so stop using fossil fuels every minute of every day you flaming HYPOCRITE
No.
In other words, like the rest of your clain, your only goal is to make other people miserable.
Your refusal to live the lifestyle that you demand of others is just more proof that you never cared about the environment.
Your response shows you only oppose fossil fuel use when it’s someone outside your ideological group. So I guess “freedom to live as you choose” only applies to people in your clan, not anyone else.
Once again, Edang demonstrates his complete unwillingness to understand what others have written and argue honestly.
I have never, ever, objected to other people using fossil fuels, no matter how stupid and self righteous they may be.
J Bole told me to stop using fossil fuels, I gave my answer to that, and you objected.
Now you claim you “never object to anyone using fossil fuels.”
Your inconsistency is on full display just like Chris Johnson whining about Mann mocking a free speech activist while ignoring the reported attempts by the Trump administration to pressure ABC to silence Jimmy Kimmel.
All I did was point out that you refuse to live by the lifestyle you want to force onto everyone else.
How you go from that to a belief that I don’t want anyone else to use fossil fuels is beyond me. Then again your ability to convince yourself of utter nonsense is second to none.
No inconsistency on my part, just your pathetic attempts to distract attention from your deep seated hypocrisy.
I never said anyone should be forced to live a certain lifestyle. That should tell us everything about who’s actually scrambling to avoid their own hypocrisy.
Mr. Ebong: Now I recognize you! You’re that guy thrashing around in the milk tub near the end of “Terminator 2”!! It did go for a prolonged scene, but the scene did end. I’ll watch for the splashing to stop.
All I did was point out that you refuse to live by the lifestyle you want to force onto everyone else.
How you go from that to a belief that I don’t want anyone else to use fossil fuels is beyond me. Then again your ability to convince yourself of utter nonsense is second to none.
No inconsistency on my part, just your pathetic attempts to distract attention from your deep seated hypocrisy.
“The amount of carbon dioxide released by human activity far exceeds what occurs naturally”
False, it is about 3%
“the scientific consensus is clear that this level of CO2 is creating a dangerous disruption”
False on multiple accounts. Science knows no concensus, ever. There is no proof whatsoever of a dangerous disruption according to the IPCC 6th report.
“the Earth’s climate system”
False. The Earth has no climate system. There is simply climate which is the statistical average of 30 years’ weather. No system whatsoever.
I think you have managed to produce the stupidest post ever on this site. Congratulations and enjoy the straightjacket.
You are the one who declared that there is no right to pollute, not me. I was pointing out the absurdity of the position that you declared.
Economic growth is the only thing that guarantees environmental protection.
Poor people don’t care anything for the environment. If you and your children are hungry, you will find something to eat. Period.
Where is this environmental disruption that so worries your pretty little head? There is none. There has been no increase in any type of storminess and temperatures still haven’t returned to their long term averages.
Right here where I live in the Intermountain West.
Warmer temperatures and prolonged drought have played a major role in the decline of the Great Salt Lake.
The consequences are not theoretical at all. The Wasatch Mountains rely on snowpack to store water. A shrinking lake reduces lake effect snow, which further decreases our snowpack and accelerates the drying trend.
And as the lake recedes, the exposed lakebed releases toxic dust containing arsenic and other harmful minerals into the air, directly affecting nearby communities.
That is a clear environmental emergency.
https://www.mdpi.com/2225-1154/7/2/19
and your contention that humans CO2 is the sole cause of your climate change imputation is evidenced by what exactly?
“Weather Attribution” is the most bullshit “research” undertaking ever contrived.
An internal oscillation cycle typically runs on ~60 year periods. But since the warming has not reversed and is cumulative over more than a century now, modes of internal variability cannot explain the trend.
As such, we need to look at external forcing that affect Earth’s radiative balance. Solar output has been flat since the 1950s, and orbital forcing is currently in a cooling phase. So, those cannot account for the observed warming.
But carbon dioxide concentrations have been rising since the end of the Little Ice Age and it’s a well established agent of radiative forcing.
So it aligns both physically and temporally with the observed warming.
There are dozens of known cycles, some running just 15 to 20 years, to others that run on a thousand year clock.
The world is a lot more complicated than either you, or your models are capable of handling.
More blather from a science denier.
Yet another diversion from someone who time and time again proves he knows not of what he speaks.
A diversion from what.
From your failure to learn from your many mistakes.
So, contrived circumstantial evidence is all you have.
Here’s something real to digest –
“Extraordinary claims require extraordinary EVIDENCE”
Observed warming comes ONLY at El Nino events..
So CO2 has absolutely NOTHING to do with it.
Solar output has been at a peak since 1950, as clearly shown by this 30 year trailing TSI graph
If you turn a hotplate up to 10 and leave it there.. even a large pot of water gets warmer.. !
To get continued warming, you have to keep increasing the energy source. Not just hold it constant.
Then , of course, there is the absorbed solar radiation.. which has been increasing since at least the start of the century…
Again, absolutely nothing to do with CO2…
Except, apart from a slight step change at the 2016 El Nino, the USA hasn’t warmed at all since at least 2005, and is cooler now than it was in the 1930’s.
Puts your “warming” conjecture in the circular file where it belongs.
What’s the trend for the entire time series from 2005-present?
By the way, the claim that the 1930s were hotter than today only appears in unadjusted temperature datasets.
So temps “data” sets have to be adjusted to make them say what you want them to say.
And you don’t see any problems with the PROBITY of climate “data”?
What’s the trend from the top of the medieval warm periods to today?
What’s the trend from the top of the Holocene Optimum to today?
” only appears in unadjusted temperature datasets.”
roflmao !!!
You mean in REAL DATA !!
Great that you have now realised that it is El Nino events that have caused the slight warming, and not CO2 !!
You HAVE to use them to get any trend at all. !
You are misunderstanding how El Nino affects the United States.
El Nino clearly warms the global average temperature, but it does not uniformly warm the continental United States.
When warm water shifts to the eastern Pacific, it increases convection and releases heat to the atmosphere, which triggers teleconnections through Rossby waves.
These teleconnections alter the jet stream. As a result, some regions of the US actually become cooler, not warmer. For example, during El Nino, the southeastern US typically becomes cooler and wetter, while during La Nina, colder and snowier conditions tend to affect the northern US.
And this outcomes can modified by other variables like the polar vortex.
The point is, unlike the clear global warming signal from El Nino, the temperature anomaly over the US is highly regionally dependent and not clear cut.
ps even NOAA shows the hottest days were around the mid 1930s..
I notice the poor troll actually believes that if anything has changed in the last couple of years, that proves that first, it was caused by CO2, and second, that the change is bad and third, the change is permanent.
Then again, it has a long history of believing only what it is told to believe.
The 30’s were warmer and that area is known for droughts, some of which have lasted for several hundred years.
A deep case of “climata delusionarsis” !
I’d like to withdraw my endorsement of this paper.
However, there’s no denying that climate change is having a significant impact on the Great Salt Lake, and the potential long term consequences of the lake’s continued recession are serious and concerning.
And once again, the climate troll declares that any change that has happened in the last 50 years, can only have been caused by CO2.
This is an area that is prone to droughts, has had many droughts in the past, some of which were more severe than the current one.
It’s easy to deny that the current problems are caused by CO2 because there simply is no evidence to tie the two together.
As the lake warms, more water evaporates, reducing its surface area. With less open water, there’s less opportunity for heat exchange between the warm lake and the colder atmosphere. This reduction in heat exchange ultimately leads to fewer lake effect snow events, which results in less snowpack for the following summer.
If carbon dioxide is the primary driver of warming, then it’s also driving this regional drying trend.
IOW, if A leads to B, and B leads to C, then A leads to C.
And since carbon dioxide is expected to continue driving surface warming, this process will only continue. Voila! An environmental crisis in the making!
There isn’t a scintilla of evidence that CO2 is a driver of climate, much less the primary one.
There has been more warming 5 times in the last 10,000 years that CO2 took no part in.
Unless you can demonstrate that whatever caused the previous warming events is not doing it again, it is logically impossible to proclaim that CO2 must be responsible for this one.
Once again, you have, without any evidence, just proclaimed that CO2 must be the cause.
“There were fires before matches existed, therefore matches can’t cause fire.”
And yet another bad analogy, demonstrating that our climate troll understands neither logic nor science.
Correctly phrased, your attempt to analogize my statement would go like this:
There were fires before matches, therefor the existence of this fire doesn’t prove that it was caused by a match.
So, are you criticizing my analogy or just rephrasing it differently?
So much crap from you. You really believe the propaganda don’t you?
Human emitted CO2 far exceeds what occurs naturally! What horse hockey.
MarkW,
For 30 years now I have been preaching that the attainment ideally clean surroundings is cherished by most people. It takes money to clean up, often a lot of money. People have to be patient and give the “polluter” time to make the money, enough to fix up.
This does not give the over-enthusiastic folk a license to demand exquisite clean-ups, far beyond the capacity to pay. Yet that has happened, particularly in my field of mining. Let common sense and fair play prevail above dreams.
Geoff S
The government cannot prevent you from doing as you please.
Don’t whine if you are not happy with the consequences.
I can pollute anything I like – and you can’t do a damn thing about it, can you?
Have a tantrum if you think it will make you feel better.
Not impressed with your intelligence. 🙂
We once again welcome the voice of our Sophistry 1st Class award winner!
Radical environmentalism was and always has been a creation of International Communism — whose goal was and always has been the destruction of Western Civilization, democracy, and human rights. What’s new is the adoption of communism/feudalism by globalist elites who seek to rob and enslave all people.
Radical environmentalism is a tool, a means to an end. It never had any real scientific basis. It has always been a con game, fake science, fear porn, atheist, and deeply anti-human. The connections between communism and environmentalism go way back, despite the glaring fact that communist countries have polluted, poisoned, and trashed their environments beyond anything the West has done.
We now see the full and open adoption of communism by the Democrat Party. There’s no hiding it anymore. Just as the parting shot of the Biden cabal was to steal $billions in the name of “climate change”, radical environmentalism cares nothing for the environment. It’s all about looting, rioting, and tearing down society. Oh yes, and murder on a mega scale, from abortion to war to pandemic to famine.
Even the adoption of communis … ain’t new.
It has been crucial part for a hundred years + .
Communism was financed by Wall Street and City of London( Anthony Sutton wrote a detailed book about that).
Trotzky lived in NY , Lenin in London ( where Karl Marx ended up),
and both met regularly in London at the beginning of last century.
London – the very home of proto-globalism via East India Company
and home of the Fabian Society( communists pretending to be socialists – according to George Orwell whose 1984 is a reference to 1884 when the Fabian Society was founded) who already had plans ” to transform peoples mind via psychological,chemical,biological( vaccines)and the means of music into uniform behavior where everyone is attacked how shows nationalist tendencies.
3 great empires existed back then, and all 3 ended within a few years to make way for communism.
The Russian got the Russian revolution.
The line of Chinese emperors ended as result of the Opium Wars.
The Ottoman empire was ended by the young turks (and the sponsors of the young turks have something very specific in common with the Opium Wars and Russian and later on Chinese Communism – a statistical impossibilty that recently also occured in Ukraine btw)
Right after those empires ended the Frankfurt School was established – with the aim to end the west and the church because they were considered the last real obstacle to global communism.
Of course, that doesn’t mean environmental activists have their fingers on a trigger.
Lenin’s goals were noble. But he gave us Stalin, Mao, Castro and others. Tens of millions murdered. The fusion of communism, environmentalism, and the casting of all history exclusively through the lens of oppressor and the oppressed is far more dangerous.
Make no mistake about it, they may not have their fingers on the trigger, but they would put into power those that do. The sane in the Democrat party need to start speaking out. If they fear that they may lose their clout inside the party by doing so, they should fear even more what happens to themselves and their families should the crazies win an election.
Am I being melodramatic? I wish I was, I would sleep better at night.
https://www.greenpeace.org/international/about/values/
Greenpeace doesn’t describe their goals as communist or authoritarian.
They wouldn’t would they?
Eclang,
Here is a book to read.
Executioners don’t describe their goals as communist or authoritarian.
Yet they kill people.
Geoff S
The Hangman’s Tale: Memoirs of a Public Executioner Paperback – 9 Nov. 1990by Syd Dernley (Author), David Newman (Author)
From the summary: “Over a quarter of a century has passed since the last person was hanged in Britain. Following the abolition of capital punishment in 1965 the secrets of the execution chamber were consigned to history, but due to changes in the secrecy laws a hangman is now able to tell the story of the work of public executioners and of the last moments of those who dropped to their deaths on the gallows.”
I’ve never heard of Greenpeace members hanging people in Britain.
Do you have a specific reference showing modern environmental activists performing executions by hanging? If not, I’m struggling to see how this analogy applies.
You seem to feel that the fact that they don’t have to authority to hang people means they wouldn’t when given the chance.
Given their death to the evil people who opposes us rhetoric they are famous for, I see no reason to assume good intentions on their part.
What authoritarian tells you they are authoritarian until after the seize power. Are you obtuse?
clanger LIVES communism.. just doesn’t realise it. !
He’s a useful idiot. Without the useful part.
Communism, is just like beaty, you don’t have to describe it. You just know it when you see it….
How do you see communism in an organization trying to remove plastic from the ocean?
(Google AI):
Here is the definition of communism:
And here is the definition of ocean plastic pollution removal:
These are not overlapping concepts. One is a system of governance and ownership of production. The other is physically picking up trash.
If you are seeing communism in garbage removal, then by that logic, taking out your own kitchen trash must also be a communist activity. Please clarify if you apply that standard consistently.
You are either extremely naive, or you are extremely duplicitous.
The claim is that the goal of Green Peace is the imposition of communism. Wrecking western economies by pushing useless levels of environmentalism is how they are going about it.
I know that Chris Johnson is claiming Greenpeace’s ultimate goal is to impose communism. What I’m still confused by is how the act of removing plastic from the ocean accomplishes that.
Cleaning up plastic pollution is not the abolition of private property, nor is it government seizure of the means of production. it’s simply waste removal.
Far from “wrecking the economy,” cleaner oceans directly benefit economic sectors like fishing, tourism, and maritime trade.
I guess you are both dense and duplicitous.
There is a difference between what they are doing and what their long term goals are.
Yes, I agree. The short term action is removing plastic. The long-term goal is a cleaner ocean.
These are are sequential.
Step 1: remove pollution.
Step 2: ocean becomes cleaner.
It’s a very straightforward cause and effect process.
But I don’t see how this makes me dense or duplicitous. Just as I don’t see how cleaning up plastic and pollution is a communist ploy like Chris Johnson does.
eclang
“The other is physically picking up trash.” Why not start with India, Pakistan, and China… they seem to throw their trash and defecate right into their rivers and stream… and in Africa the use the Streets where there’s not many waterways to polute.
I agree that countries like China, India, and Pakistan should improve their environmental practices. What I find confusing is that Chris Johnson is arguing that cleaning trash out of rivers and oceans is “radical environmentalism”.
Except he says no such thing.
Just your lack of basic comprehension and “making stuff up” to suit your idiotology.
Our little sophist is just not emotionally capable of arguing honestly.
His entire article is about radical environmentalism.
The word ‘environmentalism’ appears 10 times in Chris’ essay.
But he said nothing about polluted rivers..
Western countries do everything they can to keep their environment clean.
A huge amount of Greenpeace does is just anti-development activist nonsense.
And they DON’T fight against the real environmental destroyers.. wind and solar.. They actually support them.
Here is the definition of “anti-development activist nonsense” from Google AI:
And once again here is the definition of ocean plastic pollution removal:
Once again, I fail to see how these are overlapping concepts.
You are aware that Green Peace is involved in a lot more than just “cleaning up rivers”?
Or do you feel that you are free to pick one thing that they do and proclaim that this one thing is the only thing that matters and everything else must be ignored.
I agree. Greenpeace’s work cleaning up rivers shouldn’t be ignored. They also have many other accomplishments that deserve recognition.
here they are raising awareness about palm oil’s destruction of orangutan habitats in Indonesia:
https://www.greenpeace.org.uk/challenges/palm-oil/
Do you think Chris Johnson believes orangutans are part of the communist agenda as well?
other work besides*
“doesn’t describe their goals as communist or authoritarian.”
But they are… extreme leftism. !!
Of course they don’t,
for the same reason North Korea and East Germany call(ed) themselves democratic.
At best they admit that they are socialists like the Fabian society whose Wolf( communism) in sheep clothing(socialism) symbol was replaced with a Tortoise.
George Orwell knew thos Fabians intellectuals well and called them communists.
Do we have proof of communism?
100% – all green parties, that by some miracle popped up alongside the hippie movement( “There are no hippies.Hippies are a Media-Invention.
We are Marxists” – ” hippie” statement during a David Silver talk show 1967),
all have the exact same political values outside of environmentalism.
Contempt and hate for own country and culture.
All of them pro open borders, pro genderism,LGBTQ, pronouns and whatever new things that literally never existed in history of mankind have been forced onto western countries in recent years.
Even totally obvious and paradox contradictions like love for an ideology that is on the exact opposite spectrum and whose followers hate the western left with passion (=muslims) is everywhere the same.
The greens/ left are everywhere the same be it New Zealand,USA, Germany etc etc.
They will call their own people Nazis for just a bit conservative
but will kiss muslim butts though muslim values are everything they call Nazi all over the place.
The level of control and hypocrisy and that everyone of them has been put in line.
The fact that noone has a moderate approach towards AGW etc and that they attack everything and everyone who disagrees = communism..
Communists never do.
Useful idiots, are still idiots.
You can’t even keep your own insults consistent. In this comment, you are calling me a “useful idiot,” while in another the comment you insist I don’t qualify as a useful idiot.
When deniers can’t even decide which insult to use, it’s no surprise that they have convinced themselves that saving whales, cleaning up trash from the ocean, and improving water quality are part of a communist plot.
Your stupidity is so vast and your duplicity so depth defying, that single insults are insufficient to cover the totality of imbecility.
Ok, just make sure your insults at least don’t contradict each other.
One time I call you are useful idiot.
Another time I call you a plain old ordinary idiot.
If you want to believe those two insults are contradictory, there’s nothing I can do about it.
I can find absolutely nothing that is “useful” about clanger, whatsoever.
The words “useless” or “gormless” seem more appropriate.
See, MarkW?
Even your friends’ attempts at mockery end up proving my point: you contradicted yourself.
Paul’s loyalty would be touching if it weren’t so self-defeating.
Mr Burns needs new hounds.
Once again, the climate troll sees only what it’s ego needs to see.
bnice said nothing of the sort.
Mr. Ebong: I thought Mr. W didn’t contradict himself, he had one of his rare lapses of generosity when he called you “useful”.
You can’t even keep your own insults consistent. In this comment, you are calling me a “useful idiot,” while in another the comment you insist I don’t qualify as a useful idiot.
When deniers can’t even decide which insult to use, it’s no surprise that they have convinced themselves that saving whales, cleaning up trash from the ocean, and improving water quality are part of a communist plot.
Mods, I apologize for the duplicate.
Again the word “denier”…
.. when you can’t point of anything we “deny” that you can produce measured scientific evidence for.
Just throw around words you don’t know the meaning of. !
Very typical of the sub-species called “climatis hytericarsis ignoramus”
He has a movement to defend, he can’t be bothered with the niceties of formal logic or being constrained by actual facts.
Inventing a universal threat that can be used to impact human behaviour is core policy for left wing political advance.
The invented Climate Crisis now universally adopted across the West but nowhere else, is because that is where consumerism is championed. It is a Western world issue, other than those nations using imaginary human climate change for their own political/economic gain. It has become the go to, when demanding transfer of wealth from the rich nations. Climate change is a rich nations only invention/issue. Climate change is key propaganda strategy, i.e. if you need to tell a lie make sure it is a big one.
It is difficult to find any upside to the insane West’s left/green bandwagon they champion Climate Change for what?. Do they imagine for a single minute, it would somehow benefit their political group, if their poverty inducing energy and other woke policies were universally adopted?
Interestingly, it is the wealthy sector of society who are heading up the social insanity of the left. Perhaps they see it as a self preservation vehicle? The days of the peasants rising up to claim their rights has been hijacked by the high worth individuals. They have invented something for the disgruntled to focus on to help maintain their personal security perhaps?.
Those who control the public space, i.e. the media in all forms, claim they have the answers and resources to solve unfairness? By cleverly championing/solving a non problem called, climate change, the ultra rich policy of self preservation is presented as altruism? It is actually making them even richer, while making the majority poorer, Powerless people are being held down, forced into ever more dependency on the state dependent for everything.
Self sufficiency and entrepreneurial spirit is being purposely blocked, the ladders out of poverty/serfdom are being withdrawn to ensure those who control everything, are able to continue to control everything.
The socialist world was actually doing all of the environmental evils that the so called environmental groups were accusing the west of doing. Yet the so called environmentalists never cared.
More than half of abortions in the US are of black babies. Therefore the abortion lobby pushes for a practice that preferentially kills blacks. One could argue that it is a conspiracy to preferentially reduce the number of black Americans. Not that your BLM activists would care.
Lefties (or liberals as they are called in the USA) have a disproportionally high incidence of mental illness. This is self-reported and confirmed by scientific research:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/339541044_Mental_illness_and_the_left
Or better put: mentally ill people produce absurd ideas and ideologies.
Their oikofobic tendencies prove the severity of their mental illnesses.
We should not treat left-leaning people as equals since they are patients, we need to provide them with care. Acknowledging their disillusions will only worsen their ilnesses and is frankly inhumane.
This is a serious problem since a very small number of people can have a disproportionally big impact on society, see “Dictatorship of the small minority” by N.N. Taleb:
https://medium.com/incerto/the-most-intolerant-wins-the-dictatorship-of-the-small-minority-3f1f83ce4e15#.z5ry4bucq
Far beneath the white deserts of Antarctica, scientists drill narrow cylinders of ice—time capsules they say preserve the breath of ancient air. Each layer, trapped under centuries of snowfall and compression, holds tiny bubbles supposedly frozen in time. From these bubbles, modern laboratories try to reconstruct the history of Earth’s atmosphere and the rise and fall of carbon dioxide. It sounds simple, almost elegant. But the story gets far murkier once you ask what exactly those bubbles represent, and whether they can truly be compared to the precise measurements today with instruments tuned to parts per million.
Inside an ice sheet, air isn’t neatly sealed away the moment a snowflake lands. The snow first becomes firn—a porous, compacting layer where air still mingles freely with the above atmosphere. It can take decades, sometimes centuries, before that firn closes off and the air is truly trapped. By then, the “age of the gas” lags far behind the “age of the ice.” The mixture of old and young air smooths out short-term fluctuations, erasing the annual and decadal peaks that modern instruments easily detect. What we call “ancient air” is really an average—blended, filtered, and shaped by the physics of gas diffusion under pressure.
Then there’s the chemical story inside the ice itself. Over hundreds of thousands of years, the matrix of crystals and micro-layers doesn’t remain inert. Gases migrate, molecules fractionate, and subtle reactions with the ice matrix can alter the original composition. Some researchers have noted depletion of CO₂ in deeper layers, possibly from the formation of carbonates or clathrate transformations that reabsorb molecules into the ice lattice. The result is that what’s measured today in the lab may not accurately reflect what existed in the sky so long ago. To claim an exact CO₂ concentration from a snapshot that never truly froze in time stretches the bounds of empirical certainty.
Contrast this with how CO₂ is measured today. High-precision infrared analyzers monitor the air at Mauna Loa and other observatories continuously, correcting for humidity, temperature, and local contamination. Each reading is direct, instantaneous, and traceable to modern calibration standards. Ice core gas, by comparison, endures physical crushing, thermal changes, and chemical re-equilibration before it even reaches the spectrometer. Comparing one to the other is not unlike comparing an in focus photograph to an impressionist painting—the latter looks useful, but it’s a softened averaging of many undetected moments.
When these blurred ancient values are plotted against the razor-sharp modern record, the resulting graph may look persuasive: a long flat line of preindustrial calm followed by a modern spike. But that visual contrast reflects differences in resolution and method, not real atmospheric behavior. One system averages centuries; the other captures a moment. To read them as one continuous dataset is to confuse two very different languages of measurement.
The air of ancient ages, a voice muffled, aged, and filtered through layers of uncertainty that make direct comparison to today’s live data far less valid than it may first appear.
That is one of the most elegant and easy-to-read comments that I’ve ever seen on WUWT. You made a potentially boring topic sound interesting (to me, at least). Congratulations and thanks!