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."
I don’t need to do my own research. I rely on the research, endorsed by every single government on the planet. If you don’t choose to rely on that research, then show me your research. I always have an open mind, and if you can demonstrate in rigorous detail that climate change is not happening or that it’s not a threat or that it’s not caused largely by the burning of fossil fuels nothing would make me happier than to see your evidence, so please show it to me.
The problem is not that climate change is happening but that it is being used by the $trillionaire rulers as a giant Malthusian scam to impoverish and subjugate most of the World's population.
Climate change is easily dealt with by using rational methods. Since the rulers don't want to solve it, they need to milk it for their nefarious purposes to the limit, they are using the most absurd irrational methods to address the problem. That is the REAL issue.
Please explain how your comment relates to what I’ve written. Every government on the planet agrees that we have to stop the burning of fossil fuels to prevent an unlivable planet. Do you challenge that? If so, what is your evidence?
The part that I challenge is that the methods of carbon mitigation they are advocating are ridiculous and ineffective. Indeed the only way they are effective is by enforced impoverishment of us common folk.
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.
That's not the point. The point is the ruling class, the uber-wealthy, are advocating a rationing system to address GHG emissions. Rationing that only applies to the poor & middle class, not them. That is entirely unethical. Rationing systems when used to be ethical and acceptable must applying equally to all persons within the nation that it is regulated. So during wartime people were allowed 2lb butter per week, that's everyone the same, not just the poor or middle class.
The simple truth is rationing is a TERRIBLE way to address GHG emissions. That's why even the most honest & sincere (one of the few) climate scientists, James Hansen, insists that the Revenue Neutral Carbon Fee & Dividend is the proper means to address it. That is not rationing. If you want to buy a fuel guzzling Hummer, you can buy one. If you want to fly a jet, you can do so. You will just pay more for your fuel, and those who use excess fossil fuel, like the wealthy, will subsidize those who use the least, i.e. the poor or middle class. That is the exact opposite of the carbon trading scams, like Cap & Trade or Net Zero, that the ruling class are foisting upon us. They punish the poor & middle class while make the rich even wealthier, while being entirely ineffective against emissions. Cap & Trade has been a dismal failure, so they pretend they didn't do that, and now push a new version called Net Zero.
The CF&D is a free market approach. The idea of CF&D is increased costs of burning higher carbon fuels will incentivize a switch to lower carbon fuels, i.e. gas instead of coal, methanol instead of diesel/gasoline, nuclear & hydro instead of gas. This system only works if government doesn't interfere with the market as it is now doing to a diabolical extent by endless preferential subsidies, exemptions and mandates for the ineffective wind & solar energy supply. This has terribly distorted electricity markets. A total failure.
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.
Even the most optimistic of the IPCC scenarios calls for temperatures to increase for decades. Look at what is happening with temperatures at 1.2° C above historic levels now. Tipping points, such as the release of methane from permafrost, the die off of the Amazon, the melting of summer ice in the Arctic will have devastating destabilizing influences all over the world many times worse than what we’re experiencing today unless we drastically reduce the burning of fossil fuels. That’s just science. All the talk of billionaires burning fuel is just a diversion to keep people from recognizing what the fossil fuel industry has known for 40 years and covered up - which is that fossil fuels increase CO2 and methane, raising temperatures in the atmosphere, leading to the kind of havoc we see everywhere.
And yet it is these very same billionaires that caused climate change in the first place by demanding adherence to their chosen fuels, namely oil/gas/coal/wind/solar/agrofuels/biomass/hydrogen rather than the fuels that ACTUALLY work to reduce emissions namely uranium/thorium/methanol/DME. If these cretins hadn't launched their crusade against nuclear in the 1970's the coal consumption at present would be a small fraction of what it is now (and still growing). By 1974 the US was starting a new nuclear power plant every month. The billionaire & trillionaire Malthusians just couldn't allow that.
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.
Give me one reason why I should believe what you say when every government in the world - on the left, on the right, big, small, rich, poor has signed on to every word of the IPCC reports that completely contradict every thing you say in your post. It’s really remarkable the degree to which people employ all kinds of extreme and desperate rationalizations to insulate themselves from the truth. But if living in a bubble, makes you happier go for it.
Fine. I’m happy to say they’re hypocrites. So what? The real question is what are we collectively doing to address the climate crisis? They are doing a lot. So I don’t care if they’re hypocrites - we’re all hypocrites!
And almost everyone cares that they are hypocrites. Their incredible hypocrisy makes it obvious that they don't give a damn about climate change it is just another crisis, like their Covid bioweapon, they are using to subjugate the World population and enforce their wacky Malthusian Dogma down our collective throats. Truly evil people.
Perhaps you could give me an example of a country that criminalizes nuclear or Hydro? And if wind and solar are nutty, why are capitalist investors in almost every country in the world pouring record amounts of investment into those technologies? Do you know something they don’t? If so, what is it?
Most Western countries criminalize nuclear, obviously. The ones that don't are very successful. Like the UAE. Starting from scratch, in 2012, with ZERO nuclear expertise, ZERO trained workforce, construction crews and minimal industrial infrastructure built for a total cost of $24.4B , 4 South Korean APR-1400's in 12 yrs for 5.6GW or $4.8B/GW-yr output @ 90% or 44 TWh/yr. That's 103% of Australia's current total annual wind & solar production. At $24.4B/$50B = 1/2 the cost of Australia's wind/solar. Not counting the additional $20B in transmission infrastructure they just announced to facilitate their wind/solar delusion. Which will actually cost more like $30B. With at least another $10B being planned.
An example of the opposite approach to the UAE, Germany. In 1999 Germany was 31% clean, zero emissions Nuclear electricity, 170TWh/yr. At that time they started their program to replace Nuclear with Wind & Solar, buffered with Russian gas. Now after having spent over $500B on wind and solar since then they are now at 28.8% wind + solar, 165TWh/yr. Zero achievement after $500B down the sewer. If Germany has spent $230B on Nuclear power they would now be 100% clean Nuclear electricity. 3X the results at <1/2 the cost. And now most of Germany's wind & solar will have to be replaced over the next decade. And of course they would now be much more resilient to Putin's natural gas pipeline blackmail.
Listen to Nuclear Engineer Dr. Robert Zubrin explain it to you, listen and learn:
Nuclear Energy, Space and Humanity's Future | Robert Zubrin | The Human Progress Podcast Ep. 30:
And of course capitalist investors are throwing money into wind & solar. 100% due to unheard-of-ever, incredible subsidies, mandates and exemptions. Even Warren Buffet admitted the only reason he invests in Wind farms is due to the giant tax credits.
That's very nice but what they say is largely insignificant because it in reality Climate Change is ALL ABOUT a successful, rational, carbon change mitigation strategy. That is the elephant in the room. And at that the IPCC has failed so dismally that their scientific integrity has been demolished. Corruption is blatant and obvious.
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.
What a tired and cynical tactic tactic, to avoid discussion of the cataclysmic impact that accelerating climate change will have on everyone on the planet, while attempting to stir up resentment against these billionaires who are supporting effect of climate action. My criticism of Bloomberg and Jobs and others is that they’re giving much too little of their immense fortunes for climate action. Who gives a damn how they travel around the world? The fossil fuel in the street must be phased out as quickly as possible, as each barrel of oil that is burnt raises temperatures and brings us closer to an unlivable Climate.
Safe to assume you have removed and refrain from using all products from your life that rely on carbon energy? ie do you make your own clothes, hunt/grow and process your own food, abstain from modern day refrigeration.
Oh wait! You’re posting on an electronic device and expecting others to read your post on an electronic device most of which are ultimate powered by carbon energy.
You sound like a serf from the middle ages saying his Lords and masters knows better than him so it completely fine for them to live in the castles while he lives in the pig sty. The point is if these hypocrites actually believed what they say they just wouldn't fly private jets. And they aren’t alone, even on a tiny scale individuals who argue for reduced carbon will say that their travel is essential, an argument I had with a climate scientist. He absolutely has to fly 1000s of miles to do his job, according to him. His hypocrisy went completely over his head. That's even before we get to your hyperbolic 'the world is gonna end' narrative. We've lived in a world that was much, much warmer than now, and thrived. We've also lived in a world much, much colder than now and didn't do so well. Why is warmer climate bad? Much less ppl die from heat than cold, that's even assuming we make any difference, which Is debatable, although because all the data is corrupted nobody is really sure if we do or not. Please don't reply 99% of scientists say it does because that is also not true but a manufacturered number.
I agree that this tactic feels a bit cringey. But there is a genuine problem this hypocrisy illustrates.
To quote Yuval Noah Harari, “One of history’s few iron laws is that luxuries tend to become necessities and to spawn new obligations. Once people get used to a certain luxury, they take it for granted. Then they begin to count on it.”
The point is that there is no actual evidence that high standard of living energy secure people have any intention of decreasing their standard of living because of climate change worries. The rich, which includes the entire academic class of western countries, are mainly prescribing energy poverty for the lower classes and global poor, while subsidizing top down “solutions” that they perceive will save them from CO2 with no risk to them, such as electrical vehicles and windmills in someone else’s neighborhood.
This is why rich westerners are content consigning Africans to energy poverty by expecting them to skip the conventional energy ladder of grid scale electrification with coal, followed by increased standard of living and transitioning to cleaner sources--- a process every other developed economy has followed. Africans rightly call it eco-imperialism.
Also it is easy to continue to improve living conditions Worldwide, both in Developing Nations and Western Nations by using rational methods of fossil fuel replacement. Malthusianism is not needed and not wanted. As long as nutty scams like wind & solar, hydrogen, agrofuels, ITER, CCS, biomass burning are promoted rather than the rational options of nuclear, hydro & methanol with electrification of transport done in a rational effective way instead of the current irrational way.
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.
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
I don’t need to do my own research. I rely on the research, endorsed by every single government on the planet. If you don’t choose to rely on that research, then show me your research. I always have an open mind, and if you can demonstrate in rigorous detail that climate change is not happening or that it’s not a threat or that it’s not caused largely by the burning of fossil fuels nothing would make me happier than to see your evidence, so please show it to me.
The problem is not that climate change is happening but that it is being used by the $trillionaire rulers as a giant Malthusian scam to impoverish and subjugate most of the World's population.
Climate change is easily dealt with by using rational methods. Since the rulers don't want to solve it, they need to milk it for their nefarious purposes to the limit, they are using the most absurd irrational methods to address the problem. That is the REAL issue.
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.
Please explain how your comment relates to what I’ve written. Every government on the planet agrees that we have to stop the burning of fossil fuels to prevent an unlivable planet. Do you challenge that? If so, what is your evidence?
The part that I challenge is that the methods of carbon mitigation they are advocating are ridiculous and ineffective. Indeed the only way they are effective is by enforced impoverishment of us common folk.
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.
That's not the point. The point is the ruling class, the uber-wealthy, are advocating a rationing system to address GHG emissions. Rationing that only applies to the poor & middle class, not them. That is entirely unethical. Rationing systems when used to be ethical and acceptable must applying equally to all persons within the nation that it is regulated. So during wartime people were allowed 2lb butter per week, that's everyone the same, not just the poor or middle class.
The simple truth is rationing is a TERRIBLE way to address GHG emissions. That's why even the most honest & sincere (one of the few) climate scientists, James Hansen, insists that the Revenue Neutral Carbon Fee & Dividend is the proper means to address it. That is not rationing. If you want to buy a fuel guzzling Hummer, you can buy one. If you want to fly a jet, you can do so. You will just pay more for your fuel, and those who use excess fossil fuel, like the wealthy, will subsidize those who use the least, i.e. the poor or middle class. That is the exact opposite of the carbon trading scams, like Cap & Trade or Net Zero, that the ruling class are foisting upon us. They punish the poor & middle class while make the rich even wealthier, while being entirely ineffective against emissions. Cap & Trade has been a dismal failure, so they pretend they didn't do that, and now push a new version called Net Zero.
The CF&D is a free market approach. The idea of CF&D is increased costs of burning higher carbon fuels will incentivize a switch to lower carbon fuels, i.e. gas instead of coal, methanol instead of diesel/gasoline, nuclear & hydro instead of gas. This system only works if government doesn't interfere with the market as it is now doing to a diabolical extent by endless preferential subsidies, exemptions and mandates for the ineffective wind & solar energy supply. This has terribly distorted electricity markets. A total failure.
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.
Even the most optimistic of the IPCC scenarios calls for temperatures to increase for decades. Look at what is happening with temperatures at 1.2° C above historic levels now. Tipping points, such as the release of methane from permafrost, the die off of the Amazon, the melting of summer ice in the Arctic will have devastating destabilizing influences all over the world many times worse than what we’re experiencing today unless we drastically reduce the burning of fossil fuels. That’s just science. All the talk of billionaires burning fuel is just a diversion to keep people from recognizing what the fossil fuel industry has known for 40 years and covered up - which is that fossil fuels increase CO2 and methane, raising temperatures in the atmosphere, leading to the kind of havoc we see everywhere.
And yet it is these very same billionaires that caused climate change in the first place by demanding adherence to their chosen fuels, namely oil/gas/coal/wind/solar/agrofuels/biomass/hydrogen rather than the fuels that ACTUALLY work to reduce emissions namely uranium/thorium/methanol/DME. If these cretins hadn't launched their crusade against nuclear in the 1970's the coal consumption at present would be a small fraction of what it is now (and still growing). By 1974 the US was starting a new nuclear power plant every month. The billionaire & trillionaire Malthusians just couldn't allow that.
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
Give me one reason why I should believe what you say when every government in the world - on the left, on the right, big, small, rich, poor has signed on to every word of the IPCC reports that completely contradict every thing you say in your post. It’s really remarkable the degree to which people employ all kinds of extreme and desperate rationalizations to insulate themselves from the truth. But if living in a bubble, makes you happier go for it.
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.
Fine. I’m happy to say they’re hypocrites. So what? The real question is what are we collectively doing to address the climate crisis? They are doing a lot. So I don’t care if they’re hypocrites - we’re all hypocrites!
The Narcissist Class ain’t doing jack squat.
"They are doing a lot"?!!!!?
What? Pushing nutty wind, solar, hydrogen, CCS, agrofuels, ITER, biomass burning scams while criminalizing effective solutions like nuclear, hydro & methanol.
And almost everyone cares that they are hypocrites. Their incredible hypocrisy makes it obvious that they don't give a damn about climate change it is just another crisis, like their Covid bioweapon, they are using to subjugate the World population and enforce their wacky Malthusian Dogma down our collective throats. Truly evil people.
Perhaps you could give me an example of a country that criminalizes nuclear or Hydro? And if wind and solar are nutty, why are capitalist investors in almost every country in the world pouring record amounts of investment into those technologies? Do you know something they don’t? If so, what is it?
Most Western countries criminalize nuclear, obviously. The ones that don't are very successful. Like the UAE. Starting from scratch, in 2012, with ZERO nuclear expertise, ZERO trained workforce, construction crews and minimal industrial infrastructure built for a total cost of $24.4B , 4 South Korean APR-1400's in 12 yrs for 5.6GW or $4.8B/GW-yr output @ 90% or 44 TWh/yr. That's 103% of Australia's current total annual wind & solar production. At $24.4B/$50B = 1/2 the cost of Australia's wind/solar. Not counting the additional $20B in transmission infrastructure they just announced to facilitate their wind/solar delusion. Which will actually cost more like $30B. With at least another $10B being planned.
An example of the opposite approach to the UAE, Germany. In 1999 Germany was 31% clean, zero emissions Nuclear electricity, 170TWh/yr. At that time they started their program to replace Nuclear with Wind & Solar, buffered with Russian gas. Now after having spent over $500B on wind and solar since then they are now at 28.8% wind + solar, 165TWh/yr. Zero achievement after $500B down the sewer. If Germany has spent $230B on Nuclear power they would now be 100% clean Nuclear electricity. 3X the results at <1/2 the cost. And now most of Germany's wind & solar will have to be replaced over the next decade. And of course they would now be much more resilient to Putin's natural gas pipeline blackmail.
Listen to Nuclear Engineer Dr. Robert Zubrin explain it to you, listen and learn:
Nuclear Energy, Space and Humanity's Future | Robert Zubrin | The Human Progress Podcast Ep. 30:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CMfdtyTpPhU
https://www.humanprogress.org/robert-zubrin-the-human-progress-podcast-ep-30-transcript/
How to liberate nuclear energy, with Robert Zubrin, Alex Epstein:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MQtgkT8nqgc
And of course capitalist investors are throwing money into wind & solar. 100% due to unheard-of-ever, incredible subsidies, mandates and exemptions. Even Warren Buffet admitted the only reason he invests in Wind farms is due to the giant tax credits.
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
https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_WGI_SPM.pdf
This is the latest IPCC report. The next one will be out on Monday, March 20 that synthesizes the last six IPCC reports.
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.
That's very nice but what they say is largely insignificant because it in reality Climate Change is ALL ABOUT a successful, rational, carbon change mitigation strategy. That is the elephant in the room. And at that the IPCC has failed so dismally that their scientific integrity has been demolished. Corruption is blatant and obvious.
If the corruption of the IPCC is so obvious, then, perhaps you can present one obvious example of its corruption
Here is a letter on that very topic by Michael Shellenberger:
https://environmentalprogress.org/big-news/2018/10/25/open-letter-to-heads-of-state-of-the-g-20-from-scientists-and-scholars-on-nuclear-for-climate-change
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.
What a tired and cynical tactic tactic, to avoid discussion of the cataclysmic impact that accelerating climate change will have on everyone on the planet, while attempting to stir up resentment against these billionaires who are supporting effect of climate action. My criticism of Bloomberg and Jobs and others is that they’re giving much too little of their immense fortunes for climate action. Who gives a damn how they travel around the world? The fossil fuel in the street must be phased out as quickly as possible, as each barrel of oil that is burnt raises temperatures and brings us closer to an unlivable Climate.
Safe to assume you have removed and refrain from using all products from your life that rely on carbon energy? ie do you make your own clothes, hunt/grow and process your own food, abstain from modern day refrigeration.
Oh wait! You’re posting on an electronic device and expecting others to read your post on an electronic device most of which are ultimate powered by carbon energy.
You sound like a serf from the middle ages saying his Lords and masters knows better than him so it completely fine for them to live in the castles while he lives in the pig sty. The point is if these hypocrites actually believed what they say they just wouldn't fly private jets. And they aren’t alone, even on a tiny scale individuals who argue for reduced carbon will say that their travel is essential, an argument I had with a climate scientist. He absolutely has to fly 1000s of miles to do his job, according to him. His hypocrisy went completely over his head. That's even before we get to your hyperbolic 'the world is gonna end' narrative. We've lived in a world that was much, much warmer than now, and thrived. We've also lived in a world much, much colder than now and didn't do so well. Why is warmer climate bad? Much less ppl die from heat than cold, that's even assuming we make any difference, which Is debatable, although because all the data is corrupted nobody is really sure if we do or not. Please don't reply 99% of scientists say it does because that is also not true but a manufacturered number.
I agree that this tactic feels a bit cringey. But there is a genuine problem this hypocrisy illustrates.
To quote Yuval Noah Harari, “One of history’s few iron laws is that luxuries tend to become necessities and to spawn new obligations. Once people get used to a certain luxury, they take it for granted. Then they begin to count on it.”
The point is that there is no actual evidence that high standard of living energy secure people have any intention of decreasing their standard of living because of climate change worries. The rich, which includes the entire academic class of western countries, are mainly prescribing energy poverty for the lower classes and global poor, while subsidizing top down “solutions” that they perceive will save them from CO2 with no risk to them, such as electrical vehicles and windmills in someone else’s neighborhood.
This is why rich westerners are content consigning Africans to energy poverty by expecting them to skip the conventional energy ladder of grid scale electrification with coal, followed by increased standard of living and transitioning to cleaner sources--- a process every other developed economy has followed. Africans rightly call it eco-imperialism.
Also it is easy to continue to improve living conditions Worldwide, both in Developing Nations and Western Nations by using rational methods of fossil fuel replacement. Malthusianism is not needed and not wanted. As long as nutty scams like wind & solar, hydrogen, agrofuels, ITER, CCS, biomass burning are promoted rather than the rational options of nuclear, hydro & methanol with electrification of transport done in a rational effective way instead of the current irrational way.
You have a troubled relationship with truth, Herb.
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