Commentary #6: Global Warming

[Eric Schexnayder]

Good catch . Here is the simple explanation by example. Consider tinting car windows. The first sheet transmits 50% of light. A second sheet same thing but it’s 50% of 50% or light is reduced to 25%. A third sheet cuts that by half and so on. After awhile more sheets don’t do anything.

Makes sense. I think we are saying the same thing for the most part. Given a fixed amount of energy and limited absorption capacity (or transmission in your sheet example), each additional unit has less to absorb, and therefore... absorbs less.

Can't believe I never thought of it that way.

[Mark Rippetoe]

https://www.realclearinvestigations....cid=777a90f752

The climate dissenters are pressing their case as President Biden, United Nations officials, and climate action advocates in media and academia argue that the “settled science” demands a wholesale societal transformation. That means halving U.S. carbon emissions by 2035 and achieving net zero emissions by 2050 to stave off the “existential threat” of human-induced climate change.

In response last month, more than 1,600 scientists, among them two Nobel physics laureates, Clauser and Ivar Giaever of Norway, signed a declaration stating that there is no climate emergency, and that climate advocacy has devolved into mass hysteria. The skeptics say the radical transformation of entire societies is marching forth without a full debate, based on dubious scientific claims amplified by knee-jerk journalism.

Many of these climate skeptics reject the optimistic scenarios of economic prosperity promised by advocates of a net-zero world order. They say the global emissions-reduction targets are not achievable on such an accelerated timetable without lowering living standards and unleashing worldwide political unrest.

“What advocates of climate action are trying to do is scare the bejesus out of the public so they’ll think we need to [act] fast,” said Steven Koonin, author of “Unsettled: What Climate Science Tells Us, What It Doesn’t, and Why It Matters.”

_________________________________________________

And this is comforting: Lots of Red Ink at the Fed | Mises Wire

The Federal Reserve has officially reported a loss of $57 billion for the first six months of 2023. Quite a number! So the “Federal Reserve Banks Combined Quarterly Financial Report as of June 30, 2023” (CQFR)—a little-known document—is especially notable for its red ink. We can anticipate an annual loss of over $100 billion for 2023 and for the losses to continue into 2024. 1

How does a central bank, especially the world’s greatest and most important central bank, lose tens of billions of dollars in six months? An average person, influenced by the mystique of the Fed, might understandably be baffled by this fact.

[stevein7]

Hi Rip and fellow travellers. I am not going to argue the case for or against catastrophic climate change (which seems to come down to the rate of change) due to human activity. I am going to say that maybe the case actually favours US capitalism. It means that the price of oil goes UP, which is what the US wants. also it provides a cover for austerity for the masses, which is likely another positive for US capitalism. Maybe all of this does not really work, maybe there is no real way out for capitalism short of another round of devaluation (something on the scale of world war) to reset the accumulation process, but the attempt will be made. I understand many of you are unfamiliar with the critique of capitalism as I am setting it out, its need for periodic "resets", but maybe someone out there reading this gets it and can show me the error of my thinking or even confirm it.

[Barry Charles]

Hi Rip and fellow travellers. I am not going to argue the case for or against catastrophic climate change ( which seems to come down to the rate of change) due to human activity. I am going to say that maybe the case actually favours US capitalism. It means that the price of oil goes UP, which is what the US wants. also it provides a cover for austerity for the masses, which is likely another positive for US capitalism. Maybe all of this does not really work, maybe there is no real way out for capitalism short of another round of devaluation (something on the scale of world war) to reset the accumulation process, but the attempt will be made. I understand many of you are unfamiliar with the critique of capitalism as I am setting it out, its need for periodic "resets", but maybe someone out there reading this gets it and can show me the error of my thinking or even confirm it.

First you need to understand the principle of cause and effect. Really understand it. Then reconsider if capitalism causes climate change.

[Jovan Dragisic]

First you need to understand the principle of cause and effect. Really understand it. Then reconsider if capitalism causes climate change.

He didn’t say that capitalism causes climate change, he pointed to the possibility that the fake climate change movement is a positive to the capitalists running the US because they can use it as a pretext for raising energy prices and enforcing austerity on the population, among other things.

[Barry Charles]

I re-read it. You could be right, maybe the OP can clarify? In any case capitalism thriving from an embellished or invented threat happens all the time.

[Eric Schexnayder]

He didn’t say that capitalism causes climate change, he pointed to the possibility that the fake climate change movement is a positive to the capitalists running the US because they can use it as a pretext for raising energy prices and enforcing austerity on the population, among other things.

Who are these "capitalists", eh?

Seriously though, I think the focus on climate change has been the Green energy folks' only means of entry into an otherwise saturated energy market. I can tell you the conventional energy industry is not thrilled about it, though some have embraced it as a way to keep petrochemical products relevant.

[Jovan Dragisic]

Who are these "capitalists", eh?

To be fair, the OP didn’t use the term capitalists, it is my lazy interpretation. The proper interpretation would be US capitalism, but that is also pretty vague. We will let the OP say something about this, if he finds it interesting enough to comment further.

[Mark Rippetoe]

Nobel Prize Winner Who Doesn't Believe Climate Crisis Has Speech Canceled

They just don't want to hear it, so they don't let you speak.

Nobel Prize winner Dr. John Clauser, who has disputed issues surrounding climate change, recently was told he would not be speaking to the International Monetary Fund (IMF), according to Co2 Coalition, a non-profit organization that believes carbon dioxide is beneficial to society.

"Nobel Laureate (Physics 2022) Dr. John Clauser was to present a seminar on climate models to the IMF on Thursday and now his talk has been summarily cancelled," the Co2 Coalition said in a statement. "According to an email he received last evening, the Director of the Independent Evaluation Office of the International Monetary Fund, Pablo Moreno, had read the flyer for John's July 25 zoom talk and summarily and immediately canceled the talk. Technically, it was 'postponed,'" the statement added.

The announcement by the Co2 Coalition came shortly after Clauser made comments disputing climate change during a speech in Seoul, South Korea, at Quantum Korea 2023, an international conference centered on the global trends of quantum ecosystem innovations from the academic, government and private sectors.

[golftdibrad]

another good one from the cat

a climate of climate censorship - by el gato malo

the “climate consensus” has been a fabrication all along, a set of determined data adulteration of not just the base facts, models, and science, but of the representation of the views among scientists.

but a simple fact is true: debate is science and this “mere patent clerks must not be allowed to opine on physics, this is the province of experts!” appeal to authority cum omerta has never been a sound endeavor in any rigorous scientific sense.

but it’s a helluva way to build a guild system and push for technocratic totalitarianism.

they have bought media and science journals alike to demand this. they have taken control of grant allocation and thereby the near entirety of academic and governmental practice and position. agree or starve. the appearance of consensus is all and dissent must not be brooked.