229 Comments

I remember as a kid when they told us we were all going to freeze to death. And I remember as a young adult being told we were going to either burn to death or be underwater because of ice caps melting. And then I got into a bit of amateur geology and started finding fossils of aquatic and tropical life forms on the border of Canada on the great plains where 4 generations of my family have lived. A place where winter temperatures can easily plummet to minus 30 fahrenheit in the winter. And then I started realizing that we can't grow food where it's super cold all the time. And then I found out that plants need carbon dioxide to live and that a world without "carbon" would be horrific (has anyone taken a peek at Mars? Mars doesn't have much CO2) And it dawned on me... Climate has always been changing. I'm not buying any of their crap. Their "climate" agenda makes "Covid" look like a vacation by comparison.

Expand full comment

Yeah, they can be proved wrong about the Chinese virus in a matter of years, so their house of cards falls relatively quickly.

But the inevitable, undeniable destruction that global cooling/global warming/climate chaos/climate weirding/climate change/[insert next name] is going to dish out can't be known for decades, so they can't be proved wrong for decades. If ever. Because it's all completely unfalsifiable, they can ALWAYS say the destruction is just around the corner.

Expand full comment

That’s the modus operandi in the practice of The Science™️. Predict doom in decades/centuries to come which is unprovable but doesn’t need to be proven because the hysteria and slander machine diverts attention and silences dissent.

Expand full comment

perma-grift

Expand full comment

It frosts me ;)

Expand full comment

Mars has a very thin atmosphere but it is more than 90% CO2. Lack of a magnetic field has allowed solar wind to strip off the lighter molecules from the atmosphere.

Expand full comment

Was going to comment this also. Not to take away from OP's point, but Mars' problem is lack of oxygen (and atmospheric vorume generally), not lack of CO2.

However if we actually had zero CO2 in earth's atmosphere, our planet would also be about as fertile as Mars...

Expand full comment
Mar 10, 2022·edited Mar 10, 2022

Checking the numbers. On earth partial pressure of CO2 is, say, 14.7 PSI times 400 parts per million = 0.006 PSI. On Mars, CO2 atmospheric pressure is 0.09 PSI. We're good. Now we have to import (export?) tons of O2 (and probably N2)

Expand full comment
Mar 9, 2022·edited Mar 9, 2022

Imagine a school system where facts were taught where critical thinking is lauded, and personal responsibility was expected. Most adults having graduated from such schools would be so much more difficult to control with lies that seem so obvious to some.

Our schools have been captured. They need to be liberated and set on the proper course. Or a parallel set of schools needs to be established so we can live outside of the LIE.

Expand full comment

Home school the kids then send them to Hillsdale

Expand full comment

Indeed. I remember being in year 10, in 1991, hearing my geography teacher explain how we were going to run out of fossil fuels within 20 years & so we needed to look to renewable energies of wind & solar. I was floored! No fossil fuels?! Within 20 years?! OMG....... And then there were the lessons on salinity, rising water tables, acid rain, deforestation, melting ice caps, rising sea levels & ocean warming..........

Expand full comment

Is it wrong that I was looking forward to Forever Winter? Spring and summer make me sad. My least favorite times of the year.

Expand full comment
Comment deleted
Expand full comment

Turns out it was more complex than ‘acid rain’ caused by power stations and mostly a natural phenomenon. But we spent a bundle on it anyway because there was money to be made by interested parties.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/science/what-made-the-acid-rain-myth-finally-evaporate-1.900603

Expand full comment

You’d think hippies would be in favor of acid rain ;)

Expand full comment

As soon as something is sloganized and heavily promoted in bios with pronouns my brain immediately stops listening because I know it's a scam. Rona lockdowns were a pretext for normalizing carbon lockdowns, just wait for the friendly slogans.

Expand full comment

Yes, me too. It is like I am against everything trendy. I'd like to follow everybody for once. It sounds very comfy!

Expand full comment

I’ve got a distant family member and a few friends who own an EV. Pompous, narcissistic, “green” and full of themselves. Looking down upon my deplorable self for owing a gas guzzling (not really) small sports car. Ironically, they are also the covidiots. You’re spot on!!

Expand full comment

As South Park demonstrated years ago, they love the smell of their own farts. My older, incredibly wealthy family member was pissed that his friends got Teslas when he was still on his e-BMW. he then got one for a ridiculous amount of money. He then talked down to me about my gas guzzling 4 wheel drive Toyota (needed for life on our farm), and didn't like it when I asked him how he will power his Tesla if the electric grid shuts down. Nor did he like it when I pointed out CA gets its electric power from natural gas, gas, nuclear, and the devil itself, coal. So the 0 emissions statement of these cars are 100% false. And, he's the type that is completely on board with the propoganda about Covid. Idiocy and hypocrisy go hand in hand with these people. It's frustrating.

Expand full comment

The cloud of smug now covers the entirety of the northern American continent and Europe……

Expand full comment

Painful, dealing with smug idiots who haven't thought through even the slightest nuances of their arguements.

Expand full comment

I like to say that their ‘arrogance far exceeds their intelligence’

Expand full comment

The phrase you are looking for is “Smug alert, it’s a Pious!”

Expand full comment
Mar 10, 2022·edited Mar 10, 2022

How did get wealthy if he missed these simple observations?

Expand full comment

Semi-relevant American Dad clip:

https://youtube.com/clip/UgkxMx08s2fphxT8WJQMWdW50AACbNrCEERa

Luckily I don't have contact with my former west coast liberal friends. The ones I still have *some* contact with are Midwestern and tend to be more grounded. They're still Covidiots, granted, but dealing with REAL winters every year helps with green flights of fancy.

Expand full comment

Like it or not ICE vehicles are dinosaurs on the road to extinction. Just compare a picture of a Tesla electric motor with an ICEngine of identical power. Look at how much smaller the electric motor is and vastly simpler. Electrification of industry has been happening over the past 70yrs or so.

And the electrical grid is much more reliable than the fossil fuel grid (which needs electricity to work).

If you are worried about losing the grid in order to charge your vehicle then buy a generator or install solar panels. Gas stations also need electricity to operate.

However electrification of transport has nothing to do with climate change, it is all about the fact that EV's are just far superior to ICE vehicles.

Expand full comment

People like you keep telling me how superior they are, yet I still don't have one. How can that be? How can I not listen to you rather than make my own decisions? It's a mystery.

Expand full comment

Problem is, EVs are only "superior" if you have a reliable source of charging power. If you had to take a long trip and tow your generator and fuel around with your EV, you'd be right back where you started.

But I think the biggest objection is the attempt to legislate and subsidise EVs - very few people would object if EVs were simply available on the market as an option, at a level playing field, and if it makes sense for your situation then you go ahead and buy one.

Expand full comment

The range of the more expensive EV's is comparable to similar sized gas vehicles. And the cost of those EV's is declining. With ample charging locations that is not an issue except in unusual locations, and that will fade away with increased adoption of EV's. Recognize without power you will not get gas either. The small generator/fuel or solar panels would be for emergency home charging if you are concerned about a major grid failure, i.e. hurricane, tornado and it would simultaneously provide emergency home power.

Initially to get a new tech into the mass production phases, subsidies are rational. After that I agree, leave it to the free market. I am not for compelling anyone to get an EV. I drive an ICE vehicle and don't want to buy an EV - I can't afford it. At most if climate change is an issue then the rational response is to apply a general Revenue Neutral Carbon Fee & Dividend, including on imports, and then let the market sort it out. Lot's of people cry "no carbon taxes" and are so foolish not to realize how heavily they are being effectively taxed with immense unheard-of-ever subsidies on idiotic wind & solar installations that CAN'T compete in a free market. Including in Republican states like Florida & Texas.

Expand full comment

they can only achieve "superiority" because of massive tax subisidies

Expand full comment

Sure - how’s that curly extension cord working out for you?

Hang on - you must have missed the </sarc> from your post: Electrical grid more reliable than the fossil fuel grid? Really?

The electrical grid is reliable because of fossil fuels, or you can have nuclear if you really want large scale reliability.

Industry and domestic appliances became electrified BECAUSE the grid became reliable, but now your preferred policies will make the grid unreliable (ask the Texans about wind in winter), and so electrifying everything at ever increasing costs is going to go into reverse.

Remember when they said nuclear electricity would be too cheap to meter? But shrieking lefties made sure that never became reality, and so the people who installed all-electric heating had to revert to gas, oil, logs…..

I would *LOVE* to have an electric vehicle for fun, like a Tesla roadster, but for everyday use, you can stick EV’s where the sun don’t shine (because it doesn’t always shine, just like Texas doesn’t always have wind).

So - superior in theory, sucky in practice.

Expand full comment

Extension cord? Model S @ EPA 405miles range vs Mustang Mach 1 @ 288miles range. Definitely those who do a lot of long distance travel in the large sparsely populated areas of US, Canada, Australia would want an ICE vehicle at this time. That will gradually diminish with widespread adoption of charging stations. Almost all light vehicle travel is in close proximity to cities. And even those who want to do a lot of distance travel, once the charging infrastructure is in place, you have to consider whether you are willing to spend 6X as much on fuel, an amount as you know is rapidly increasing. And much higher amounts on maintenance. Much lower reliability. And much lower total vehicle mileage.

Indeed fossil fuels are integral to a reliable grid. Nuclear & hydro are also very reliable but expensive to use in reserve. Just like Off-Grid you will have an expensive diesel for your main generator and if it goes down you have a cheap gas generator for temporary supply. You would likely always want some supply of liquid fuels for inexpensive backup when a generating plant or transmission line goes offline. An insignificant amount that can be replaced with nuclear methanol at some point if fossil is too expensive or ludicrously banned.

I'm well aware of how wind & solar have made the grid unreliable. They are idiotic to use except in odd niche applications like Off-grid homes or on a diesel grid to reduce expensive fuel consumption. Or if you have ample reservoir hydro and a good wind or solar resource.

Actually some nobody said FUSION power would be "too cheap to meter". Engineering analysis had always placed nuclear generation at similar cost to coal generation. New factory built reactors stand to be the lowest cost generation.

Go to DragTimes on Youtube and see how superior the Model S Plaid is to ICE vehicles. They usually ban them from competition due to how badly they beat big gas guzzling ICE vehicles.

There is no rational reason you would not an EV for regular use once the cost comes down more and the charging infrastructure is in place. Unless you are an ICE enthusiast i.e. gearhead. Nothing wrong with that.

This is all going to become mute with Level 5 self-driving imminent. You would be wasting large amounts of your time sitting at the wheel of your ICE vehicle. And most people will likely abandon personal vehicles for robotaxis. No way personal ownership can compete with that except if you want a truck to move a lot of material.

Expand full comment

I'll remember that everytime I see a Tesla by the side of the highway- something that happens with depressing frequency around here.

Expand full comment

I doubt that. It is much easier to plan & predict your energy requirements with a Tesla than an ICE vehicle. If people are to stupid to read their display and plan their trip then they will more likely run out of gas in an ICE vehicle. And if you are low you can greatly extend range on an EV by going at ~25mph.

Expand full comment

But the EVs are charged with electricity that comes mostly from fossil fuels… no fossil fuels, no electricity. It is narcissistic - the ‘emissions’ are merely moved from the tailpipe to the power station AND because of transmission losses, losses in the inverter/charger and battery an EV will cause more ‘emissions’. So it’s just, ‘look at me’ am I not beautiful?

Expand full comment

According to Miss Anna-Lena Baerbock, now somewhat shockingly in charge of Germany, is that electricity comes from the outlet where it’s stored. No joke. She thinks the grid saves it somehow. No mention that it’s from burning fossil fuels anyways 🤪

Expand full comment

She sounds shockingly stupid.

Expand full comment

🤣😂

Expand full comment

EV's can be supplied with nuclear electricity. Ultimately only nuclear is capable of replacing fossil fuels, and it must anyway because fossil fuels have limited economical supply. They won't be able to compete with nuclear energy, thus become obsolete, except for chemical industry, cement kilns, fertilizer etc. The supply of fission fuels is essentially unlimited, add to that there is fusion fuels. The future of energy is nuclear, the future of transportation is electric. That's not climate change, that's just economics.

Expand full comment

I think you're getting a bit carried away, and "fossil" (hydrocarbon) fuels are not going to completely disappear in the foreseeable future. However you're entirely correct that building nuclear would allow for cheap enough power that EV transport would take up a much larger segment of the market, and hydrocarbon power would naturally limit itself to niche applications due to electric just being cheaper. (As a bonus, the cost of HC fuels would also go down due to decreased demand.)

Expand full comment

I didn't say fossil fuels will disappear. Economical supplies will dwindle while demand rises dramatically (unless you are a Davos style Malthusian or Greenpeacer who believes in Energy Poverty). This will be significant over then next 50-100yr range. It would take at least 40yrs to replace all fossil with nuclear. Ultimately of course you would retain some fossil particularly for aircraft fuel, petrochemicals, cement kilns, fertilizer production, some shipping, etc. Failing to get on the mission will mean serious economic recessions due to high energy prices as is happening right now.

Expand full comment

The definition of an "economical" source of hydrocarbon fuel depends entirely on how much people are willing to pay for it. The higher the price goes, the more deposits start to become "economical" because people will pay enough to cover the costs. At a high enough price, directly using power (nuclear or solar, say) to create hydrocarbons from CO2 becomes economical. (I don't recall the price, but IIRC we have a long way to go before we reach it.)

Again, though, you're right that we ought to be getting started on nuclear as of yesterday, and the longer it takes the more bumpy things will be in the mean time -- even if I don't necessarily agree it will be quite "that bad" or take as long as you think once it gets going. (Well, it depends whether idiot "green" groups are allowed to hold it up in courts for decades, which IMO they won't be if the power situation becomes that dire.)

Expand full comment

The Prious is actually the Pious. The r was added to fool us.

Expand full comment

*Prius

Expand full comment

Priapism. Displaying. Pathological.

Expand full comment

If your love of EVs last more than four hours…..

Expand full comment

Didn’t fool you👍

Expand full comment

I am just a dog so forgive me for my ignorance, but i have a question about all these electric vehicles. Where the fuck does all the electricity come from? Asking for my pups…

Expand full comment

Power stations running on Unicorn farts.

Expand full comment

It comes from that plastic thingy on the wall, dummy!

Expand full comment

Regulatory capture. It's like solar, but the energy it harnesses is your great-grandsons way of life. Totally worth it.

Expand full comment

After they’ve finished with mRNA and billions of trillions of National debt - there won’t be any grandsons, great or not.

Expand full comment

When including the production of the vehicles, EV's actually give off more CO2 than ICE vehicles. There are two German studies that showed this.

So EV's = more CO2. That's a good thing by the way!

Expand full comment

Nuclear. The only substitute for fossil fuels.

Expand full comment

One thing we agree on. Electrify the homes with nuclear power, and save portable fuels for moving machinery. Less total pollution, and higher energy conversion efficiency than fossils at a distance for electric cars.

Expand full comment

In the 60s & 70s the Ecofascists allied themselves with Coal & Oil to spread lies about nuclear, which was/is a you say the only (current) viable alternative to fossil fuels. However it would be foolish to think that if we had gone completely nuclear the Ecofascists wouldn’t have dreamt up some other reason to blame Man for ‘destroying’ the Planet.

Expand full comment

Review previous comment from ES up back 6 or so posts👆

Expand full comment

Since the US only got about 3% of oil from Russia, I sure don't see how that justifies the tremendous rise in gas prices, but that's the story that's being given out.

Expand full comment

Oil is a global market. It doesn’t matter how much we personally buy from them, it’s how much they produce. And they produce about 15% of the world’s oil. Remove 15% of the supply of oil from the world and the global price – which we all pay – will skyrocket.

Expand full comment

LIVs don't think for themselves. They just consume what the Democrat Party propaganda arm (aka the alphabet legacy media) tells them. And there are millions of LIVs in America. (Low Information Voters)

Expand full comment

Amen to that, aaaand inflation was happening 12 months before the crisis... nothing to see here...🙄

Expand full comment

Check out the gasoline price graph. It did not start rising on Jan 20th 2021: It started rising as soon as Wall St absorbed the probability that Biden had “won,” IE around Nov 12th

Expand full comment
Mar 9, 2022·edited Mar 9, 2022

US imports about 8% oil requirement (20 million barrels a month) from Russia and about 20% of its gasoline requirement.

That will have a big effect on everything not just motor fuels, but manufactured goods, food, transportation. It is absolute madness and will have a much greater impact on USA than Russia. As oil & gas prices go up so do Russian revenues and the World is not United. Non-NATO Countries are 6.5 billion of the World populations, and big Countries like India, China, Pakistan are not cooperating with the West, not introducing sanctions -and they buy oil.

It’s a level or Government crazy only matched by the recent CoVid Calamity.

Expand full comment

All planned

Expand full comment

The price of oil has noting to do with a US ban on Russian oil. Oil is fungible aside from having light/heavy/sweet qualities that differ from nations. When the US unilaterally decided to be unfriendly to US fossil fuel - limiting permits, restricting permits, creating regulation uncertainty, limiting loans to producers - OPEC simply said hooray the completion is gone. Their production sets world prices. At the current pricing production became huge profit generators. Not as good as Apple nor Google but still great. Normally the producers roll that back into exploration and test drilling which is as risky as big pHarma's inventions but with less profit potential. A normal regular ho hum business like so many. But since the US is adverse, that money will go elsewhere to find new oil.

Energy underlies all commerce. Moving green at warp speed has resulted in missing the intended galaxy. We need a new navigator. Green will happen and was happening until some fools decided to jump start something already in progress.

Expand full comment

In around 1992 scientist were proclaiming that most of the glaciers in Glacier N.P. would be gone in 11 years. That was 30 years ago btw.

Expand full comment

it's always enlightening to revisit past eco-pocalyptic doomsday prophicies

Expand full comment

Actually worth reading the university speech of Aldous Huxley. Many many predictions about collapse and nothing has materialised.

Expand full comment

You could solve the climate “crisis” by killing off social media; Climate change is amplified more by Twitter than it is by carbon.

Forty years ago I took a degree in transportation planning/environmental planning from a pretty decent school. Most of us planned to work for local governments, or else the trucking industry. We learned quickly to be pragmatists once we understood how the world really worked. We all became incrementalists.

Occasionally we’d run across a true believer at a conference. Glassy eyed, a bit hippy, they’d drone on how people were killing the planet. We laughed at them behind their backs.

But now the hippies have taken over the discussion on social media, and the agenda at all levels if government. They blame cars, and meat, which are easy targets. They are looking for any pretext to take control and force their ideas upon us, because they believe only they can save us. We just need to believe harder.

They will fail, because they fail to understand the world as it is.

Expand full comment

Maybe those clowns wouldn't have "taken over" if we would have laughed INTO THEIR FACE instead of just behind their backs. It's the eternal dilemma of decent ppl falling victims to not so decent ppl ... unfortunately, one has to become more aggressive towards the aggressors: apocalyptic prophets ususally end up acting apocalyptic

Expand full comment
Mar 9, 2022·edited Mar 9, 2022

There is no existential problem that faces humanity that government didn't create and then appoint itself to "solve." Since government is the primary funder of education, health care and "scientific" research, we get the inherent outcome of systems. The system exists for the sake of the system.

Expand full comment

I worry about nuclear power, but for a different reason than the Davos crowd. I worry about meltdowns BECAUSE of the Davos crowd weaseling their way into plant operations. Politicians inability to stay away from anything dollar related, will, ultimately, lead to starving a nuke power plant's maintenance budget. Instead of maintaining the plant, those yahoo's will transfer the money to their cousin's paving company that builds $50 millon/mile bike lanes.

Pacific Gas and Electric power lines has burned down large swaths of Northern California, specifically because the politicians got involved with the operation of power distribution. Political kickbacks led to deferred maintenance and presto, cataclysmic results where, magically, no one is responsible. Don't think feckless morons like Gavin Newsom won't get involved with nuclear power, with catastrophic results. It's almost like we need to baby proof the earth to protect us from our "leaders".

Expand full comment

Modern GenIII & GenIV nuclear reactors are almost impossible to meltdown. The Davos crowd could "force" a meltdown, like they did with TMI, see, Was TMI a movie script?:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q5uXzM_azWI

That would be far more difficult with modern reactors. Meltdowns due to incompetence would be really, really difficult and easy to prevent. If our management is that bad you will need to ground all aircraft, get rid of all biological, chemical & nuclear weapons. Close all bridges. And close thousands of dangerous chemical plants. And don't go to any hospital.

Expand full comment

Those who calculate such things know a modern nuclear reactor is well overdesigned with a much lower failure rate/catastrophic event threshold than any other form of energy. The various refinery fires or well leaks are testimony to much more harm than, say TMI. Smaller reactors with a smaller event threshold would be practical answers for neighborhood power should a modest effort be applied. Made in factories, shipped to a site, buried for 25 years an recycled.

Expand full comment

Yes, Gen4 reactors basically CAN'T melt down without major and deliberate modification to them, and if they're built properly then even a meltdown will just leak down to an underground containment where it can be covered in concrete and sit for the next 1000 years until it's safe again. (No explosion, just a literal "melt" and fall into the containment below.)

Expand full comment

Now that we're realizing we've been lied to by everyone in power for so long it's the norm... hard to sort where to go from here. The control they have, needs to stop, needs to be interrupted. Daunting, especially when we have kids and future grand kids that deserve protecting from all the lies and literal abuse from our own govt, not to mention outside forces and influence. KILL YOUR TV, teach them to read voraciously, teach critical thinking skills. Be immune to the propaganda they call msm news... it's a rough time in history... realllllly ugly.

Expand full comment

zero carbon = zero covid = ... = zero humans = ZERO BRAINS!

(Misanthropic) Environmentalism and digital Totalitarism might just be the two missing links that the tyrannies of the last century were missing to finally succeed: the former one makes u accept (or even demand) less (because decent living standard = killing the planet = own nothing and b happy: with leftist shamanism, Stalin could have embraced his communist famines as a long overdue sacrifice for overpopulated&tortured "Mother Nature") and the latter might just unplug any remaining dissent from the matrix in a heartbeat!

Expand full comment

…and if you really think about it, there isn’t enough infrastructure anywhere in the world to handle all of us plugging in our electric cars. In Canada we get warnings about high power usage in the winter on really cold nights, and in summer during really hot days, how on earth could the grid handle everyone also plugging in electric cars?? Electric cars are not the answer, only an alternative. Say, where does electricity come from anyway…?

Expand full comment
Mar 9, 2022·edited Mar 9, 2022

‘ Electric cars are not the answer…’

They are not the aim. No cars - except for the elite - is the aim, then the masses will not have the freedom that mobility from private transport brings them and so can much more easily be herded and controlled.

You are quite right about infrastructure. To replace motor fuels will require at least an additional 60% electricity generation but current grids can only handle about 5% increase in current loads. Then there is all the charging infrastructure and local upgrades to distribution and cabling to handle the load.

We live in times where those in charge are incapable of making cost/benefit analyses and see no need anyway because the cost of all these misadventures are assumed to be zero.

Expand full comment

No cars is the goal. A milepost will be limited range before you have to turn it in

Expand full comment

I'd be quite happy about no car if my transport needs were easy and cheaper. Alas, here they aren't. But they were when I lived in London or others in big cities. So in those places let the rich have their private transport, I don't care. I could do without quite well. But I'm not ready to use the bike for a a mile store trip in the snow, sorry.

Expand full comment

Well said, John!

Expand full comment

projections! "screws to putin"..... do any of the cnn von clauswitz' think xi and putin are not aware they have to come together and get off the west's financial clown car?

climate science is more whacko than covid hysterics, it has had longer to be wrong and condition its discipline to ingore reality.

climate solutions are even less effective and more unsuitable (costly, unreliable, unavailable...) than covidian virtue siugnalling.

it is the virtue they project!

life and liberty, posh!

Expand full comment

Early on in the plandemic, I started thinking about the reason behind the masks, since I knew what they were selling as science was a bald-faced lie. What did make sense was that they wanted us to wear masks to reduce our own, human, God-created, beautiful, CO2 emissions. After all, ending cows -because methane and meat bad- would only affect a small number of digressers for Pete's sake. I found a subject to test my theoretical thought on about a year ago, and asked him if what I theorized was true, would it make a difference to his mask-donning. His response - "PUT ON YOUR MASK!" I'm certain my theory is correct. And they will be resuming the mask mandates when ever they decide "we" are at risk of something. Because, WE are the problem for them.

Expand full comment

I must say i LOVE this platform and people's comments here. Diverse but with a mission to clarify and save our society. Oh, and point out idiots running the world😁

Expand full comment

You’re dead right. But you’ve got nine lives.

Expand full comment