Michael Bloomberg is giving hundreds of millions of dollars to groups that want to ban gas stoves. Last year, his private jets burned 328,000 gallons of jet fuel.
Calling out the hypocrisy of some wealthy fliers does nothing to persuade of the falsity of climate "emergency" and "crisis." Presenting facts and arguments about climate and energy is something you do pretty well, as I recall.
There is no crisis. We can mitigate the effects of climate change through technology- though climate engineering, though massive public works in hydrology etc. In fact, it is imperative we do this so billions in the global south don’t die. The liberal Malthusians want to kill billions in the name of not building anything and condemning the poor to misery!
Climate is literally just a new religion, we’ve had the tools to mitigate changing climates via hydrology for thousands of years. The very BASIS of human civilization is controlling water supplies. With the death of Christianity they want to convert people to an apocalyptic religion where instead of hope and renewal they believe in culling the poor and weak.
The argument made by a climate model falsifies the Law of the Excluded Middle (LEM) and "unit measure" where the LEM is among Aristotle's three Laws of Thought whereas "unit measure" is an axiom of probability theory and assumption of mathematical statistics. It follows that Bloomberg cannot down-regulate global temperatures by banning gas stoves.
Does anyone else remember how Bloomberg dismissed farmers during the 2020 election? He asserted that farming was so easy: you plant the corn, the corn grows, anyone can do it. He obviously had never attempted to grow a crop. His contempt for an entire class of working people astounded me. Yes, he and his cohort really do "live above it all."
im too lazy to do the math, but what is the higher emission - bloomberg's jets or global gas cooking stoves? my point is that all gas stoves and all private jets emit trivial amounts of GHG - both way under 1%. whether we scapegoat rich travelers or poor cooks, they remain scapegoats, not the real cause of excessive GHG accumulation. the largest cause is industrial heat at about 31%. and to cut that we need to develop next gen high heat output fission reactors, as robert has pointed out. many entrepreneurs and administrators need private jets to maintain their work schedule, and most of them at least in the private sector are quite valuable in the leadership productive endeavors, and this requires a portion of f2f interaction. let's stop scapegoating people who are doing their job and focus on the tasks that arent getting done.
i agree a revenue neutral approach to 'put a price on' GHG would help incentivize better energy and product choices, and i think it will be difficult to improve energy production without it. even a dividend will create some harsh burden where some sectors are more dependent on fossils and infrastructure construction more distant. the carbon tax may need additional protection of some sectors, for example there was a bill at Oregon legislature a few years ago to rebate carbon tax for people in rural counties, to compensate for longer commutes.
It is fun to point out hypocrisy... two thoughts occur
The hypocrites pay no attention
The hypocrites should be aware that their behavior causes us to rebel against their their pleadings. I’ll abandon my Ram 3500 diesel when Elon scraps his private jet and Al Gore builds a sea wall around his beach house.
Agreed. Calling out hypocrisy carries with it the danger of the hypocritical living within their fantasies. It does not solve the core problem, the absurdity of vilifying carbon, the basis of all life nor does it drive a stake through the essence of the energy debate, that green energy programs can lead to an affluent society.
I wonder if some of these folks might have a “We pay for carbon offsets to cover our fuel burn” excuse ready for press? Setting aside the fact that’s just another log on the fire of “We rich can do as we wish because we can afford it but you little folk must do as we say because you can’t,” I strongly suspect that the offset market is rife with fraud and little different from the modern day version of medieval indulgences sold by the church.
Why do you believe what the greenies tell you? Are governments always right?
Do your own research. As Lee ask which IPCC scenario do you subscribe to and what is it’s estimated likelihood as opposed to others? Why is that many of those countries you mention, are buying as much cheap coal as they can find? This winter’s energy crisis in europe rang the death knell of the climate change movement. Now we can start looking at real energy solutions not the fairy tales people like have been forcing down our throats.
To which IPCC scenario do you subscribe, Herb? It seems to me that there is more acceptance, even among some climate howlers, that the non-catastrophic scenarios are more likely.
Calling out the hypocrisy of some wealthy fliers does nothing to persuade of the falsity of climate "emergency" and "crisis." Presenting facts and arguments about climate and energy is something you do pretty well, as I recall.
There is no crisis. We can mitigate the effects of climate change through technology- though climate engineering, though massive public works in hydrology etc. In fact, it is imperative we do this so billions in the global south don’t die. The liberal Malthusians want to kill billions in the name of not building anything and condemning the poor to misery!
Climate is literally just a new religion, we’ve had the tools to mitigate changing climates via hydrology for thousands of years. The very BASIS of human civilization is controlling water supplies. With the death of Christianity they want to convert people to an apocalyptic religion where instead of hope and renewal they believe in culling the poor and weak.
Throw in all of their 40,000 square foot homes (5-10 each), yachts, helicopters etc, and the carbon footprint is much higher.
'i
The argument made by a climate model falsifies the Law of the Excluded Middle (LEM) and "unit measure" where the LEM is among Aristotle's three Laws of Thought whereas "unit measure" is an axiom of probability theory and assumption of mathematical statistics. It follows that Bloomberg cannot down-regulate global temperatures by banning gas stoves.
Does anyone else remember how Bloomberg dismissed farmers during the 2020 election? He asserted that farming was so easy: you plant the corn, the corn grows, anyone can do it. He obviously had never attempted to grow a crop. His contempt for an entire class of working people astounded me. Yes, he and his cohort really do "live above it all."
It’s easy on Farmville so why is it do hard in real life? Wink wink.
Great post Robert.
We chose your piece on WY wind and eagles for our first “Cross Post” this week. Your work is solid.
We’re going deeper on this issue. To expose something few see. Not in our next piece (which is coming this Friday); the one coming after that.
Keep throwing rocks. Goliath is a giant made of clay.
The Origin of 'Hypocrite':
This common word has a dramatic origin story from Greece.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/hypocrite-meaning-origin
im too lazy to do the math, but what is the higher emission - bloomberg's jets or global gas cooking stoves? my point is that all gas stoves and all private jets emit trivial amounts of GHG - both way under 1%. whether we scapegoat rich travelers or poor cooks, they remain scapegoats, not the real cause of excessive GHG accumulation. the largest cause is industrial heat at about 31%. and to cut that we need to develop next gen high heat output fission reactors, as robert has pointed out. many entrepreneurs and administrators need private jets to maintain their work schedule, and most of them at least in the private sector are quite valuable in the leadership productive endeavors, and this requires a portion of f2f interaction. let's stop scapegoating people who are doing their job and focus on the tasks that arent getting done.
i agree a revenue neutral approach to 'put a price on' GHG would help incentivize better energy and product choices, and i think it will be difficult to improve energy production without it. even a dividend will create some harsh burden where some sectors are more dependent on fossils and infrastructure construction more distant. the carbon tax may need additional protection of some sectors, for example there was a bill at Oregon legislature a few years ago to rebate carbon tax for people in rural counties, to compensate for longer commutes.
It is fun to point out hypocrisy... two thoughts occur
The hypocrites pay no attention
The hypocrites should be aware that their behavior causes us to rebel against their their pleadings. I’ll abandon my Ram 3500 diesel when Elon scraps his private jet and Al Gore builds a sea wall around his beach house.
The hypocrisy is a feature, not a bug.
https://theupheaval.substack.com/p/its-not-hypocrisy-youre-just-powerless?utm_source=substack&utm_campaign=post_embed&utm_medium=web
Calling out hypocrisy has a downside in that it reinforces the morality, values or principles that the hypocrites have violated.
Agreed. Calling out hypocrisy carries with it the danger of the hypocritical living within their fantasies. It does not solve the core problem, the absurdity of vilifying carbon, the basis of all life nor does it drive a stake through the essence of the energy debate, that green energy programs can lead to an affluent society.
We have lots of stakes. And heavy mallets.
We don’t expect to kill all the zombies out there in one year.
But we do eventually. The more subscribers the more stake holders and people with heavy mallets working together.
Robert, I used your $5+ billion data in a talk I gave to about 100 people on Thursday. Slides at https://hargraves.s3.amazonaws.com/KendalNuclear.pdf Bob
Good job Robert - love the article - feudalism is back in full swing!
You have just got to love the hypocrisy, but when it comes to making mo' money - everything is fair game, including us ....
from one of the little people in fly over country ....
(Is that anywhere else other than the city, so we don't matter? Just asking! )
Even Bill Maher has come around to this way of thinking now. Slow and steady progress...
https://youtu.be/63KXfwC9BdU
Slow and steady. Yep. That’s our plan, too.
I wonder if some of these folks might have a “We pay for carbon offsets to cover our fuel burn” excuse ready for press? Setting aside the fact that’s just another log on the fire of “We rich can do as we wish because we can afford it but you little folk must do as we say because you can’t,” I strongly suspect that the offset market is rife with fraud and little different from the modern day version of medieval indulgences sold by the church.
FYI it looks like you’re replying using entirely new posts as opposed to simply hitting the “reply” button under the one to which you wish to respond.
Ok, Herb. We can do it in four words. We don’t even need a full sentence.
Copernicus.
Galileo.
Catholic Church.
That’s why.
If you don’t get it yet, you will.
Unless you run away because you fear knowledge and ideology it might threaten.
Don’t do that. Keep an open mind.
This article isn’t about the science. It’s about the hypocrisy. And it’s about something else we will write about in ~2 weeks.
The Narcissist Class ain’t doing jack squat.
What exactly do you mean by “The IPCC reports?”
Can you provide any specific if examples of where Bryce is wrong?
https://greenleapforward.substack.com/p/can-we-all-please-get-on-the-same
Thanks for the link. That’s the Summary for Policymakers from Working Group 1.
Maybe I misunderstood to whom you were directing your other comment to? Not Bryce it seems now.
Why do you believe what the greenies tell you? Are governments always right?
Do your own research. As Lee ask which IPCC scenario do you subscribe to and what is it’s estimated likelihood as opposed to others? Why is that many of those countries you mention, are buying as much cheap coal as they can find? This winter’s energy crisis in europe rang the death knell of the climate change movement. Now we can start looking at real energy solutions not the fairy tales people like have been forcing down our throats.
To which IPCC scenario do you subscribe, Herb? It seems to me that there is more acceptance, even among some climate howlers, that the non-catastrophic scenarios are more likely.