by David Young
Much has changed in science since the pandemic and much of it is change for the worse. The pandemic has highlighted the loss of credibility of the public health establishment and the often toxic nature of current public discourse. John Ioannidis stands out as perhaps the best example of a fine scientist who was smeared and denigrated mercilessly both online and in the literature. There was also a flood of fraudulent papers and badly flawed studies. This made claims that we should follow the “The Science” almost laughable, given the extremely poor quality of much of the science. The use of coercion was inexcusable when there was no rigorous basis for it.
John Ioannidis was perhaps the most famous victim of a broad ranging culture of censorship and suppression. As [1] summarizes:
“The aim of the present study is to explore the experiences and responses of highly ac- complished doctors and research scientists from different countries who have been targets of suppression and/or censorship following their publications and statements in relation to COVID-19 that challenge official views. Our findings point to the central role played by media organizations, and especially by information technology companies, in attempting to stifle debate over COVID-19 policy and measures. In the effort to silence alternative voices, widespread use was made not only of censorship, but of tactics of suppression that damaged the reputations and careers of dissenting doctors and scientists, regardless of their academic or medical status and regardless of their stature prior to expressing a contrary position. In place of open and fair discussion, censorship and suppression of scientific dissent has deleterious and far-reaching implications for medicine, science, and public health.”
Epidemiology
One of the first things that became obvious to me during the pandemic was that viral epidemiology was a primitive science dominated by crude mechanistic explanations that lacked quantification. One article that led me to this conclusion was [2]. I reproduce a part of the abstract here.
“The epidemiology of influenza swarms with incongruities, incongruities exhaustively detailed by the late British epidemiologist, Edgar Hope-Simpson. He was the first to propose a parsimonious theory explaining why influenza is, as Gregg said,”seemingly unmindful of traditional infectious disease behavioral patterns. Recent discoveries indicate vitamin D upregulates the endogenous antibiotics of innate immunity and suggest that the incongruities explored by Hope-Simpson may be secondary to the epidemiology of vitamin D deficiency. We identify – and attempt to explain nine influenza conundrums:
• Why is influenza both seasonal and ubiquitous and where is the virus between epidemics?
• Why are the epidemics so explosive?
• Why do they end so abruptly?
• What explains the frequent coincidental timing of epidemics in countries of similar latitude?
• Why is the serial interval obscure?
• Why is the secondary attack rate so low?
• Why did epidemics in previous ages spread so rapidly, despite the lack of modern transport?
• Why does experimental inoculation of seronegative humans fail to cause illness in all the volunteers?
• Why has influenza mortality of the aged not declined as their vaccination rates increased?”
It is blindingly obvious that the spread of viral epidemics is riddled with unknowns, is a badly ill-posed problem and models will all be wrong, and mostly badly wrong. Yet modeling played a significant part in motivating the policy response to Covid19.
The Role of the Media in Spring 2020
The list of issues where pseudo-science was used to make decisions is long. Mask mandates, lockdowns, school closures, vaccination recommendations, vaccination requirements for employment or university attendance, and travel restrictions. The public was often bullied and/or manipulated into compliance based on fear and/or media generated panic. Early statistics on Covid cases and deaths were shown endlessly in the spring of 2020. These statistics seemed to imply that 10-15% of those who got Covid would die, often horribly. This was gravely misleading without stating that the case fatality rate is not meaningful when testing is scarce and that infection fatality rate estimates always go down (often dramatically) as an epidemic progresses because testing becomes more accurate and treatment methods improve.
The well known fact that the vast majority of those dying from Covid19 were already quite ill or elderly was systematically hidden. Scientists who said this were ridiculed by this same narrative driven media. The media in the US at least are little more than ideologically driven (and now partially state controlled) purveyors of carefully screened “information” backing the elites in the West and their preferred ideologies [3, 4] and the public is becoming more and more convinced that they cannot be trusted. The media was and is a full participant in the culture of censorship and cancellation described below. Often their “reporting” is based on a single anonymous leak whose reliability is unknown by readers and in some cases the reporters. Of course, leakers usually have a partisan purpose and like to leak selectively to give a biased picture and/or support their interests or those of their employer.
Marginalizing Expertise
A must read is [5]. “Imperatives like skepticism and disinterestedness are being junked to fuel political warfare that has nothing in common with scientific methodology.” Ioannidis carefully lays out in detail a sad history of abuses and indeed in some cases, outright fraud. Ioannidis published prolifically during the pandemic and endured a public caning by a mob of online trolls and even fellow scientists and politicians. His is not an isolated example. Scott Atlas, Jay Battacharya, Martin Kuhldorff and Marty Makary are four more academic scientists who received similar treatment. I believe that the response to Ioannidis was particularly harsh because of his sterling reputation for being totally non-political and his incredible accomplishments. Thus, the online mob and the public health establishment realized that discrediting him was critical to preserving their own credibility.
As it turns out, these tactics backfired on our “expert class” as shown by the public’s abysmal uptake on the new vaccines. Sanity has returned to some European countries such as Denmark, where they recommend that those who are under 50 and healthy need not take any more Covid vaccines. But in the US, the CDC is putting the new Covid19 vaccine on their recommended list of childhood vaccinations in spite of very strong evidence that the harms of this vaccine vastly outweigh the benefits in the children and young adults [6].
Now we have the ultimate irony, an economics professor asking for amnesty for the terrible decisions and epidemic of lying and disinformation during the pandemic [7]. I for one am unwilling to give them amnesty without a full confession, apologies, and changes of personnel in leadership positions.
Perhaps fed by the pandemic, a new and disturbing trend is the prevalence of “zombie” trials in which there is no evidence there is any real data underlying the results [8]. This is further evidence of how weak the peer review system has become. The idea that fraud is widespread in science has moved from the fringes to the pages of the BMJopinion [9]. Ioannidis [5] cites a couple of covid papers in leading journals that were essentially fraudulent. At least one of these was still being cited over a year later!!
A Culture of Censorship and Cancellation
My previous post at Climate, Etc. [10] provided some references for the sad state of science pre-Covid. Basically, the replication crisis was in full swing. That post pointed to the serious problems in the field of Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) and offered some ideas for addressing them. Things have changed for the worse post-pandemic. Perhaps the most salient fact about the pandemic was how politicized the science became, just as with the AIDS epidemic. There was a remarkable coincidence between a desire to “stop” the epidemic by any means necessary (regardless of how many collateral causalities there were) and climate alarmism that seeks to control the climate by eliminating fossil fuels. The complete playbook that made climate science’s culture deteriorate was deployed to Covid science and epidemiology, making meaningful scientific debate virtually impossible [1]. As described out below, the Covid panic went well beyond the climate science playbook. [1] is long and very detailed and worth a full read.
“Creating a false consensus by censoring information and preventing scientific debates might lead scientists, and thus also policymakers, to sink into the ruling paradigm, causing them to ignore other, more effective options to cope with the crisis or perhaps even prevent it. Such a “consensus” leads to a narrow worldview, which impairs the public’s ability to make informed decisions and erodes public trust in medical science and in public health (Cernic 2018; Delborne 2016; Martin 2014, 2015; Vernon 2017).”
“Yet, there are three main differences [with previous instances of suppression]. First, when it comes to COVID-related knowledge, the censorship tactics used against dissenters are extreme and unprecedented in their intensiveness and extensiveness, with scientific journals, and academic and medical institutions taking an active and involved part in censoring critical voices. In fact, as one of our respondents indicates, even pre-print servers and academic social networking sites censor scientific papers that do not align with the mainstream narrative, and this seems to be a growing trend. Furthermore, what our respondents describe goes way beyond censorship, and includes a wide range of suppression methods intended to destroy their reputations and careers, solely because they dared to take a different position from that dictated by the medical establishment.”
As pointed out by Battacharya, this behavior is really analogous to the Middle Ages with ”The Science” being the new clerisy [11].
“We live in an age when a high public health bureaucrat can, without irony, announce to the world that if you criticize him, you are not simply criticizing a man. You are criticizing “The Science” itself. The irony in this idea of “science” as a set of sacred doctrines and beliefs is that the Age of Enlightenment, which gave us our modern definitions of scientific methodology, was a reaction against a religious clerisy that claimed for itself the sole ability to distinguish truth from untruth. The COVID-19 pandemic has apparently brought us full circle, with a public health clerisy having replaced the religious one as the singular source of unassailable truth.”
Collusion of The Deep State, Corporate Media, and Big Tech
The latest instantiation of this authoritarianism is the rise of a vast industry devoted to ferreting out and censoring “misinformation” and “disinformation” [12, 13]. The first piece is an excellent deep dive into the way the leaders of this complex view themselves. Of course, science often is the subject of these censors [14]. There is a large industry devoted to framing oneself as a “disinformation” expert, a category that is largely meaningless and has no well defined credentials. Just as there was competition over the last 30 years among non-scientists and political activists and a few activist scientists to hype climate catastrophes and sniff out and cancel the more realistic scientists, now political operatives, activists, the media and often the deep state and some scientists compete to see who can be in the forefront of rounding up the witches who spread “disinformation‘’ and burning them. This is just a new and much more pervasive form of Red baiting [13]. The Twitter Files [4] proved the existence of a broad collusion between the FBI, CIA, big tech, “disinformation” NGOs and corporate media to censor voices that appear to be suspicious of or contradict the “authorities,” with their often false and destructive narratives acting to deplatform these voices.
The range of issues and “information” that attracts their attention is quite broad. It extends even to ordinary Americans who were flagged as Russian trolls by the fraudulent Hamilton 68 dashboard, an oft cited source that was said to “prove” massive and consequential Russian interference in American elections.
This is detailed in [15]. This Taibbi Twitter files summary begins:
“Move Over, Jayson Blair: Meet Hamilton 68, the New King of Media Fraud. The Twitter Files reveal that one of the most common news sources of the Trump era was a scam, making ordinary American political conversations look like Russian spywork.”
This largely unsupported narrative of Russian interference peddled by the Clinton campaign, the deep state, and assorted so-called disinformation specialists is debunked by Seigel and Gerth [13, 16]. However, this narrative was supported by literally thousands of largely false corporate media “stories” for over 6 years, some of which received the Pulitzer prize. This is a striking example of the corruption of the corporate media. There have been very few retractions and no apologies that I am aware of. The media doubles down by refusing to cover these scandals and insisting they are nothing new. There is strong evidence that the US government is at least partially funding these “disinformation expert organizations” who sometimes do the data collection and screening for “disinformation” – really just another term for often true information or opinion that challenges the “legitimacy” of our “institutions.” This latter category is very vague and can be stretched to almost anything the disinformation expert doesn’t like. Perhaps it is no coincidence that these disinformation “expert” organizations present corporate and publicly funded media as least likely to spread disinformation.
In fact, there seems to be a revolving door between the US security state and the executive ranks at big tech companies and corporate media, making the collusion easy to set up and nurture. I believe that this Russian interference narrative is the most consequential disinformation and election interference campaign in American history outside of war time. [13, 15–17] Some activist scientists have chosen to wade into this morass and to participate in this Disinformation Industrial Complex, further undermining their credibility. This climate of fear and censorship is similar to what happened in the US during WWI, when debate was criminalized by the Sedition Act of 1918, really an amendment to the Espionage Act of 1917. This was totally unprecedented in American history. Even during the Civil War, with a few exceptions such as Maryland in 1861, the Constitution was in full force, and debate was often libelous and nasty. There was a very vigorous anti-war faction in the North and it was a full participant in the political process. In 1918, many opponents of the draft and the war were prosecuted simply for saying so. The demonization of Germany was as intense in the media as the media campaign currently directed against Russia.
The law was upheld by the Supreme Court. The Socialist Eugene Debs was prosecuted for opposing the War and was convicted and sentenced to 10 years in prison. He famously campaigned for President in 1920 from prison. President Harding commuted his sentence in 1921. There were a significant number of prosecutions under the Act, but most were offered clemency by 1920. It appears that Americans after the hysteria of war was over had a devotion to the Bill of Rights. The 1918 Sedition Act was repealed in December 1920. It is likely that the 1918 amendment would be held unconstitutional today. The 1917 law continues in effect and is used against leakers such as Snowdon and Assange, even though Assange merely did on a larger scale what hundreds of corporate media “journalists” do every day. Daniel Ellsberg was charged under it for leaking the Pentagon Papers. His case was dismissed after the plumbers broke into his psychiatrists office. But deep state leakers, who use the corporate media to spread “information” that supports their version of events and often do immensely more damage, almost always escape punishment.
It is not a coincidence that President Woodrow Wilson, a former President of Princeton University and an opponent of full participation of Blacks in American society and government, also wanted to replace the Constitution with the rule of the administrative state, i.e., the “experts.” This deeply un-American impulse didn’t die with Wilson but survives and flourishes today in the deep state and their allies and symbiotes in corporate media. The standards for using leaks in news stories have dramatically loosened over the decades since Watergate. And the sheer volume of leaks has grown almost certainly faster than the Federal agencies. Fortunately, America came to its senses and the 1918 Sedition Act amendments were repealed in 1920. Our recovery from our current culture of fear may not be so rapid.
What is disturbing is that some politicians and activists are quoting from outdated Supreme Court decisions to try to justify the current censorship collusion. According to the Supreme Court, it is a violation of the Constitution for the government to deputize a private organization to do what it cannot do. The Twitter Files prove that the Biden Administration is in massive violation.
Is the Internet the Proximate Cause?
Another must read is [18]. The subhead is “How the truth monopoly was broken up.” Their thesis is that the internet transformed modern society just as the printing press did in the 16th Century. What we are going through is our expert class panicking because their monopoly on “truth” has been broken. Just as the counter reformation led to bloody conflict, the new disinformation enforcers are going to generate a lot of conflict and lots of innocent people will suffer.
“We beg to differ. Fake news is not a perversion of the information society but a logical out- growth of it, a symptom of the decades-long devolution of the traditional authority for governing knowledge and communicating information. That authority has long been held by a small num- ber of institutions. When that kind of monopoly is no longer possible, truth itself must become contested.”
“This is treacherous terrain. The urge to insist on the integrity of the old order is widespread. Truth is truth, lies are lies, and established authorities must see to it that nobody blurs the two. But we also know from history that what seemed to be stable regimes of truth may collapse, and be replaced. If that is what is happening, then the challenge is to manage the transition, not to cling to the old order as it dissolves around us.”
This is a lesson that climate science should perhaps take seriously.
Simple Minded Ideas about Science are Wrong
For me, the whole concept of science as a system of understanding the universe whose practitioners are honest and sincere truth seekers, as Bertrand Russell for example portrayed in his writings, is not believable. My training in the 1970’s if anything re-inforced Russell’s version. I did learn something about chaos in graduate school, but I was not really fully aware once I joined industry that when we switched from linear potential flow and electromagnetics to the full potential equation with coupled integral boundary layer, the Euler equations, and the Navier Stokes equations that we were entering a totally different world. This world is one of ill-posed equations, multiple solutions, and bifurcations, and often high uncertainty. This is not something that is readily evident either from typical graduate school education or the literature. It must be said that climate and weather scientists do a better job on this point.
Many of the most important topics in scientific research have hit a wall that constrains further progress, and that wall is uncertainty, in many cases caused by nonlinearlity and chaos, particularly in complex systems. The world may never yield to the kind of deterministic quantified explanations that many desire.
Most traditional scientific methods are provably effective only for well-posed problems. Many of the most important problems are not well-posed. Yet we train graduate students mostly using simplified well- posed problems and the numerical methods suitable for them. I believe new theoretical paradigms and methods will be needed for complex systems. Up until roughly 2000, scientists counted on rapidly increasing computing power to enable solution of more challenging problems. The frontier is now probably not going to be expanded just with more powerful computers. The underlying ill-posed nature of many of the problems will come to the fore.
Popular culture and the political left in the US (and their institutions) have become infested with an almost childlike faith in “The Science.” Faith in “The Science” is really scientism because it can only exist either with the suspension of the critical faculties or with ignorance of the real issues. The media have chosen to foster this ignorance and simplistic thinking as a way to manipulate public opinion in favor of certain political and cultural narratives or in the case of covid a set of “scientific” narratives as the Twitter files prove [4, 14]. [14] is the Twitter thread dealing with Twitter’s collusion with the US government to censor often correct information about Covid19.
Scientists often collaborate with these media driven narratives because they think they will get more funding and public adulation if the narrative is believed. They may also reasonably fear being ostracized and damage to their careers. Readers of this blog are well aware that this became true in climate science a long time ago. Some unscrupulous scientists have chosen to continue to support narratives that are even contradicted by the IPCC reports, particularly about extreme weather events. Some activist climate scientists were also among the alarmist camp concerning Covid19.
Threats to Democracy
Many of the tactics of our Disinformation Industrial Complex are rationalized as being needed to combat threats to Democracy. In fact, this Complex is itself the real threat to Democracy. [19] In an excellent Tablet article in January of 2022 Ioannidis and Schippers [20] explain how democracy cannot function if the public is fed a constant diet of half truths and even disinformation with dissenting voices systematically excluded. This was written before the Twitter files showed that this culture is deeply systemic in our elite institutions including science itself.
“Some people, organizations, corporations, and lobbyists (or combinations thereof) saw this crisis [Covid19] as an opportunity to establish some version of a desired ideological utopia, which, in reality, benefited only a zealous minority confident in their “truth”, “science” or whatever name they used to legitimate blind dogmas.”
We can with confidence include the Federal government departments of Homeland Security, Justice, and Defense to this list of organizations.
“The population at large would benefit more from scientific skepticism (which doesn’t require a Ph. D.) than from the purging of “bias” by spurious information purifiers.”
“Concern about the manipulation of power and influence has also been exacerbated by the performance of media and social media. It is critical in free, democratic societies that media never become a vessel for a single, state-sanctioned, official narrative at the expense of public debate and freedom of speech. The same applies for social media: Removing content considered “fake” or “false” in order to limit the ability of ordinary people to judge information for themselves only inflames polarization and distrust of the public sphere.”
“This is especially important in the realm of scientific debate. Anyone who believes that it’s possible to cleanse “science” of error through brute force censorship has no understanding of how science works or how accurate, unbiased evidence is accumulated in the first place. The idea of arbitrators who select what is correct and dismiss what is incorrect is the most alien possible concept to science. Without the ability to make errors or make (and improve on) inaccurate hypotheses, there is no science. The irony is that scientists understand (or at least should understand) and embrace (or at least should embrace) the fact that we all float in a sea of nonsense; it is the opportunist influencers and pundits, lacking in any understanding of the scientific method, who believe in the possibility of pure, unconflicted “truth.” ”
[20] appeared nearly a year before the Twitter files were published but was prescient in many ways. They conclude:
“As the pandemic ebbs, the years ahead will help determine whether we as democratic citizens and free people are still capable of making our own decisions, pursuing happiness, and refraining from harm, without falling prey to the authoritarian temptations that have felled democracies in the past.”
Conclusion
In the year since Ioannidis’ article, much has been revealed about how pervasive the Disinformation Industrial Complex is by the revelations in the Twitter files. A deep analysis tracing the rise of this Complex whose beginnings arose out of the War on Terror and how this Complex is applying the propaganda tools of that war inside America (They have brought the War on Terror to the United States) is [13]. It is a long read but is the result of 3 years of research. Just as troubling is the rise of an exceptionally censorious public culture in the USA and in other parts of the English-speaking world.
The politicization of science, the honing of the activists tools for cancellation of people they don’t like, and the involvement of government in collusion with big tech and media to control ”disinformation” [really just another euphemism for state control of media] [4], and finally the conversion of the FBI into a domestic version of the CIA have me personally concerned about the future of the English-speaking world.
I hope a critical mass of scientists and the public is finally waking up to the dangers this culture of fear and censorship poses. The danger for the elites is that they may alienate and attack so many people that their supporters become a minority. The power of modern media and social media to spread misinformation (in many cases originating with leaks from the US security state) with political motivations is immense and is indeed a growing part of the crisis. The pushback does however seem to be growing. There are now some free speech media such as Rumble, Locals, and Substack. It is possible to financially support bloggers, including Judith, using Patreon. Public polling shows a near collapse of trust in corporate media. It is indeed ironic that those who claim to be squashing existential threats to democracy, have themselves caused a climate of growing acceptance of intimidation and threats, political violence and serious violations of Federal law. If everything is an existential threat and words are violence, real violence can seem more and more to be justified.
Moderation note: This thread will be strictly monitored for relevance and civility.
References
[1] Yaffa Shir-Raz, Ety Elisha, Brian Martin, Natti Ronel, and Josh Guetzkow, “Censorship and suppression of Covid-19 Heterodoxy: Tactics and Counter-Tactics, Minerva (2022), https://doi.org/10.1007/s11024- 022-09479-4.
[2] Cannell JJ, Zasloff M, Garland CF, Scragg R, Giovannucci E, “On the epidemiology of influenza,” Virol J 2008, 5: 10.1186/1743-422X-5-29.
[3] Bari Weiss https://www.bariweiss.com/resignation-letter
[4] Matt Taibbi, “Capsule Summaries of all Twitter Files Threads to Date, With Links and a Glossary,” https://https://www.racknews/p/capsule-summaries-of-all-twitter
[5] John A. Ioannidis, “How the Pandemic Is Changing the Norms of Science”, Tablet, September 8,2021.
[6] Bardosh, A. Krug, E. Jamrozid, T. Lemmens, S. Keshavjee, V. Prasad, M. A. Makary, S. Baral, T. B. Hoeg, “COVID-19 vaccine boosters for young adults: a risk benefit assessment and ethical analysis of mandate policies at universities,” BMJ Journal of Medical Ethics, 2022.
[7] Emily Oster, “Let’s Declare a Pandemic Amnesty,” The Atlantic, October 31,
[8] P. A. Ioannidis, “Hundreds of thousands of zombie randomised trials circulate among us,” Anaesthesia, Vol. 76, Issue 4, April 2021.
[9] Richard Smith, “Time to assume that health research is fraudulent until proven otherwise?,” The BMJOpinion, July 5, 2021.
[10] David Young, ““Colorful fluid dynamics” and overconfidence in global climate models,” Climate , December 2,2022. https://judithcurry.com/2022/12/02/colorful-fluid-dynamics-and-overconfidence-in- global-climate-models/
[11] Jay Battacharia, “How Stanford Failed the Academic Freedom Test,” Tablet Magazine, 10, 2023.
[12] Michael Shellenberger and Leighton Woodhouse, “Inside the Censorship Industrial Complex,” Substack, April 13,1023. https://public.substack.com/p/inside-the-censorship-industrial?utm source=substack&utm medium=email#play$
[13] Jacob Seigel, “A Guide to Understanding the Hoax of the Century,” Tablet, March 28, 2023. https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/news/articles/guide-understanding-hoax-century-thirteen- ways-looking-disinformation
[14] David Zweig, Twitter, 26,2022. https://twitter.com/davidzweig/status/1607378386338340867
[15] Matthew Taibbi, https://www.racknews/p/move-over-jayson-blair-meet-hamilton
[16] Jeff Gerth, Columbia Journalism Review, Jan. 30, 2023, Parts 1-4. https://www.cjr.org/special report/trumped-up-press-versus-president-part-1.php https://www.cjr.org/special report/trumped-up-press-versus-president-part-2.php https://www.cjr.org/special report/trumped-up-press-versus-president-part-3.php https://www.cjr.org/special report/trumped-up-press-versus-president-part-php
[17] Kyle Pope, Columbia Journalism Review, Jan. 30, 2023 https://www.cjr.org/special report/trumped-up-press-versus-president-ed-note.php
[18] Andrea Santelli and Daniel Sarewetz, “Reformation of the Church of Science”, The New Atlantis, Spring 2022,
[19] Vinay Prasad, “The Misinformation Police Strike Out,” Sensible Medicine on Substack, November 15,
[20] P. A. Ioannidis and M. C. Shippers “Saving Democracy From the Pandemic,” Tablet, January 23, 2022.
” the whole concept of science as a system of understanding the universe whose practitioners are honest and sincere truth seekers”
Time and again, the idea that a professional group of humans (scientists, priests, doctors, politicians…) is “better” than the rest of humankind has proven to be wrong, naive, and infantile. We are all made of the same genetic stock. In most situations, most people will do what it is most advantageous to them, and expecting different is setting oneself for disappointment.
“We all made of the same genetic stock.” You can’t be serious.
Absolutely. As a molecular biologist I know what I am talking about. The human species is genetically homogeneous, with the main genetic difference being between males and females.
*WHEN* practitioners are honest and sincere truth seekers”
That’s at least accurate.
Interesting. You make a statement against ‘authority’ then use that authority yourself via the claim “I know what I’m talking about”.
On the outside we appear homogeneous, yet the genetic copy number variation from person to person can differ dramatically, sometimes fatally sometimes favourable to evolution.
A blanket statement followed by an appeal to authority isn’t a good approach.
Sometimes opinions are based on knowledge, most often they are not. Individual variations aren’t relevant to the discussion. We are talking about genetic differences between groups of humans. They are very small compared to most animal species. Of course there are honest scientists, but as a group they are no different to the rest.
Joy’s law is the principle that “no matter who you are, most of the smartest people work for someone else,” attributed to Sun Microsystems co-founder Bill Joy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joy's_law_(management)
While Wikipedia assigns Joy’s Law to “management”, its applicability is really unlimited. Indeed, it is merely a special case of a wider observation: that whoever you are, and however special you think you are, there will be other people – probably unknown to you – who can do everything as well or better than you.
For instance, I have long believed that “war is God’s way of teaching arrogant humans that they are NOT better than other humans”.
There are many precedents for such a view; see, e.g., https://quoteinvestigator.com/2014/05/19/geography/
OT-a business news item today cry’s out for comment from expert Judith Curry. This piece argues that the coming El Nino likely threatens Thailand’s rice export because of altered monsoon rainfall. It this threat to China, India and Vietnam food supplies serious?
https://www.zerohedge.com/commodities/thai-rice-crop-crosshairs-el-nino-farmers-are-warned-about-water-shortages
There may be a useful hidden contradiction here. Lack of trust in legacy institutions may make censorship and thought control impossible. This may be the cognitive corollary to the physical fact that the Internet was specifically designed to be bombproof. Freedom can actually win.
The word “ivermectin” is strangely absent.
I haven’t done any research on this drug because I suspect I would find a lot of confusion and noise on all sides. I have tried to focus in on the big issues and the threats to the Bill of Rights and freedom of thought.
George – I concur that investigation of the “Why” in the lower case rates.
While I dont think ivermectin provides any benefit, there were lower case rates that certainly warranted exploration as to the reason for the lower case rates in those sub populations.
Stuck in lockfown I did a meta-analysis of the Brazilian towns that distributed Ivermectin to minimize spread and severity. I come from an engineering background & this is the only type of study we can do for road safety initiatives (think child seats). In the 4 big towns examined as compared to control towns ofthe same size and same states, there was a substantial reduction in severity and deaths.
The reaction against IVM was therefore odd. Here it was called a horse de-wormer, banned from sale and ridiculed. Despite billions of doses being applied worldwide and the billions of $ contracted for the shots, IVM was still being reviled.
There was something obviously going on (I quote from the Economist of last week). Perhaps a side-effect that it was best ket quiet.
I do agree that the response to Ivermectin particularly in the media and pundit class was quite emotional and irrational.
I suspect that part of the push from the top against Ivermectin and some other treatments is that the FDA’s emergency authorization was only valid if there was not a “safe and effective treatment”.
The mere existence of a treatment would have forced a halt to the use of the vaccines until they could go through the regular testing and approval process, and thus would have halted the vaccination program.
Since everybody in charge had already decided that the vaccines were the only thing that would end the pandemic and mass death, anything that would stop the vaccination programs had to be stopped at all costs.
They weren’t going to allow any safe and effective treatment because that would throw a wrench in the entire government effort.
dpy – here you go:
COVID-19 early treatment: real-time analysis of 2,815 studies
https://c19early.org/
FIY, the “early treatment” link covers all drugs in studies to treat covid. It includes ivermectin.
Ivermectin doesnt have any mechanisms that would render it beneficial for a respiratory virus. Same with HXc. Ivermectin and HXC initially showed early promise because the early case rates were lower than the general population. The most likely reason was that the subsets of the population that used HXC and Ivermectin had something else going on that provided some form of partial cross immunity. Neither drug likely provided any direct benefit.
Had competent & honest medical authorities come out with the aforementioned explanation then the controversy would have quickly dissipatied. Instead, the government authorities added to the conspiracy theory with their response.
I mentioned ivermectin because a free distribution of this drug in Indonesia (as a prevention, not as a treatment) led to a dramatic decrease of new COVID cases from 50,000/day to 2,000/day from August, 2010 to October, 2021. It is being scientifically dismissed as a mere coincidence. Science, indeed. Not worth any follow-up.
https://healthfeedback.org/claimreview/no-evidence-that-the-fall-in-covid-19-cases-in-indonesia-is-linked-to-the-use-of-ivermectin/
Sorry, both dates are 2021.
I can’t believe it! For once I agree with you.
People on this board got all worked up quoting studies from 3rd world countries. When reliable studies were done the “miracle” cures they turned out to be what the medical profession thought all along — nonsense with no observable benefit.
The government “authorities” were the Orange Wonder and his merry band of disinformation spreaders. He promoted the “miracle” cures as well as injecting yourself with bleach and shining UV light inside your lungs. Not surprising from a man who drew his own weather map with a sharpie to prove he was right.
Actually, both IVM and HCQ have strong antiviral and anti-inflammatory properties – both very important in fighting Covid. Far too many testimonials from doctors who actually practiced medicine by actually treating patients used one or both as early as March 2020 and had very good results – many testimonials can be found on the FLCCC website. IVMMETA.com provides a meta analysis of 96 studies showing the efficacy of IVM. Also, read through the analysis by Juan Chamie on the success in Uttar https://juanchamie.substack.com/p/ivermectin-in-uttar-pradesh.
Had our health authorities embraced the use of these and other inexpensive treatments early, the pandemic never would have happened. Both IVM and HCQ have extraordinarily robust safety profiles proven over decades of use – something you can’t say about the vaccines as illustrated at https://vaersanalysis.info/
The reaction to Trump saying that HCQ was a game changer was a red flag to me – how could it, and later IVM, suddenly become dangerous because of covid? The only danger either posed was to big profits from big pharma.
The history of IVM is very interesting – these 2 articles were written long before all the politicization about everything covid.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3043740/
https://www.nature.com/articles/ja201711
I would love to see his metaanalysis. Not one study performed claiming Ivermectin effectiveness against COVOD-19 was even close to a proper study design.
Here you go, CS:
https://c19early.org/
JJB is one of those people who trot out climate and economic computer models to support his contention that man-transformed CO2 will result in a catastrophe, but then reject any ivermectin study that isn’t a gold-standard clinical trial. Those sorts of people readily accepted the mRNA vaccines in spite of the fact the clinical trials were terminated long before adequate safety data could be collected. Hypocrisy runs deep in such people.
The other half of Frick and Frack speaks.
You don’t need computer or economic models to prove that treating the atmosphere like a toilet is going to have catastrophic consequences.
Were you one of the idiots that claimed hydroxychloroquine was a miracle drug that prevented covid? The jury is in and here’s what the experts have found:
https://www.drugs.com/medical-answers/hydroxychloroquine-effective-covid-19-3536024/
Here’s what NIH has to say about ivermectin:
https://www.covid19treatmentguidelines.nih.gov/therapies/miscellaneous-drugs/ivermectin/
Ivermectin has some impact but at doses considered unsafe for humans.
Who should we listen to? Somebody like you who uses information gleaned from crackpots on the web or experts in the field. Really not a hard decision, is it?
Maybe it’s time to stop beating a dead horse. He died from an overdose of ivermectin.
Ivermectin’s efficacy discussion’s a red herring. Ivermectin’s an FDA approved drug with a decades long safety record. Prior to Covid-19, off label prescribing of an FDA approved drug was neither widely controversial nor likely to subject the prescriber to censure. Off label prescribing continues uneventfully. Excepting for ivermectin. Why?
You should read the post. There is no anti-vaccine “nonsense.” Your reaction is an emotional one, not a rational one.
You didn’t read the post or look at the score of citations did you?
I read the post a few times, looked at the citations and the links. Ioanndis used to be credible but he is sorely mistaken about (his understatement of) COVID-19 dangers and mRNA vaccine safety/efficacy. While I will remain anonymous in this blog, COVID-19 and the role of geopolitics in disease spread are active research areas for me. You can use all the references you want, but if they are poor quality and wrong it does not help the science.
To address a few questions in the claims:
1.) No one was hiding that the elderly and those with co-morbiities were more suceptible to severe disease and higher risk of death.
2.) Secondary attack is not so low for COVID, but is usually low for Influenza which are caused by different virsuses, so what is the relevance here?
3.) Influenza still exists between epidemics, but again what oes this have to do with Coronaviruses?
Additionally, Ivermectin and Hydroxychloroquine are useless against COVID-19, COVID deaths are undercounted.
Trump’s campaign people did collude with Russia, Hilary dod not make anything up about Trump or Russia; the claims are true.
I have to respond to this comment since it misrepresents the facts on a number of topics. Starting with the last sentence.
1. The Durham report proves that CyberStats is totally wrong about the Trump Russia hoax and its origins in the Hillary campaign and Obama’s Oval Office. I do find it hard to believe that smart people can still be living such a lie.
2. CyberStats is wrong about Ioannidis. He did not downplay Covid’s dangers and indeed his early estimates of potential fatalities were quite prescient. They implied an IFR of 0.3% which is a pretty good number.
3. I was unaware Ioannidis had a position on the mRNA vaccines. CyberStats didn’t cite any source so it is impossible to verify this unlikely claim.
4. It’s also obvious that authorities were hiding the fact that covid affected mostly very old or very ill people. This was a way to intimidate parents into getting their children vaccinated and those who had already had covid. The vaccine did help some vulnerable people. For the vast majority it was unnecessary and did more harm than good.
5. The influenza paper I found interesting because it really shows how little we know about influenza. I found little evidence our state of knowledge on corona viruses is any better.
What does this have to do with my post?
“Some people, organizations, corporations, and lobbyists…saw this crisis [Covid19] as an opportunity to establish some version of a desired ideological utopia, which, in reality, benefited only a zealous minority confident in their “truth”, “science” or whatever name they used to legitimate blind dogmas…We can with confidence include the Federal government departments of Homeland Security, Justice, and Defense to this list of organizations.”The newest case in point:
Last week on the eve of Earth Day, April 21st, Biden formally announced the Department of Environmental Justice; the DOJ is fully behind it. Orwell was prescient; a broadening foundation for a dystopic future unwittingly coerced by the cult of woke continues to blaze on by way of collusive expansion.
“The politicization of science, the honing of the activists tools for cancellation of people they don’t like, and the involvement of government in collusion with big tech and media to control ”disinformation” [really just another euphemism for state control of media] [4], and finally the conversion of the FBI into a domestic version of the CIA have me personally concerned about the future of the English-speaking world.”
David, a tiny quibble, I would expand your concern about the future of the English-speaking world to encompass all world values that embrace the ideals behind individualism, liberty and freedom of thought; those ideals brought forth since the beginning of the Enlightenment era. It’s these ideals that are imperiled by Marxist ideology/aka woke.
I agree with your final paragraph. It is a time of extremism and many are disconnected from reality.
What’s the difference between “justice” and “environmental justice”? Could it be similar to a difference between “jacket” and “straitjacket”?
I think that it can be said fairly that the problems addressed here extend beyond epidemiology and climate ‘science.’ The contentious issue of gun control, of the Prior Restraint variety, has many of the features of suppression of contradictory facts, censorship of opinions that are not politically correct, and straw arguments that detract from dialogue. Logical deductions are replaced with emotion-laden claims and biased OpEds promoted by the Media, to the exclusion of different viewpoints. It is the opposite of the ideals of The Enlightenment. It is questionable that Voltaire ever said the following, but it is in the spirit of his views:
“I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend with my life, your right to say it.”
Can a nation survive if half the population deeply distrusts the government? Sure, but for how long? Are we seeing the unfolding demise of the great American experiment in freedom? Maybe.
Deep distrust of government is often a feature of deep social change. It may be a necessary feature.
We are deeply divided as a country, more so than at any time since perhaps the 1850’s. As I say in the post it is comparable to the hysteria during WWI. That was a brief anomoly. But what we have today will last a lot longer.
What I think could happen is a rebirth of Federalism in which states assume a much larger role and the Federal government becomes unable to govern and starts shrinking. That’s a best case scenario.
This all seems far from the essay and I see no basis for it. The primary polarization is that all sides in political debates now have a loud voice, including the extremists on all sides.
I see no sign of the federal government losing power, quite the contrary in fact.
It is very important to distinguish loud voices from serious action. There is a lot of the former but little of the latter.
I would argue that the controversies around Covid state responses were every bit as mean and nasty and fact free as the controversy about slavery. Florida is now a stark contrast with New York for example on a host of issues vital to a functioning society.
We are seeing the demise of US supremacy due to governments spending more than then generate in revenues (plus monetary growth). The rise of China will speed the US demise.
“US demise” is a good example of an extreme voice. All sides proclaim it but for different reasons.
David
It is an accurate description. The US has passed its peak.
USA has 400M citizens.
Two other countries have 1.4B citizens each, 1 growing
The bigger places have smart people willing to work for less at a time when machines are starting to replace human labor, including the thinking part.
Who is set up for victory?
David, I did not say the federal government would disappear. Rather, the American experiment in freedom would. I believe the likely scenario is the government continuing to devolve into a state like China where individual liberties are crushed by an untouchable and unaccountable bureaucracy that runs the government.
All the signs are there that western governments are heading towards the Chinese model of rule.
Of course this is all helped by our countries experiencing a standard of living never seen before in history which leads to a majority of population being compliant so long as most have access to their bread and circuses.
To those of us who know what is happening, we are living in a dystopian novel, but to the majority who don’t care to look behind the curtain its a blissfully ignorant life.
Untouchable unaccountable is what is meant by deep state
Blackpilled, what you are describing is somewhat eerily similar to what occurred in Germany during the early 1930’s. A malevolent minority (the Nazis) came to power with the promise to improve the lot of the average German, who willingly went along. As the extent of the evil became increasingly apparent, the majority turned a blind eye because they were better off (for a while, anyway) but the ruling evil thugs had become absolutely cemented in power.
The parallels to today are more in the context of methods employed to become permanently in power and the subsequent difficulty in removing those corruptly using the vast power of the government to enrich themselves while effectively controlling the population. In the case of Germany in the 1930’s, the political process ceased to exist once the thugs came to power.
Could Western democracy’s really end up with a corrupt ruling elite controlling the population. … well if the government controls all discourse while directly and indirectly crushing dissent, sure. History can and does repeat itself and it is pretty naive to believe mankind has evolved past embracing darkness. The patriot Thomas Jefferson once observed that eternal vigilance is the price of freedom.
After Trump won in 2016, the university down the road in Ann Arbor, the bastion of liberalism, a bunch of disheartened and devastated kids were treated to instant therapy with safe rooms, furnished with the usual accoutrements, including Play-doh.
At the time I wondered how many of those privileged students had great grandfathers who had no such luxuries of clay or safe spaces before or after charging a pill box.
A few weeks ago some Stanford Law School students walked out of a lecture because the speaker didn’t pass their smell test.
College students all across America continue a tradition of protests against hearing what they don’t want to hear.
This mentality is an outgrowth of being shielded against any adversity which results in citizens arriving at adulthood believing the epicenter of the universe is themselves. They are imbued with that belief from an early age with Mom fixing only their own hand picked customized meals suited to that day’s emotional whims. It continues with participation trophies and ends up with ma and pa escorting them to the bank to open up their checking account while attending law school.
Is it any wonder a segment of the population has become Moral Supremacists. Added to this ultimate narcissistic trip is the belief you have the Word from God to do his work by saving the world from AGW and anyone who gets in the way has to be silenced.
When Putin jailed a dissenter recently for among other things divulging information that had already been made public, I thought how wonderful I don’t live in a nation that does such a thing. With the trajectory that some elements of our society is on about censorship, I’m not sure how long that privilege will exist.
Whiskey Tango Foxtrot
Cyber
Isn’t it great to live in a country where we are able to express our opinions without fear of retribution? I think in one tirade you have made my point about segments of our populace being all in for censorship more eloquently than I ever could have. Go Brandon.
I do not support in general any censorship; I am against book banning, and removal of teaching accurate U.S. history in schools which are both forms of censorship. I am only against hate speech that actually incites violence and grows hate groups that do violence. Again, one does not need to be a Democrat or support Biden; Trump, though is a present danger. No tirades here; good luck.
Your claims are rediculous but that is precisely the issue here, isn’t it? Every extremist now has a loud voice. Fortunately the competing voices are largely self cancelling so very little is actually happening. We argue about rhetoric, rhetorically.
As a scholar of complex issues I rather enjoy the polarization. Mind you we had a good bit of this in the late 60s and early 70s, including a supposed energy crisis and numerous end of the world scenarios.
But thanks to the Internet today’s voices are far more numerous and far reaching. I am active in Australia at the moment, in real time. This is entirely new.
CyberStats’ comment is a precise example of the present situation summarized by David.
Someone living in Delusional/Fanatical Reality regurgitates the talking-points memos that they have been trained, like Pavlov’s dogs, to regurgitate as a means to provide useful idiots to the cause of spreading dis-misinformation; AKA lies. No data are provided to validate their assertions. Additionally, our personal experiences provide direct evidence that the assertions are lies.
The lists in CyberStats’ comment belong to the same group that includes: All White people are racists, along with tens of others that have been dutifully regurgitated since 2009.
Conditioned useful idiots are all around us these days.
I never stated, thought, or implied all white people are racists. I also am aware of the theft made by Patrisse Cullors and how she subsquently had to step down from BLM. I never supported the phrase “defund the police.” I do see issues in abuse of power in law enforcement and the data bears this out. I spend a lot of time in statistical analysis and data analytics.
I voted Obama/Hillary/Biden and not Sanders; not that I have to tell you that, but I found Sander’s postions to be abit extreme in some cases and unrealistic in others.
COVID-19 has been devastating-the global data is reliable and valid; not exact but no data on such massive issues are ever exact. I’ve seen first hand and in tested datasets.
I am a human being but I am a scientist/statistician on data centric matters first and a poltical animal second. We all have political inclinations that affect our lens of perception, and we all have bias, too, however, you are taking me of context and misunderstanding my points. While I am not a fan of republican positions in general-certain members are truly bad people: DeSantis and Trump are two bad people.
I look at the world as best I can; I travel across the U.S. and globally-I’ve seen many things in Southeast Asia, the Middle East, among other locations. I worked in various labs, and currently am active in COVID, geopolitical, and cybersecurity research. I am an educator and for sure there are enormous political pressures in academia-it’s not apoloitical or all great. That being said, I try to take on as an objective perspective based upon evidence as possible. I analyze datasets quantitatively and directly observe actions and consequences.
Covid was not devastating by any objective metric. It was a pandemic, similar to other pandemics we have experienced over the centuries. Excess deaths in the US were about 10 to 13 percent, mostly the old and infirm. That is what the facts state. It was real but hardly unprecedented.
That Trump’s actions or inaction made any difference to disease outcomes is wholly unsupported by the facts. US outcomes are completely typical in the developed world. Similarly, that Jan 6 was an insurrection, as that term is commonly understood, is laughable. Almost no life threatening violence occurred, with one notable exception when a rioter was killed. If they were insurrectionists they were doing it wrong. Idiots yes, insurrectionists no.
“That being said, I try to take on as an objective perspective based upon evidence as possible.”
Maybe you need to go back and supply the objective evidence to support the contents of your outrageous comments. What, for example, constitutes objective evidence of “bad people?”
I did not say that you said All White people are racists. I said that your statements are as valid as that statement.
“I am an educator . . .”
“. . . but any support for Trump is support of racism, sexism, genderism, fascism, populism, and wonky economic policy.”
” . . .I try to take on as an objective perspective based upon evidence as possible.”
That’s a very impressive CV.
Under President Trump’s economic policies employment across all strata of society were at all time highs. All workers were making real gains in income. Under Biden neither of these continues. All workers have fallen behind in real income gains due to Biden’s inflation.
Dan Hughes wrote:
Under President Trump’s economic policies employment across all strata of society were at all time highs. All workers were making real gains in income. Under Biden neither of these continues.
Completely false.
2.2 M jobs were lost during the Trump administration.
11.0 M jobs have been gained since Biden took office.
Civilian employment is currently at an all-time high, 10.9 M more than the high during the trump administation.
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/CE16OV
Of course, Biden didn’t initiate inflation the day he was sworn in by signing a document with his pen. It was already baked into the system, due to the pandemic.
David, neither Biden nor Trump has or had anything to do with job loss or gain. The government in general does have influence on jobs and can outright kill jobs. Look at the Fed raising interest rates now. But Presidents in general have nothing to do with jobs.
Appell
The FED wrote a report in March, 2022 addressing why the US inflation was so much higher than Europe. They attributed it to the $ Trillions in the stimulus bills. We are still dealing with Bidenflation and will be until the Fed’s interest rate increases do their job, if we are lucky.
Inflation was not caused by the pandemic it was caused by the foolish actions governments took during the pandemic. This is a technical forum evaluate this basic economic equation:
M*V=Real GDP
Real GDP=Nominal GDP*Price Level
Where M equals the money supply and V equals the velocity of money
We increased M faster than ever before in the history of the metric and we contracted nominal GDP massively. There was nothing for the price level to do except go up…inflation.
David Appell wrote;”Completely false.”
From that plot. Employment: in thousands:
Jan 2017 152,150 Trump takes over
Feb 2020 158,750 Max before the shutdown
Apr 2020 133,260 Min during the shutdown
Reopening begins
Jan 2021 149,871 Biden takes over
Mar 2022 158,330 Back close to Trump max
Mar 2023 160,890 About 1 year later
The massive shutdown kink, almost a vertical discontinuity in time, allows for making up all kinds of numbers.
CyberStats said:
“Meanwhile DeSantis in Florida is crushing academic freedom and banning books on Rosa Parks which is not even part of CRT, but hey, if we ignore our country’s true history, then maybe it never happened, right?”
https://instapundit.com/570978/
As for ignoring our history, why do we continue to destroy that history by destroying statues?
The Labor Force Participation Rate has not yet recovered back to the pre-shutdown rate
https://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS11300000
” Trump being elected was a huge error that led to unnecessary dead from COVID and hate crimes.”
What reason do you have to believe that the deaths from COVID would have been any different had Clinton been elected? Why have hate crimes not disappeared that last three years?
Thank you for your question. First, I want to take a more relaxed tone in my replies as compared to earlier. Secondly, the data bears this out which aI will link and describe below. Third, yes, hate crimes always exist, but Trump normalized their expression and encouraged hate speech with his own words and actions.
There are active measures against hate crimes now in the U.S., but it takes time to realize a strong signa effect on a decline in hate crimes. Fourth, COVID-19 was very much an unknown the first 2+ years and even now there are numerous uncertainties and areas of active research.
That being said under Biden COVID cases are down deaths are significantly down, and there are more measures against COVID; no, not all of this is due to Biden’s policies-some of it is just more time to research and evaluate treatments and COVID pathogenicity, but there are more funds invested in such research in part due to Biden.
Relevant links:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364661322003308
https://www.brookings.edu/blog/fixgov/2019/08/14/trump-and-racism-what-do-the-data-say/
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3102652
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/polq.12737
https://www.bmj.com/content/372/bmj.n439
https://www.politico.com/news/2020/10/31/trump-study-coronavirus-rallies-433760
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3722299
https://www.forbes.com/sites/brucelee/2021/02/11/report-trump-associated-with-461000-deaths-in-2018-others-deserve-blame-though/?sh=3825d31b2a31
Partial highlight:
“Experimental studies
Yet these increases in hate crimes – as troubling as they are – represent the acts of an exceedingly small proportion of Americans and therefore cannot decisively tell us whether Trump’s presidency affected the attitudes and behavior of the average American. However, a second body of research provides experimental support for the contention that Trump’s rhetoric can increase expressions of prejudice among citizens.
One such investigation found that even brief exposure to Trump’s prejudiced rhetoric (a single statement embedded among other political quotes) led participants – particularly those who personally supported Trump – to express greater prejudice towards a minoritized group [2]. Similarly, a second investigation found that exposure to Trump’s rhetoric had an emboldening effect for prejudiced individuals, leading them to express greater acceptance of others’ prejudiced behavior, as well as to personally be more willing to disparage a member of a minoritized group [3].”
Partial Highlight:
“US health status worsened dramatically under President Trump when compared with the other G7 countries, a major study from the Lancet Commission1 has concluded.
If the US had death rates equivalent to Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, and the UK, some 461 000 fewer Americans would have died in 2018, and 40% of US deaths during 2020 from covid-19—around 188 000 people—would have been averted, the study estimated. As of 10 February, the US had 27.3 million cases of covid-19, with 471,00 deaths.2
The US had a poorly managed covid-19 pandemic, excess deaths from all causes, shortened life expectancy, high maternal mortality, and disparities in many measures of health, the study found.
US life expectancy was similar to other G7 countries in 1980, but by 2018 was 3.4 years shorter.”
cyber – Hate crimes and hate groups are almost exclusively from leftists.
Republicans are for individual rights and individual merit whereas racism dominates leftist thought.
Now that you got that out of your system, do you want to form a position, provide logic and evidence for it, and articulate what we should do going forward: COVID-19 hate crimes etc..? I look forward to your reply.
No, I am not paid to have a position or write any position. My research is not funded by a special interest or outcome. I do believe many of the climate scientists at RC are, however, paid to have a particular position and they shut down other scientific findings. Even at the University I teach, the research proceedings I attend, and circles of other professors there different perspectives on a variety of issues. That being said the effects and spread of COVID are a specific research focus of mine and I have also seen the devastation all over the U.S. and globally.
Cyber’s comment – “That being said under Biden COVID cases are down deaths are significantly down, ”
that happens with every pandemic
Though is should be noted that the death rate in the 3rd major wave Nov 2021-feb 2022 (during the biden adminstration) was approximately 70% of the death rate in the 2nd major wave. That 30% drop is falls right in the middle of the historical death rate for almost all pandemics.
So that raises the basic question regarding the effectiveness of vaccination. If 80+% of the vunerable population was vaxed, why was the death rate in the 3rd wave so high? The death rate was 3x-5x higher than would be expected if the vax was truly as effective as the studies show.
Cyber
Since you want to use a relaxed tone, let me take a more analytical approach. My hypothesis is that the misinformation/disinformation machinery about Trump has created the perception of his hate and racist rhetoric increasing hate crimes but I haven’t seen in your links what exactly he has said that is being represented as hate speech.
With daylight savings time, tidy pantries, automobiles, field office, math , the use of the words men and women having been used as examples of racist speech, I wonder if the Grand Strategy by the Democratic Party is to create a myth around his use of objectionable rhetoric when there is no concrete examples. The studies you provided didn’t give examples of the specific words or phrases used by Trump that were the subject of these papers.
I personally can’t recall any examples of his anti semitic, racist, or bigoted remarks. I suspect the vast majority of his supporters can’t either. The Charlottesville hoax doesn’t qualify since it’s been found to be just that, a hoax. Calling COVID19 the virus from China is a non starter as well.
Please provide not just second and third hand accounts and accusations but concrete proof he made these statements that everyone assumes to be racist or hate speech. What were the specific words and when and where were they used. Video would make your case much stronger.
CyberStats, You are so clearly wrong about hate crimes. It shows a lack of critical thinking.
I delved into your second Brookings link and its garbage. It takes time to wade through the proof by assertion rhetoric. Maybe the idea is that gullible biased people won’t bother to find the real data buried deep inside. The by county data have uncertainty bars that are huge and most include zero change. That’s the real problem here. The data are noisy and unreliable. We know of a lot of instances of fraudulent hate crime reports, e.g., Smollett.
By far Jews are disproportionally the victims of hate crimes. Trump was very pro-Israel. Everyone knows that crime has skyrocketed since the 2020 riots and the fraudulent BLM movement gained traction. In fact the vast majority of “minority” victims of crime are perpetrated by other “minority” young men in areas characterized by single motherhood and a culture that glorifies crime, drug use, and violence with RAP music. Trump had nothing to do with this. These facts are systematically suppressed by corporate media and elected Democrats. In fact, Trump was the victim of a long and quite violent siege of the White House (many secret service agents were injured) and mob intimidation particularly after the RNC at the White House victimized a lot of people. I don’t like some of Trump’s tweets, but they are largely irrelevant.
I’ll just point out that crime is indeed surging in areas run by “progressive” DA’s. That’s a euphemism for caring more about criminal perpetrators than innocent victims. If memory serves crime in NYC for example is up 23% this year. Hate crimes are a very small percentage of these crimes. That’s why 1 million people have moved to Florida in the last couple of years. People really appreciate not getting beaten up or murdered on the streets.
And people are arming themselves including me and my circle of friends and relatives. My main concern is that in many jurisdictions, self-defense is being effectively criminalized by DA’s who twist the law to persecute people they don’t like. Of course in red state America that’s not an issue. 26 states are now Constitutional carry states. How’s that for things backfiring on Progressives? Oklahoma is one of those to recently amend their Constitution. My brother, an MD and former health care executive likes this change. As a physician he got his share of threats.
The focus on Trump is an obvious media deflection from the fact that we had a nationwide riot in the summer of 2020 resulting in billions of damage to property and I believe about 20 deaths. All perpetrated by left wing thugs with full media disinformation coverage. The media and Democrats winked at this and in many cases tried to justify it. That’s a vastly bigger contributor. Yet you ignore it. Perhaps you yourself are hopelessly biased.
Another big lie is the Red state vs. Blue state statistics. Red states have big cities too usually run by soft on crime Democrats. The media continue to gaslight this issue and its shameless propaganda. The proper comparison is between Red local jurisdictions and Blue ones. Numbers don’t lie and millions are voting with their feet.
There was a large Swedish I think last fall that found that vaccine effectiveness against catching covid fell from ~86% to ~-15% at 9 months. Yes, it had a negative effectiveness after 9 months. Effectiveness against hospitalization fell from about 86% to 25% at 9 months even though the error bars are larger.
Overall vaccination helped some people with poor health and elderly people. But the mandates were a travesty and were never supported by science. Makary and a large group of others have a recent paper showing that the harms of vaccination in children and young adults were 7 times higher than the benefits.
This article I think is pretty conclusive that the response to covid caused a lot of excess deaths.
https://unherd.com/2023/01/why-are-excess-deaths-still-so-high/
@dpy6629
The excess mortality in countries throughout Europe is most easily explained by coincidence.
*****
“Shouldn’t the death rate have dropped because so many of the oldest and most infirm lost a battle with Covid, leaving the rest of the population younger and healthier, on average? So why are there all these excess deaths?”
“It’s a coincidence.”
“What? But Sweden never did lock downs, and still has a lot of excess deaths.”
“That’s a coincidence. They are all coincidental deaths.”
“Oh. Okay.”
*****
See how easy that was?
I saw an ad for a hospital that was specializing in the treatment of coincidences. Might’ve been from The Bee.
mRNA vaccines that make the body produce spike proteins may have been a very bad idea. Some bacterial pathogens kill by flooding the body with toxins, but injecting mRNA encoded to make the body produce its own version of the same toxins would not be a wise response. We may have not sufficient thought through that problem.
As the excess deaths get figured out, which will happen because death and disease produce reams of data that statistics nerds can’t resist, science is going to take another series of hits. That the mistake was deeply enmeshed in the actions of various vested interests, and was reinforced and then covered up by power-mad political actors colluding with Big Tech, will make the hit to science even worse.
The NIH and CDC, for example, apparently funded the creation of the virus, then pushed masks, which have been shown to have had no effect, and pushed for lockdowns, which had huge consequences for everybody, and of course dismissed acquired immunity as if it was superstitious nonsense.
The CDC crippled US efforts at tracking the early outbreak, when there had been a chance to halt the spread, by issuing defective test kits, and not allowing third parties to make test kits. Then they funded bogus studies that served only to push their own chosen narrative, such as refuting the idea that acquired immunity offered any protection.
Most tellingly, the CDC never did random population testing so they could provide data on how many people had contracted Covid over time, nor what percentage of the population actually had it. Instead they relied on hospital reports of how many people had come in and tested positive, which would never count asymptomatic cases, or even mild cases in really stubborn men.
I never got Covid, but fairly early on I got something that was either stage-4 lung cancer, pneumonia crossed with TB, or effects of mustard gas exposure, but it cleared up in about ten days. People like me didn’t end up in an CDC numbers because I’m stubborn and the CDC never had a program to sample a thousand random people in a state to see how many possessed Covid antibodies. That number is important because it also shows the percentage of the population who could still catch and spread the epidemic. Its the number that shows how close a population should be to herd immunity. And they didn’t bother producing it.
It was as if they were desperately averse to producing useful data. Instead they focused on vaccinating four-year-olds who don’t even seem to be affected by the disease, and colluding with the teacher’s unions to keep schools closed. They issued denials that they had ever done such a thing, until evidence showed that’s exactly what they did. Those were more hits to the reputation of science as a fair, objective, and unbiased source of knowledge.
It brings to mind the term “kakocracy”, rule by the most corrupt and least competent in a population. I can empathize with the society that first coined the term because I feel I’m right there with them.
At his point if you asked the public who they trusted for accurate medical opinions, the WHO, NIH, CDC, Surgeon General, state health departments, or @BigAsianB00bies7743 on Reddit, a large number would pick the latter.
As was famously said, if you put one drop of politics into a bucket of science, the whole bucket becomes politics. In the case of the NIH, FDA, and CDC, if you put clowns in charge of an organization, what you get is a circus. So more unforced errors, more hits to science. Eventually science will have taken so many hits that it will just bleed out, drained of its stellar reputation as the apex of Enlightenment virtues.
I’m not that pessimistic. This will motivate many to try to make some changes I hope.
CyberStats,
Your approach might have you labelled as “evil” by Tucker Carlson in his speech here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ebG2POkoHgU
Geoff S
“A few weeks ago some Stanford Law School students walked out of a lecture because the speaker didn’t pass their smell test.”
Recognition of who’s paying. Those who go to the after party get to hear what their peers have to say.
Very important commentary. I have shared this to other groups that I am involved with. I don’t think the worship of pseudo science will lessen in the near term.
Thanks, David. This is terrific.
Here is a related article:
Doomberg’s “Youth First” explores what happens when only one side of an issue is told to young people, and many of them come to believe the impossible, such as that the world can instantaneously eliminate fossil fuels with no negative consequences.
https://doomberg.substack.com/p/youth-first?utm_source=profile&utm_medium=reader2
Yet another perfect example. Instantaneous deflection from the message to ad hominem of the messenger.
Not a word about the cited literature. Not a word about the understanding and interpretation of that literature.
So well written. You really pulled it all together and left me, the reader, with an unfolding vision that is unsettling
Thanks for reading!!
David
I forgot my manners. Cyber got me so twitchy with his bizzaro rant I didn’t tell you what an outstanding post it is. Cyber proved many of the points being discussed now. They never see it in themselves though since the virtue signaling is such a blinder.
This post is not about the science in epidemiology but about how the institution of science was harmed by the pandemic. In any case, plenty of epidemiologists (and a few famous) ones are cited in the post. I doubt you have read it.
Living in Germany for the whole of the pandemic seems to have been different to the experience in the English-speaking world.
For example, it became clear fairly early on that it was the elderly with pre-existing conditions who were going to be the main casualties of the virus. It was also clear that there would be an increase in the number of deaths, but that this would not be very much above the pre-pandemic average.
The work of Prof. Streeck did away with some of the almost superstitious fear of the virus and how it spread – but without minimising potential risks for some.
The purpose of the vaccines was to prevent serious illness, and to prevent the healthcare system from being overwhelmed with too many covid patients over a short period of time, especially intensive care. This neartly occurred but was averted.
All of this was public knowledge, even if not always shouted from the roof tops.
This does not mean mistakes were not made or measures enforced regardless of having limited effect. Needless school closures would be an example, with hindsight of course. The last masking mandate finally expired on 7th April this year!
Speaking to my sister in England reveals a much more authoritarian response there, and a greater distrust in the authorities, both political and medical.
Thanks for this Ken. I do believe that English speaking world, especially Australia and New Zealand had much more authoritarian responses. Do you have any theories as to why that was so?
A: Penal colonies gonna act like penal colonies?
As a side note, I found it somewhat interesting that after the 1917 flu epidemic, doctors derided the idea that paper or cloth masks could stop a respiratory virus, and said the irrational and unscientific response was driven by fear and medical ignorance. Once the tiniest bit of fear resurfaced during Covid, the medical establishment dropped their anti-mask scientific stance in a only a few weeks, at first patiently explaining that masks can only be effective when used by highly trained hospital personnel. That was roughly the same time they were telling us we could catch Covid by touching a doorknob that someone else has touched, while reassuring us that we couldn’t catch Covid by touching a hamburger bun that someone else has just touched. Things went downhill from there.
As an Australian, I can comment. Australia has been doing gain of function work for several years before Covid broke. One lab is at Geelong, Victoria. When the very tops of governments here were told of the Wuhan leak, possibly October 2019, there was rapid, secret, arse-covering planning. No important person wanted to be seen to be involved in the millions of deaths that Ferguson forecast in UK. The massive disinformation program was in place by Jan 2020. It was necessary to hide who here was involved, then to shift blame. The early WHO false assertions like Covid came from animals, that it could not be spread through the air, that masks would work, that the vaccines were safe and effective, etc were designed by experts to avoid the public thinking in terms of bad people deserving punishment by good, innocent people. The plan was to put the people against another enemy, Covid.
Dissenting views were quashed mercilessly and everywhere. Here in Victoria the socialist thugs in charge sooled the police onto objectors. A young pregnant white woman was taken from her home in pyjamas for tweeting about protest. At a gathering, an old white lady was tackled hard to the ground then capsicum sprayed in her face by a female cop dressed like a storm trooper.
Intellectual dissent was also punished. The central Therapeutic Goods Administration TGA banned treatments like Ivermectin and the like, with removal from the profession of disobedient medicos who wished to do conventional case by case doctor/patient treatment rather than mass medication ordained from above. Useful Covid statistics were withheld, emphasis was on getting all ‘vaccinated’ with an experimental mix made by the people who fund most of the TGA, profitably. Ordinary citizens were cajoled, forced, pressed into effectively compulsory vaccinations, lockdown and severe, unprecedented curbs on personal freedoms like being prohibited from being with dying family and banned from their funerals. It was simply a disgraceful exercise to ensure that officials like our Premier would never go to jail, but would appear as saintly saviours for the next elections.
…….
This account is probably wrong in places because the big effort to conceal inconvenient facts has worked. It is hard to place trust in any figures. The normally inquisitive press had already been groomed with global warming deceit methods and mostly ended up missing in action. I might soon be missing in action if certain of our Stasi read this, but in my 80s I worry not. Indeed, the main opposition to methods for both climate change fables and Covid has come from retired people including some talented medicos, scientists (incl geology types) and reporters.
Yes, it reads far-fetched, but the incidents I mention happened. I have no inside info about what was done in the Geelong lab, which has gone silent.
Does any blogger have a better reconstruction? Geoff S
The post-war German constitution was designed to prevent power from being centralised, and basic freedoms were guaranteed under it. The Nazi era is no longer, but the Communist era is still living memory for those middle aged or over.
Restrictive govt measures normally not permitted under the Constitution were successfully overturned by the Constitutional Court where restrictions were considered to be disproportionate or inappropriate. Protests against measures had to be allowed, for example. Redress against big govt was available, both by groups and individuals.
German politicians for the first half of the pandemic put aside party political differences and worked together. This broke down somewhat in the second half, which also saw the country’s federal structure impede decisive action, no one person being responsible.
Karl Lauterbach, a German MP made himself very unpopular at the beginning by forecasting the virus would be with us for at least 18 months. He is Professor Dr Lauterbach with a PhD in virology, competent to understand the science. When his predictions became reality his unpopularity reversed, and the population began to appreciate his candour and expertise (yours truly included). He is how federal health minister.
Prof Streeck’s work showed early on that the virus was almost never caught in the open air, nor from toilet seats, cooking utensils or door handles. People in close proximity was the main problem.
Prof Plüschel did autopsies (against the wishes of the health authorities – “I know how to do an autopsy without getting infected”) showing mid 2020 that no-one he investigated had actually died from corona itself, it was always in combination with other conditions.
The horror of what went on in Italy at the beginning, daily in the news on our screens, made the population more willing to put up with measures designed to try to prevent this happening in Germany. R = 1 was achieved before any govt regulations had been implemented!
I saw more than one interview with the head of an intensive care unit saying that by 2021/22 winter some 90% of patients seriously ill or dying of covid had not been vaccinated.
I saw an interview with the discoverer of the mNRA vaccine Herr Hoerr giving a layman’s understanding of how it worked and possible dangers associated with it. Since then I have found it difficult to take vaccine deniers seriously even if in the meantime some incidents of health problems with it have come to light.
I’m not claiming no mistakes were made – no-one had had to deal with a pandemic before – but if you kept your eyes and ears open there was enough information to get a realistic idea of how dangerous the virus is.
Gain-of-function.
Earlier, I mentioned that there was an Australian lab conducting gain-of-function work on viruses. It is run by CSIRO, located in Geelong, a town near Melbourne.
I have done some follow-up. A few months before March 2022, the then Minister for Health (Greg Hunt, a WEF member and teacher) ordered a study of Australian gain-of-function work for public elucidation.
The subsequent NHMRC Gain-of-Function Research Review Report March 2022 is 94 pages of .pdf. The terms of reference
do not include investigating the origin of the SARS-CoV-2 virus responsible for the COVID-19 pandemic. Word search of “Geelong” gives no hit. Search for “accident” and “emergency”, 3 hiits each, returns only theoretical generalisations. There are few sentences to allow determination if Australia actually admits to gain-of-function research/ All of them are in “neither confirm nor deny” terms. Example, from the Executive Summary, “… gain-of-function research that has been funded by the Australian Government, or conducted by a Government agency, over the last 10 years and that could increase the harmfulness of an infectious agent to humans (also called gain-of-function research of concern)”.
The bafflegab of 91 pages is of elegant wordsmithing quality, as befits the (assumed) highly educated and morally ethical people in the medical industry. But, in reality, it is utter balderdash for the purposes of answering the concerns that prompted the report.
It fails to disclose what work of a dangerous nature has been done here, whether there have been accidents or emergencies, whether some work should cease after the Wuhan Covid experience, whether the overall concept has good cost:benefit..
This is an expensive report, paid for by we taxpayers but of minimal use to us, a sparkling, recent example endorsing the theme of this blog, “How the Disinformation Industrial Complex is destroying trust in science.”
Thank you, David Young and Judith Curry for shining a light.
Geoff S
Wow, what a pile of.
Let’s take the beginning, John Ioannidis. He was wrong about so much regarding COVID and utterly ruined his reputation by releasing or supporting unscientific data and conclusions. For example:
“He made a rough estimation that the coronavirus could cause 10,000 U.S. deaths if it infected 1% of the U.S. population, but argued that more data was needed to determine how widely the virus would spread.[129][5][7] The virus in fact eventually became widely disseminated, and would cause more than one million deaths in the U.S.[130][129][5] Ioannidis expressed doubt that vaccines or treatments would be developed and tested in time to affect how the pandemic would unfold.” (Wiki)
All you have to do is read this Wiki section to see how over the top he was, and why he deserved the criticism and scorn he got:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Ioannidis#COVID-19
So if it would cause 10,000 deaths if it infected 1% of the US population, we can estimate that it would cause 1,000,000 deaths if it infected 100% of the US population.
Oh snap! Everybody got it and a million people died.
How does that discredit him?
You can’t assume that the 10,000 deaths from a 1% infection of a specific US subset somewhere will scale linearly with a 1% infection of the entire US population. Far too simplistic. Ioannidis knows that.
Ioannidis lost his reputation as a serious scientist:
“But as the pandemic enters its deadliest phase, Ioannidis is losing the argument over how to combat covid-19. Among epidemiologists, consensus now exists that it was inaction, not overreaction, that helped create the worst public health crisis in a century. The uncontrolled spread of the virus has led to overrun ICUs in South Dakota and makeshift morgues in Texas. States and countries are locking down in a bid to preserve lives as vaccines start to roll out. Even Sweden, which resisted tough restrictions through the spring, is now reversing course to avert catastrophe.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2020/12/16/john-ioannidis-coronavirus-lockdowns-fox-news/
Ioannidis statement was completely accurate and remarkably prescient. If you take his estimated fatalities and assume instead that everyone would be exposed (which did almost happen), you get about 1 million deaths in the US. Not a bad estimate for that early in the pandemic.
Wiki is a garbage source, it is crowd sourced and under the control of anonymous “leads”.
Most of Ioannidis’ work during the pandemic turned out to be correct. His paper on why most papers are wrong is very heavily cited by others. He has hundreds of collaborators indicating that his reputation with his colleagues is excellent
You should have said that Ioannidis ruined his reputation with David Appell, a non scientist who relies on unreliable sources for his opinions.
You are proving my point that Ioannidis was smeared. You are just doing a poorer job of smearing than those who know more.
dpy6629 just commented on How the Disinformation Industrial Complex is destroying trust in science:
Ioannidis statement was completely accurate and remarkably prescient. If you take his estimated fatalities and assume instead that everyone would be exposed (which did almost happen), you get about 1 million deaths in the US.
He didn’t say “exposed,” he said “infected.”
Irrelevant. In fact, most people in the US were both exposed and infected. Most were mild infections though.
“Infected” would be a more accurate term than “exposed”.
Nov 2022 Harvard study
His prediction was more accurate than almost any others.
And Congress is still digging into how Fauci funded the creation of the virus, circumventing Congressional restrictions to conduct gain-of-function research overseas, in a country known for sloppy lab procedures and cover-ups.
Fauci of course tried to completely redefine what “gain-of-function” meant, in claiming that the NIH never funded such research, just as the CDC had earlier tried to redefine what “immunity” meant. Both episodes showed how scientific organizations had become corrupted, assuming unto themselves the power to define what technical terms mean, and what words in legislation mean, purely to advance their own interests over those of the public.
BTW, nothing has revealed the final inadequacy of the climate denial movement as its universal adoption of COVID denial as well.
So many deniers just couldn’t help opining on everything to do with COVID, as if (again) they are experts and equivalent to professional scientists. It shows that climate deniers were never scientific or rational in the first place.
This probably won’t be the end of their anti-scientific claims. In fact it may just be the beginning.
We’re not the ones who denied Covid was a man-made virus that leaked from a bat coronavirus lab in Wuhan. Fauci was the one denying that. Now the US government is concluding what normal folks thought was obvious, that Covid leaked from a bat coronavirus lab in Wuhan.
George Turner wrote:
We’re not the ones who denied Covid was a man-made virus that leaked from a bat coronavirus lab in Wuhan. Fauci was the one denying that.
Two falsehoods.
1) it has certainly not been proven that COVID is a man-made virus that leaked from a lab in Wuhan.
You should know this, and probably do, which makes me wonder why you wrote it.
2) You’re also wrong about Fauci:
“If you look at the evolution of the virus in bats and what’s out there now, [the scientific evidence] is very, very strongly leaning toward this could not have been artificially or deliberately manipulated,” he reportedly told National Geographic.
“He added that “everything about the stepwise evolution over time” strongly indicated that the virus evolved in nature to its present form.
“What Dr. Fauci said recently
Dr. Fauci told the Poynter Institute on May 11 that he was “not convinced” that COVID-19 had developed naturally, and said authorities needed to continue to find out “exactly what happened.”
“Certainly, the people who’ve investigated have said it likely was the emergence from an animal reservoir that then infected individuals,” he said. “But, it could have been something else, and we need to find that out.”
“Speaking to reporters at a Tuesday press briefing, he said that it was “more likely” that COVID-19 originated as a “natural occurrence,” but said the scientific community didn’t know “100 percent the answer to that.”
“And since this is a question that keeps being asked, we feel strongly… that we should continue with the investigation and go to the next phase of the investigation that the [World Health Organization] has done,” he later added. “So, because we don’t know 100 percent what the origin is, it’s imperative that we look and we do an investigation.”
Newsweek, 5/27/21
https://www.newsweek.com/what-fauci-said-wuhan-lab-2020-now-1595346
There are those would would say that Fauci flat out lied, and that he’s still lying. He denied that he funded gain-of-function research in Wuhan, but some of the grants and checks were produced that showed he did. When other scientists sent him e-mails saying they thought the virus showed evidence of human engineering, he got them to change their stories in two or three days while giving them multi-million dollar research grants, and had them write a big refutation of the idea that the virus had been created in a lab, setting the stage for all the censorship to follow. Fauci denied knowing who wrote the paper “debunking” the lab leak, but then more FOIA releases showed that he edited that very paper. Fauci also kept the CDC director in the dark about those early e-mails that said the virus looked engineered.
There has never been any evidence that Covid jumped naturally to humans through interactions with animals either in the wild or in a food court. Indeed, it’s incredibly unlikely that the disease managed to travel 800 miles through China, in the wild, from the bat caves near Thailand all the way to Wuhan, without leaving a huge trail of infections that would be easily traced. And the odds of a novel bat corona virus traveling so far from the original source location, only appear within a few miles of a novel bat corona virus lab, is almost astronomical.
And you could calculate the odds that the virus would happen to appear in Wuhan instead of somewhere else in China, based either on population, land area, arable land area, or any other metric. In all cases that I ran, there would be less than a 2% chance the emergence was natural, even in the most strained statistical analysis, yet top scientists kept insisting that it was the opposite.
Suppose we had a novel Ebola virus break out in Ft. Detrick Maryland, within a mile or two of USAMRIID where researchers were doing gain-of-function research on Ebola viruses. The base responds to the outbreak by washing buildings down with Clorox, reassigning all the personnel to a base in Greenland, burning all their documentation, issuing contracts to completely redo their labs’ HVAC and filtrations systems, arresting some local doctors, and welding local residents into their apartments.
Then the government trots out the story that the outbreak must’ve started at an exotic pet store in the Ft. Detrick mall, saying the outbreak was the sad result of the shameful trade in exotic African pets. Nobody is allowed to ask why the outbreak happened in a Ft. Detrick pet store as opposed to one in Tampa or Columbus. Nobody is allowed to ask why there wasn’t a trail of infections leading back to Africa. Nobody is allowed to ask anything, and they especially aren’t allowed to ask why they guy in charge of fighting the outbreak is the guy who pushed for Ebola gain-of-function research at USAMRIID.
That is nearly exact equivalent of the situation we had.
We know Fauci was the major advocate for doing dangerous gain-of-function research, arguing that the risks of a global pandemic are justified by the knowledge science would gain from the research. We know he evaded restrictions put in place in 2014 due to the perceived risks of gain-of-function research. We know he funded gain-of-function research at the Wuhan lab. We know the wet market was a red herring, and the Chinese found no evidence that the outbreak originated there, and found no traces of the virus there without running so many PCR cycles that the results were meaningless.
And we know that the bulk of US scientists involved were either part of the cover up, complicit in it, or were silenced by it. Top scientists and public health officials played games, ran unacceptable risks, got sloppy, and killed 6.8 million people. Then they started lying and covering it up. This is not a good look.
The newsweek article on covid omits Fauci’s statements made in private in the Feb 2020 timeframe before he publicly denied the lab leak theory.
Series of emails show Fauci thought it was lab leak “engineered” virus
https://theintercept.com/2023/01/19/covid-origin-nih-emails/
George, it was not only US virologists that circled the wagons when Fauci called them, it was the whole international GOF virology community. Other anti-GOF virologists were skeptical of the claim that the evidence pointed to natural spill-over but they weren’t given the assignment and funding by Fauci or anyone else to investigate except on their own. This gave the GOF crew an 18-month head start to set the false narrative. Once it got pierced by the work of a few freelancers, combined with semi-retired science reporters, like Nicholson Baker, the curtain began to rise. https://nymag.com/intelligencer/article/coronavirus-lab-escape-theory.html
Three of Fauci’s international virologists, Kristian Anderson, (who rote the Proximal Origin paper Fauci secretly commissioned and edited), Michael Worobey, (who has been pointing to the seafood market in Wuhan along with Eddie Holmes), have a video that ATTP posted on here last month. They claim that all the lab leak theorists are conspiracy mongers and just slandering the good Chinese virologists, their trusted colleagues.
They talk about their new paper that points to racoon dogs as the animal suspect in the Wuhan market, despite the head of the China CDC, George Gao, who collected the data they used, clearing the market as being the origin three years ago. Gao had a paper that just now came out that specifically undercuts Holmes and Worobey’s racoon dog theory and all other animals in the suspect market. He said even if they had found an infected animal or an association with positive samples with a particular market stall where an animal was kept, they still could not discount the more likely probability that the animal was infected by humans. The only SARS RNA they detected were of the human strains active in Wuhan at that time, no pangolin cov or anything else exotic. Here is Gao’s Nature paper.
This point you are making is just a baseless smear. No one here is a “covid denier.” I’ve always said that covid was serious and vaccination did really help a lot of older and sick people.
I can guarantee you can’t even define what covid denial is.
You really are straying over the line of decency. Ioannidis denied nothing. His predictions and papers turned out to be mostly correct despite the high uncertainty in the early stages of the pandemic.
It is a baseless smear and you need to retract it.
Cyber Stats: No one was saying we should only worry about the elderly and infirm nor did anyone else. What they said was that focused protection was a better strategy. The IFR for the under 18 cohort is very small, less than 0.002% if memory serves.
You are also lying about my post. I hardly discussed covid except to quote world famous scientists.
Your links CyberStats are not very informative. The first ones simply confirm that young healthy people had little to fear from covid. That is what all the rational scientists were saying too. Ioannidis, Battacharia, Kulldorf, Makary, Gupta, etc. They denied nothing.
The last 2 are about long covid. All diseases can set off long term effects, so covid is not different in this regard.
Their quality is low compared to the work of Ioannidis for example.
You should apologize for your baseless smear.
Appell. Explain why the recent bi-valent covid vaccine was approved under “emergency authorization.” Last time I looked, there is no emergency. Why weren’t proper clinical trials completed, after which the vaccines could, or not, be given normal approval? Are you really so naive as to believe this is on the up and up???
David Appell | April 23, 2023 at 7:57 pm | Reply
So many deniers just couldn’t help opining on everything to do with COVID, as if (again) they are experts and equivalent to professional scientists. It shows that climate deniers were never scientific or rational in the first place.”
Appell – You would have a valid point if those professional scientists had a better track record of being correct.
Currently the CDC still has at least 6 pro-masking studies that are borderline academic fraud.
Common trick with the masking studies and vax effectiveness studies was to artificially cut the study period short to hide the less than robust results.
Last comment for awhile:
https://erictopol.substack.com/p/the-heightened-risk-of-autoimmune?utm_medium=email
https://erictopol.substack.com/p/heart-attacks-and-strokes-late-after?utm_medium=email
https://www.thinkglobalhealth.org/article/just-how-do-deaths-due-covid-19-stack
Two years in a row number one COD in police as well.
I think this is alarmism in the extreme. You are aware that 2.8 million Americans die each year. Heart disease is about 650,000 if memory serves with cancer not far behind. Most of those who died from covid were already ill or quite infirm. Many were cancer patients who were immunocompromised.
Covid was serious, but your citations just prove my point about the media spreading fear and panic when it was not justified. I appreciate the helpful proof of my point you have offered.
You really need to take basic Biology, epidemiology, and statistics courses. You obviously cannot interpret research, or understand the full impact of COVID in terms of: Deaths, undercounted deaths, Long-Covid sequela, financial impacts, and those healthy still affected. My citations do not prove your point. It is embarrassing you think this. Yes, the elderly and infirmed tend to be most affected, but the citations show that all age groups and various fitness levels have been deeply impacted by COVID, and there was a gross undercounting of COVID deaths and serious illness.
CyberStats, You are reading my mind incorrectly which is unethical. I never said covid wasn’t serious. It was a serious problem. My issue is that covid was used to institute a much more authoritarian regime in the USA that seems to be stubbornly continuing. Science itself saw the same thing as I prove in this post.
What’s your evidence that Covid deaths were undercounted? If anything there are a lot of anecdotes of overcounting for example when Colorado in fall 2020 reduced their count by as I recall 15%. The whole definition is skewed. Anyone who tested positive for covid and then died was in many juristrictions counted as a covid death.
You go to the hospital because you had a heart attack, catch a mild case of covid, but later die from heart failure. Is that a covid death or not?
Given one of Dr. Campbell’s videos highlighting the white clots from mRNA vaccines, I’m very sorry I got two shots. I won’t be getting anymore, that’s for sure. You can’t believe anything negative you read about ivermectin, either. I suppose there are some places in the country where Drs can’t prescribe, but I know older people who got IVN prescribed and began feeling better in just a day or two. The key is early treatment, true for just about any COVID drug.
The unknowns about MRNA vaccines was why I got the J&J vaccine as soon as I could. I knew that Moderna was a company on the verge of failure and there were real questions about the approval of any MRNA vaccine….ever, before the pandemic. I was not qualified to determine what the real risks might be, but I knew I was going to wait for the J&J.
This article proved to be another incredibly good read for me. I am reminded about this from Jonathan Swift:
“Falsehood flies, and truth comes limping after it, so that when men come to be undeceived, it is too late; the jest is over, and the tale hath had its effect: like a man, who hath thought of a good repartee when the discourse is changed, or the company parted; or like a physician, who hath found out an infallible medicine, after the patient is dead.”
Human nature is a strange beast indeed.
In the central equatorial Pacific, easterly winds will persist.
https://earth.nullschool.net/#2023/04/28/1800Z/wind/isobaric/1000hPa/orthographic=-148.99,1.71,562
The article was interesting enough to recommend.
There are two important factors concerning climate scaremongering, but one of them (number 2, below) did not appear to be covered, unless my speed reading missed it:
(1) Censorship of non-government climate science, primarily though pal review, and the mass media ignoring non-consensus views in favor of scary predictions of environmental doom, and
(2) Always wrong, data free, wild guess predictions of the global average temperature in hundreds of years ARE NOT SCIENCE.
Science requires data. There are no data for the future climate — just speculation. Dangerous manmade global warming never happened in the past. So no data for dangerous manmade global warming exist. And that means long term climate predictions of dangerous manmade global warming are just climate astrology, not science.
From another point of view:
Most climate reconstructions claim the average temperature was at least an average of +1 degree C. warmer in the Holocene Climate Optimum (HCO) from 5,000 to 9,000 years ago.
Most HCO local reconstructions are over +1 degree C. warmer, but when you average them, the variations are smoothed.
5000 to 9,000 years ago was warmer than today, and that warmer period was called a climate optimum. Optimum meaning good news. Even the IPCC admits that.
But now the IPCC is claiming if the average temperature increases +1 degree C. from today, getting back to the level of the good old days during the Holocene Climate Optimum, that future warming would NOT give us another wonderful climate optimum.
+1 degree C. warmer than today in the past was good news — called a climate optimum.
But +1 degree C. warmer than today in the future will be bad news? A “code red climate emergency”, according to the IPCC?
THAT MAKES NO SENSE
The IPCC has contradicted themselves.
http://www.HonestClimateScience.Blogspot.com
Venture capitalists may or may not be part of the Deep State, but they are driving change via the huge pool of money they control. They are helping to push eating bugs, getting rid of our gas stoves, our ICEVs, and in general, a comfortable life as we have know it in the US. Of course, they will still be able to jet around the world eating caviar, steak, and drinking champagne.
How the World Is Spending $1.1 Trillion on Climate Technology
Big money — from the three biggest economies in the world, as well as scores of ambitious venture capitalists — is suddenly flying toward startups promising to help the world build a carbon-free future.
…
That’s why horizon-scanning investors are suddenly less interested in reseeding yesterday’s innovations (solar, wind and lithium-ion batteries) than doing deals that push forward the frontiers of climate tech. Decarbonized food, carbon-removing contraptions, futuristic materials and next-generation fuels are now portfolio targets for venture capitalists.
https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2023-climate-tech-startups-where-to-invest
Bill Gates is in on the grift, from that same article:
There’s been a boom in battery tech too. Just look at the plans by Form Energy — backed by Bill Gates’s Breakthrough Energy Ventures and supercharged by the money on offer in the Inflation Reduction Act — to construct a $760 million factory in West Virginia. The project takes a novel approach to manufacturing dirt-cheap batteries, and it has both a marquee VC investor and owes no small debt to West Virginia Senator Joe Manchin’s decisive vote on the US climate legislation.
Bad science results in bad policy. Grab your wallet.
As proposed, almost all coal and gas-fired power plants would have to cut or capture nearly all of their carbon dioxide emissions by 2040, according to the people familiar with the regulation, who asked not to be identified because the rule has not been made public, the New York Times reported.
MarketWatch’s request for comment from the EPA Saturday was not immediately returned.
The EPA’s move would force more of the energy and power industries to quickly bring up to scale carbon- and methane-capturing technology, a nascent field that has champions in both the private and public sector and across the political spectrum, but which some environmental groups say doesn’t do enough to slow demand for fossil fuels at the outset.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets/biden-s-epa-moves-closer-to-first-ever-restrictions-on-greenhouse-gases-from-power-plants-reports/ar-AA1ac801
The first reference given (1) is a dead link. The article is available on PubMed this link https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36340971/
David Young, I greatly appreciate this article, well done. Including and especially reference to government role in misinformation… it was very apparent that the current administration was using this only as a means to enable “government speak” in creating mandates etc. Government should stay the h— out of it.
“One of the first things that became obvious to me during the pandemic was that viral epidemiology was a primitive science dominated by crude mechanistic explanations that lacked quantification.”
I’ve seen the same thing repeatedly. Progress has been built on what’s always worked before plus changes forced by the guy that knew how it worked retiring.
Is there an example of new tech that took over for old tech while the old tech still worked? The first one that cam to my mind was cars replacing horses. Were horses working? When I think about caring for a living transportation the amount of work makes a Toyota seem “free” by comparison.
Hansen compared the theorized planet UNIFORM surface temperature
(the Earth’s EFFECTIVE temperature Te =255K) with the Satellite Measured Earth’s average surface temperature Tmean =288K.
–
Those temperatures, the planet UNIFORM surface temperature, and the planet AVERAGE surface temperature are different Physics Terms.
–
By Hansen’s idealized Formula, when considering a planet AVERAGE surface temperature, it cannot mathematically exceed the same planet idealized UNIFORM surface temperature.
–
Thus, Hansen resumed, the satellite measured Earth’s AVERAGE surface temperature Tmean =288K,
is at least +33 oC warmer than the theorized Earth’s UNIFORM temperature 255K.
–
The +33 oC had to be somehow explained. So it was attributed to the not existent (the very insignificant) the Earth’s atmosphere Greenhouse Effect.
–
Also, it was asserted, the above very confusing and very mistaken conclusion (the Earth having at least +33 oC Greenhouse Effect), it was asserted the above was in full accordance with the 1st Law of Thermodynamics (1LOT).
–
***
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Point of previous comment: Science moves fast because there are 8 billion of us. The giant owners of the shoulders Newton stood on would be quivering as they typed about how dumb Newton was on their social media.
I am noticing most of the praise of this entry by David Young and Ionnadis’ work is more along political lines than scientific.
Cyberstats,
Politicians have entered, distorted and harmed the scientific sector in recent, severe ways. It is no loger possible to discuss science in a social context without mention of politics as a confounding factor.
For example, think about the increased need for FOI requests to government political bodies since its inglorious mentions in the politics of Climategate 2008 or so.
Traditional discussion of science without blatant politics, as by peer-reviewed papers, is now influenced by dominant German ownership of the publications. Geoff S
Beginning in 2009, we have frequently heard how various concepts, ideas, actions, and words represent an “existential threat” with dire consequences; representative democracy, the planet and all flora and fauna upon it, all humanity, &etc. Sometimes it seems like there’s a new “existential threat” to something every day.
As this post and a few comments have illustrated, we are constantly beat about the head and shoulders with delusional/fanatical reality with efforts to, at a minimum, make us cease consideration of those concepts, ideas, actions, and words. These efforts continue unabated even while we know from facts and personal experiences that the delusional/fanatical reality is not true: it is wrong. It seems that new lows with respect to denial of foundational facts are attained every day, and I wonder what on earth could possibly be the next true thing that is twisted into delusional/fanatical reality. Irrationality abounds.
For me, that is the existential threat.
Facts and personal experiences must always, without exception, rule, and we can never give up on openly and freely expressing the facts and our experiences, no matter how convoluted, forceful, misguided, derogatory, and ad hominem the opposition.
Well said Dan.
Pingback: How the Disinformation Industrial Complex is destroying trust in science – Watts Up With That?
Pingback: How the Disinformation Industrial Complex is destroying trust in science – Watts Up With That? - Lead Right News
Pity someone can’t go back and fix up the links in the references cited in the article. What happened to make it such a mess?
Wtaf!
This website has now officially jumped the shark and gone deep into conspiracy theory, la-la land! And the fanboys lap it up.
*Shudder*
No need for rational to come back here again. Goodbye and enjoy your confirmation bias dream/nightmare land.
🤦🏻♂️
It does one good to be exposed to opinions contrary to your own. But if you can’t take the heat …
Murph
I feel your pain. Truth can be jolting at times. I get the same reaction every morning when I look into the mirror and see a haggard face and decrepit body all the while remembering how dandy I looked in my white bell bottoms, madras shirt, blue and white shoes and reeking of Canoe aftershave while humming to the Supremes.
The difference between conspiracy theory and reality is about 6 months and the one thing we have learnt is that our cray cray ultra right wing extremist conspiracies keep coming true!
Scientifically, this is all irrelevant without first dealing with the underlying issue of ‘Béchamp vs Pasteur’ in regards to ‘information’… without which there can be no true reference to all this ‘mis-‘ or ‘dis-‘ prefixing. Until then, this ‘debate’ is a complete red-herring and the true extent of scientific knowledge apparent to the public domain will remain obfuscated.
Estimated Excess Deaths during Covid: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/excess-deaths-cumulative-economist-single-entity
I would dispute the article only in that it focused on COVID.
The reality is that the “Disinformation Industrial Complex” has been building for years with “disinformation” only being its latest nom de plume.
The US media, many top level bureaucrats in the US government, US university professors, McKinsey type consultants etc has been morphing into a social class, as opposed to an economic class, for years and this has primarily been occurring under the banner of “liberalism”.
The ferocity which said class demands utter adherence to its every diktat is one major piece of evidence; the amazing lack of diversity in its views is another.
Under this viewpoint: the behavior of university students is not difficult to understand. Their only chance to enter the stratified upper levels is to be as beyond reproach as Caesar’s wife, and even failure just means toiling as a Song dynasty surplus intellectual – generally via Twitter activity – until opportunity presents itself.
Even failure to ever achieve these heights can be obscured by being “one with the team”.
The ubiquitous presence and constant activity of the liberal trolls on this and other blogs is just one example.
The question is: when and how will this dynamic break?
COVID was instrumental in revealing to a much wider audience that this cabal of elites has no greater skill or wisdom much as Trump was instrumental in showing that professional politicians were no better at getting elected than a Brooklyn billionaire reality show host.
This furthermore is occurring as the West in general continues to decline: G7 share of global GDP was 61% in 1991; it is now 31% and falling every year. The “West” no longer dominates the world – not economically, not politically, not militarily, not socially.
Why then should we be surprised that the leaders of the West focus ever more dictatorially on ensuring the compliance of their captive populations which said leaders are supposedly representing?
It is clear that someone must be blamed for these decades of losing – and narcissistic incompetents will never admit personal fault.
Please, Trump is from Queens, definitely not Brooklyn…
Queens, Brooklyn – doesn’t matter. He ain’t pretending to be anything other than what he is, is the point.
I would tend to agree Wolf. However, I wanted to focus on science and try to steer clear of politics as much as possible because the effects on science are better documented and very clear to some of the best scientists.
I’m sorry, but it’s going to be a very cold spring in the US.
https://earth.nullschool.net/#2023/04/30/0600Z/wind/isobaric/500hPa/orthographic=-97.85,48.58,562
Arctic ice looks very good.
https://i.ibb.co/tPdzzQW/masie-all-zoom-4km.png
Glad you’re back, Ren!
An influx of Arctic air is beginning in central Europe, which will stretch into early May.
test
David … great job!
Thanks, just appreciate the fact that people find it worth reading. That’s why I do it.
There will be no El Niño. ENSO will remain neutral.
http://www.bom.gov.au/archive/oceanography/ocean_anals/IDYOC006/IDYOC006.202304.gif
SOI remains neutral.
https://www.longpaddock.qld.gov.au/soi/
CKid, I noticed you ignored the other links and the direct racist statements Trump made; you cherry picked my links and rationalized away what little you did watch. Once people deny and dismiss/minimalize what they see directly there is no having a rational discussion. No matter what Trump says or does you believe in him so no amount of evidence or information will change your mind. As a professor and educator I would not give an F for direct evidence. Of course there are other videos and audio of Trump, but you failed to even watch the ones I provided, save for a small segment.
Even I can see Hilary or Biden said things they should not have; Biden’s gaffes and Hilary being so wrong on Iraq. If you are so biased here, how could we have a scientific discussion on COVID? We might agee that AGW is a farce but I think so on scientific grounds-yours sound political. Democrats tend to embrace AGW, but I do not because the proxy data and the hockey stick are no accurate. I studied the data for years and analyzed the data in Excel, R/Matlab, and simulation software and saw how poor the GCM’s were at predictions/projections. There are problems posed by thermodynamics as well.
COVID is my central research topic so all I do is immerse in studying it from all angles. It is far more serious than this thread and OP state.
The danger in pro AGW sites is they get too left of center and the trouble in anti AGW is they get too right if center, rather than sticking to data and analysis of the data. This is a shame.
You do realize most of my colleagues believe in catastrophic AGW-that’s one major reason I remain anonymous; while I think alternative energy sources have their place, if GHG’s were having the effect claimed the planet would already be in doomed-or atleast humanity.
Best of luck.
Virology is indeed an incompletely understood discipline (I was a molecular virologist for a decade in my 20s and early 30s).
The first and most common misapprehension about viruses is that they act alone, uniformly, without being affected by environment. This is indeed not the case.
The virus group I worked on in my PhD, the papillomaviruses, ’cause benign tumours’ in a species-specific manner (there are bovine viruses, rabbit viruses, deer viruses and multiple human ones just to mention four species). But it’s not quite that simple: they only cause benign tumours ‘when the conditions are ripe’.
The way that scientists reproduced the benign tumours encountered in wild animals during controlled scientific experiments was in some cases to ‘scarify the skin’. If you just rubbed virus solutions onto healthy skin, nothing much happened. But if you scarified the skin, causing a wound healing response to initiate, at the same time as rubbing that scarified skin with virus inoculums, you got benign tumours.
One of the most amusing things that happened in the late 1980s I encountered at a UCLA Symposium in Taos, NM, when US researchers working on HPV16 and HPV18 (which were linked to the development of cervical cancer and were presumed to be sexually transmitted) decided that prepubertal children, as yet free from any sexual interactions, would be good negative controls for the presence of viral DNA in cervical smear samples.
Imagine their shock when a goodly percentage of prepubertal children delivered positive viral signals via PCR (this was in the days when scientists did PCR tests properly, rigorously and mostly manually).
The USA was not a hotbed of child abuse spreading HPV DNA. It was postulated therefore that exposure to HPV virions occurred naturally either in utero or in early life. So sex wasn’t the only way to spread ‘the virus’, perhaps the sex had some other role in promoting cervical cancer??
Another lesson from my PhD was the importance of immune suppression in the development of cancer, including in bovine cancer models. It was well known in Scotland that digestive tract tumours developed to malignancy in ways which firstly required a bovine papillomavirus (BPV4) but also required the cattle to eat bracken, known to contain both carcinogens and immunosuppressants.
So viruses can often thrive more in certain ways in immunocompromised people than they can in humans whose immune surveillance is of high quality.
It’s rather like the difference between one cerebrally challenged individual preaching that UFOs are about to invade earth vs 20 million MAGA supporters marching on Capitol Hill carrying semi-automatic rifles. Guess which one puts the willies up politicians more, eh??
One way that you can teach people about this through experience is to put their bodies through considerable exercise stress (I used to do it doing 14hr days in the mountains or running 23 miles in 3hrs during marathon training). You learn pretty fast that if you run your body down to the limits through extreme exercise that, until you have recovered through rest and stuffing yourself with healthy food, you are more susceptible to illness than in less exercise-heavy times. It’s about transient switching off of the immune system due to lack of energy to fuel it.
Until the world in general comes to understand that viruses are a part of the jigsaw, not its entirety, where disease epidemiology is concerned, conclusions drawn are likely to be faulty.
It’s why the world should be extremely contemptuous of any globalist billionaire promoting unhealthy diets for the masses. That’s a sure way to promote mass illness and, with suitable seeding of potentially dangerous pathogens, a potential way for genocidal eugenicists to promote their warped ideology.
Same with creating millions of overweight couch potatoes.
Same with keeping people indoors to depress Vitamin D levels.
All these things impact upon the ability of humans to resist the effects of opportunistic parasites, be they viruses, bacteria, fungi or other life forms.
rtj1211,
I actually like much of your post and like the scientific points you made. Viruses are not in a vacuum and they mutate and spread within an environmental context over time. Virology is a fascinating field that has evolved over time, as has epidemiology and molecular biology. There is more of an emphasis in certain research facilities and academic instututions on: Systems biology, nutrition, hygeine, immune system class switching, and exercise, but there is certainly more work to be done.
Immune system suppression, vitamin D (and other nutrients) deficiency can certainly reduce one’s ability to fight off infections, and COVID-19 is no exception. Wearing masks most of the time indoors over many hours each day also means less exposure to other microorganisms, means eventually when the masks come off there can be less robust adaptive immunity to various pathogens.
Obesity, smoking, too much, or too little exercise can result in increased susceptibility to contracting COVID-19, other viruses, and bacteria. In micobiology, virology, and immunology classes I was reminded that antibiotic abuse is the globe’s worse form of drug abuse, that doctor’s overly prescribing them has led to new bacterial resistance, no vaccine is 100% (some sites claim rabies vaccines are 100%, and they are pretty close if you get them quick and in the right way), and the promise of mRNA vaccines, and liposome vectors about 20 years ago.
There are consequences to wearing masks all the time, overly using medications, (think steroids-really useful; saved many lives of COVID-19 victims, makes RA sufferer’s lives more bearable, but very degarding to health long-term) and socially isolating/lack of sun and fresh air.
That being said, while KN95 and KN95 respirator masks set the standard in protection from COVID and Influenza, even surgical and appropriate cloth masks reduce COVID spread and spread of higher viral loads. The COVID vaccines saved millions of lives, and they are not side-effect free, but vaccines are a well understood and highly studied medical modality. Still, we also know that oral vaccines tend to be very unsafe-polio vaccines administered orally did paralyze and kill children; the Cutter incient is one example.
I think it’s important to rest properly, eat healthy, exercise appropriately, get sunshine and fresh air, stay up to date on vaccines, and wear masks in large indoor crowds and areas of high risks based upon the virology data to date.
The real question is when will people wake up and vote out the id eee ot class?
Gas-powered cars represented 93% of all new car sales in 2022, according to a recent report from the Alliance for Automotive Innovation. And EVs remain far more expensive and less efficient than alternatives.
Overall, the average cost of an EV was $64,338 while the average cost of a compact gas-powered car was $26,101 as of last year, according to Kelley Blue Book. In addition, the Department of Energy reported that the average range of model year 2021 gasoline vehicles was 403 miles compared to the median 234-mile range of model year 2021 EVs.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/biden-unveils-toughest-ever-car-emissions-rules-bid-force-electric-vehicle-purchases
Horses were cheaper than automobiles and probably still are. Yet, we made the transition.
You can age without growing old. You’re ancient.
JJBraccili | April 26, 2023 at 9:59 am | Reply
“Horses were cheaper than automobiles and probably still are. Yet, we made the transition.”
Basic math, basic science, basic engineering must be really hard for some.
Automobiles are massively more efficient, vastly less expensive based on every measure of productivity.
The transition was made precisely because automobiles were vastly more efficient and less costly.
jjb – automobiles are significantly less expensive than horses by any measure of productivity. Thats why the transition was made – because automobiles were more efficient than horses.
“jjb – automobiles are significantly less expensive than horses by any measure of productivity. Thats why the transition was made – because automobiles were more efficient than horses.”
I don’t know about that. The first ones weren’t very fast. Were noisy and backfired a lot. Worst of all, you had to crank them. I wouldn’t’ call that an improvement over a horse.
EVs are more efficient than ICEs. With your line of reasoning, you should be happy to make the transition.
People bought the first automobiles without subsidies. If it’s green, taxpayers are paying for it.
JJB – by which measure/metric are EV’s more efficient than ICE automobiles?
EV’s probably more efficient by standard of energy used to move the vehicle.
ICE’s are currently more efficient by $dollar cost to move the vehicle, at least through the first 130k miles by the best estimate (before the break even point)
In terms of environmental cost – its currently debatable which causes more environmental damage. Best estimates I have seen is that the break even point was around 100k -120k miles before EV’s begin to cause less overall environmental damage without taking into account disposal costs. Interesting point on disposal costs; approximately 90% of an ICE vehicle is recycled vs less than 10% of materials in an EV.
EVs are fueled primarily by fossil fuels.
A good reason to replace fossil fuels with renewables.
Except that unreliables are 100% dependent on fossil fuels from cradle to grave.
How so?
We’re going to have to switch to renewables eventually. Fossil fuels are a finite resource. If we keep it as the primary source of energy, we’ll run out of it quickly as demand grows.
Better to eliminate fossil fuels now and preserve oil for petrochemicals, lubricants, and asphalt.
Unless you think wind turbines and solar panels magically appear out of nowhere, you do realize that there are these things called raw materials that must be mined, processed, transported to a manufacturing facility, manufactured, transported to the ultimate site, site preparation, site assembly, life cycle maintenance, ultimate decommissioning, and disposal. Each step requires the use of fossil fuel powered machinery – most steps are very energy intensive, and since wind turbines and solar panels can’t produce sufficient energy to power any of the machinery in any step of the process, they are 100% dependent on fossil fuels from cradle to grave. Not only that, but they have a relatively short life span compared to traditional thermal plants. Wind turbines are supposed to last 20 years (that by itself is a relatively short life span) but they frequently fail in as few as 12. Solar may last up to 25 years. Traditional thermal plants last decades while producing reliable energy 24×7 – something wind and solar can’t do. Some remedial reading for you.
https://www.manhattan-institute.org/mines-minerals-and-green-energy-reality-check
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/01/27/bright-green-impossibilities/
Cars and horses are fundamentally different things.
More importantly: the early cars were for rich people and required no subsidies. There were no Model T tax credits or billions given the Henry Ford to make cars.
Growth of industry made cars affordable for everyone else.
Sadly, that dynamic doesn’t exist for EVs.
The switch to EVs is coming whether you like it or not. How many times do I have to say that we will run out of oil. At the rate we’re going, it’s going to be sooner rather than later. We should do everything we can to preserve oil for other vital products.
“How many times do I have to say that we will run out of oil. At the rate we’re going, it’s going to be sooner rather than later. We should do everything we can to preserve oil for other vital products.”
You’ll have to keep repeating it because it is nonsense.
What we are running out of is cheap oil. There is plenty of less-cheap oil much less expensive oil.
Nor is your obviously uninformed understanding of commodities limited to being ignorant of fossil fuels and/or oil: the likelihood of “running out” is far, far more pronounced (as in pretty much certain) for the materials needed for EVs: copper primarily, lithium next, cobalt, vanadium etc etc.
ID10T – engineering term for a fool who thinks he knows everything about anything.
“Not destroying old statues and works of arts is racist! Putting up Christmas decorations is racist. Teaching English literature is racist. Math is racist. Science is racist. All white people are racist.”
“But accepting a leadership award from George Wallace is not racist. Leading the fight against school busing is not racist. Eulogizing a Grand Kleagle of the KKK is not racist. Demanding racially segregated dorms, classes, and graduation ceremonies is not racist. Discriminating against Jews and Asians in college admissions is not racist. Screaming that Israel should be pushed into the sea is not racist.”
“Next up, why it is sexist to oppose men in dresses who punch women in the face, and why keeping hairy bearded rapists out of women’s bathrooms is misogynistic and an assault on women!”
We’re in crazy times. Here is my offhand opinion on why.
What I think might be going on is a desperate scramble by an oversupply of elites (based on college credentials) to establish their hold on the very limited number of social positions that would be considered “elite”, which is kind of like a game of musical chairs. Such a situation can drive social status competition into a frenzy.
It becomes important to show that ones tastes are in sync with elite tastes, but the in-crowd naturally comes up with tests of insider knowledge, culture, and behavior to limit admissions and lock out normal people. Some say that abstract art took hold because after artists figured out how to mass produce excellent landscapes and portraits, owning and appreciating those no longer served as a badge of high social position, inherited wealth, and refined tastes. So elites had to pretend to appreciate art like looked like body outlines after a building collapse to see who was really among the rarefied select.
The same as been said for getting degrees in esoteric subjects like Sumerian history, a field which only an idle rich heir would have the luxury of pursuing. A “useless” Ivy League liberal arts degree is actually an indicator of family wealth and status. But now all kinds of people are getting useless degrees because college has exploded and the classes got dumbed down to massively increase throughput, so college students have to be a lot more creative about how they grab those precious “in-crowd” slots as one of the select group of moral superiors.
In times past, the way to succeed in academia was pretty obvious. Be excellent at academics. Master a field of study and advance the body of human knowledge. But such methods had already been abandoned in many departments.
Intensified status competition wouldn’t normally cause craziness in academia and elsewhere. If the mismatch between elite supply and elite demand happened sometime before the 1990’s, it would’ve just made us focus on picking the best of the best in their fields. We’d have been hyper selecting for a Richard Feynman and Werner von Braun, not screaming that there was a naked woman on a shirt when the asteroid probe landed.
First some of the humanities departments got ravaged by post-modernist nonsense, abandoning objectivity for subjectivity, then abandoning metrics of success and instead substituting the intersectional-oppression Olympics, and then adopting an honor culture by proxy, where everyone was looking for microaggressions as a way of inflicting assaults on everyone else. Status pyramids were inverted. Merit was denounced as privilege and personal bias became the arbiter of truth, which was just “my truth”.
Old rules went out the window and status, instead of being earned, was something to be seized in an MMA style free-for-all. Mobs formed and people joined the mobs hoping the mob wouldn’t turn on them next. Virtue signaling became a survival requirement for some and a weapon for many. And given the limited number of academic jobs and soft cushy positions at tech companies, beating the competition was a desperate need. Pushing other insiders out proved ones virtue and moral purity, but others were always sniping so one could never be too pure. And so began a purity spiral. But still, even a purity spiral can actually revolve around merit and purity. In this case it certainly did not. It seems to have done the opposite.
As a discriminating virtue signal, and badge of being among the elite, joining the ASPCA doesn’t cut it because everybody likes puppies and kittens. That would fail as a test because everyone would pass. But crazy things like supporting obvious child predators, destroying women’s athletics, turning urban liberal utopias into Third World countries, and re-segregating education would work great as status tests because Joe Six Pack would never support things like that. Only someone whose milieu was in an urban elite bubble would support such things, but only when those beliefs were shared among urban elites. And of course to be useful as tests, the in-crowd needs to keep changing their current beliefs so no commoners slip in with an expired password, so everyone has to support the latest thing, however wacky and bizarre it is. Thus it’s hard to keep track of who we’re supposed to hate this week.
The question is how far scientists have been sucked into the mad competition, and the answer seems to be “pretty far”. Mask on, mask off. Two shots only. No, six boosters at least. “The science is always changing!” Everyone saw what used to be science being twisted into an in-group, out-group test, with the most heinous things being said about those who didn’t agree 100% with whatever the truth of the week was. Scientists pushed policies that were guaranteed to generate massive resistance in certain subgroups, and perhaps that was the actual point of the policies.
And that may have happened because the leaders of many of our scientific institutions, and our government leaders, became leaders by being the best at playing the game of musical chairs and using status signals to beat out their peers. They seem to be behaving like desperate, angry children and vicious backstabbing, conniving, scheming plotters because those are the kinds of people who can finagle their way into the leadership slots at the FDA or CDC over an overabundant sea of supremely qualified science geeks who stick to theories and experiments.
Comments here have to go deeper than quotes from one source or another that support the stance commenter. David Young is expressing concern about the accuracy and contamination of statements. One should instead take these favourite quotes and publications and subject them to a critical analysis instead of, or before, quoting them here.
I have tried to do that above, by analysing a political report about Australian gain-of-function laboratories. Conclusion, very little value in the report. So, for example, I do not endorse or promote it to bolster my argument.
BTW, my career started in Geochemistry, then I took on the unsavoury task of management of government matters in a company with several thousand employees. Government intrusion had become intolerable. Thus there is experience in several facets of the industrial/political complex behind my words here. Geoff S
I believe quotes can be posted here without deep critical analysis. The reader can do a deep dive if needed. Free speech and all that.
Learned a new word today: Quantum-woo.
Good reference book when you have to argue with a quantum fanatic.
“Quantum Bullsh*t: How to Ruin Your Life with Advice from Quantum Physics by Chris Ferrie”
https://physicsworld.com/a/beyond-the-quantum-woo-niverse-getting-to-grips-with-the-fundamentals-of-quantum-mechanics/
“With chapter titles like “Quantum F**king Energy, We Have No F**king Clue What Is Going On, Faster Than F**king Light, and Infinitely Many Goddamn Worlds”, one can get a good idea of the tenor of his writing. Those profanity-fuelled titles, however, belie the incisive, down-to-earth explanations of fundamental quantum mechanics, and the pitch-perfect lampooning of the pseudoscience underpinning quantum woo, that are at the heart of this book.”
jim2,
You seem to be endorsing circular logic, using questionable literature to claim that literature is not questionable.
Geoff S
@sherro01 – not at all.
There are so many wild claims and such on the internet, you have to treat just about any claim from any sources as “pending trust.” If it’s something I care about, I research it myself. It’s on me to validate what I trust, tentatively trust, or don’t trust. The problem with vetting is the person doing the vetting. You never know what their motives are and they may nix something that is true for reasons springing from something other than honesty.
If I read an article that looks like total bunk, I won’t post it. But there are cases where an article is relevant to the topic at hand, but I don’t have the knowledge to vet it. I will post it in that case. Maybe someone CAN vet it or others can pitch in and research/discuss it.
Pingback: Wie der industrielle Desinformations-Komplex das Vertrauen in Wissenschaft zerstört | EIKE - Europäisches Institut für Klima & Energie
Pingback: Wie der industrielle Desinformations-Komplex das Vertrauen in Wissenschaft zerstört – Aktuelle Nachrichten
Cyber
I watched all of the links you provided. Again, you proved my point. People see and interpret what they want to see and interpret. If you want to quote the specific language that you find racist, let’s get down and dissect each word and context. You aren’t making your case at all. I would have expected more from a critical thinking educator.
Rats. Should be synapses, not synopsis. My synapses were thinking one thing, autocompletion was thinking something different.
CKid, I too have searched for explicit statements by President Trump that validate The Narrative. Have not found those words yet.
The matter has been extensively discussed on media of all kinds for a few years. Never have I seen an explicit quote.
It would be helpful if CyberStats could finally put the matter to rest by providing explicit directions to explicit quotes by President Trump.
I do recall The Narrative insisting President Trump’s “racism” included antisemitic leanings and it had to be made clear to them that his son-in-law is Jewish.
Another well-known truth that cannot be spoken. The Truth is known. The Narrative ensures that Truth cannot be mentioned. See the final sentence. It is time to replace all Narrative fiction with Truth.
https://www.city-journal.org/article/on-race-and-crime-a-counterfactual-narrative
Heather Mac Donald
On Race and Crime, a Counterfactual Narrative
The notion that blacks are at elevated risk for “existing while black” is true—but not because whites are killing them.
” We exist mentally in a counterfactual, alternative reality when it comes to race and crime. That alternative reality further poisons race relations, incentivizing more anti-white violence. It creates fertile support for the dismantling of law enforcement and of the meritocratic standards that are said to prop up white supremacy. It is time to unflinchingly pierce that fiction with the truth.”
If it weren’t for subsidies, there probably wouldn’t be market for wind and solar.
Solar Company’s Stock Plunge Signals Consumer Demand Slowdown
Enphase drags down peers after bleak revenue guidance
California solar subsidy cut looms over upcoming earnings
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-04-26/solar-bellwether-s-plunge-signals-consumer-demand-slowdown
It’s true wind and solar rely heavily upon subsidies but so too do the fossil fuel companies:
https://www.brookings.edu/research/reforming-global-fossil-fuel-subsidies-how-the-united-states-can-restart-international-cooperation/
Wrong CS. “Fossil” fuel companies get the same tax treatment as any mining company. That isn’t a subsidy. A subsidy is when I give you money to buy an EV. You need to learn the difference.
I’m not impressed. I think the oil depeletion allowance has been eliminated in the US. These oil subsidies must be mostly in the Middle East I would guess.
Oil depletion allowance is still going strong. This year is its 110th birthday.
Globally fossil fuel subsidies are dominated by countries buying political stability. Russia, Saudi Arabia, Iran,, etc, etc, all keep their domestic fossil fuel prices lower than market prices. That fact has not a thing to do with global warming.
I don’t believe in anthropogenic global warming; I’m extreme on that one-I do not believe the physucs predicts any additional warming from GHG’s.
Are you serious CS? Do you not accept radiative physics? Even Roy Spencer is a strong advocate for this science and says that greenhouse gases are causing warming. He just thinks the feedbacks may not be very positive.
CS – this “implicit” subsidy is just the old saw “externalities” wrapping with green party paper. Any time I look into claims of subsidies I find these specious concepts of subsidies. This is just more Climate Doomer bilge.
Just 8 percent of the 2020 subsidy reflects undercharging for supply costs (explicit subsidies) and 92 percent for undercharging for environmental costs and foregone consumption taxes (implicit subsidies).
https://www.imf.org/en/Topics/climate-change/energy-subsidies
Just for the record, CS, I do believe additional CO2 will cause a bit of warming. Of course, I also know it’s not the only player in climate.
DPY – the percentage depletion allowance is limited to domestic oil & gas production and limited to non integrated producers and limited to 1,000 bbls per day (Section 613A). While still covering a lot of production, none of the majors qualify for percentage depletion.
percentage depletion in excess of basis is the only true “tax subsidy ” in existence in the US.
However, that “subsidy ” is dwarfed by the severance tax which is a tax on gross revenue.
All the other subsidies mentioned in those fossil fuel studies are serious distortions of any meaningful economic concept of subsidy. Note – The brooking article cited by CS only has one actual paragraph describing the subsidy and the IMF article linked by Jim as zero paragraphs describing the actual subsidies.
“ While still covering a lot of production, none of the majors qualify for percentage depletion.”
Very interesting. Thanks. When I read things like this, I think of Paul Harvey’s “ And now for the rest of the story”
CKid – as you noted with Paul harvey and the rest of the story
One very common theme of the “fossil Fuel Subsidy studies and articles is the depth they go into about the amount of the “subsidies” and the distortions of the market due to those “subsidies”. Yet those studies are extremely vague on what are the actual subsidies they are claiming and even more extremely vague on the computation of the amount of those so called subsidies. Any disclosure of the mathematical computation of those subsidies would demonstrate the fictional amount of subsidies.
Joe
I recently spent a couple of hours looking at the financials of a few companies, including some oil companies, who were being bludgeoned by a few pols about not paying “their fair share” of taxes. The statements by the politicians sometimes used amounts that were in error, or not in context or were cherry picked. But mission accomplished, regardless of the facts. They ginned up the resentment class and picked up more support for the next election.
A decade ago I spent a couple of years researching the IRS records on Individual Income Taxes back to 1916. The myths are endless on how wonderful things were when the top marginal tax rate was much higher. Again, who cares about the facts when it’s such a great narrative to use for elections.
If the media did their jobs and actually researched the data on taxes, current and past, the electorate could make more educated decisions.
The fossil fuel subsidies are almost exclusively lower tax rates.
The alternative energy subsidies are almost exclusively cash given out to build, cheap/zero interest rate loans, and other forms of literal financial assistance.
The two things are vastly different.
It’s a distinction without a difference. Whether you do it through direct cash payments or the tax system, it’s still a subsidy.
Wolf1 wrote:
The two things are vastly different.
Why?
CyberStats wrote:
I don’t believe in anthropogenic global warming; I’m extreme on that one-I do not believe the physucs predicts any additional warming from GHG’s.
Do you think the Earth doesn’t emit any infrared radiation, or do you think CO2 doesn’t absorb IR?
David Appell | April 30, 2023 at 6:10 pm |
Wolf1 wrote:
The two things are vastly different.
Why?
Appell – do you seriously need an explanation?
We can help if you need an explanation even if it is obvious
It a distinction without a difference.
In the end, whether it’s a cash payment or a tax break, the recipient winds up with cash that the government should have available to it.
What you’re trying to peddle is just like the myth conservative spin that government spending causes deficits and tax cuts don’t.
In response to DPY and JJB
cost depletion remains fully deductible for world wide oil and gas production (Section 613)
Percentage depletion deduction is limited to domestic production (US) and for non integrated producers , up to 1000 bbls per day (section 613A).
All references to the Internal Revenue code of 1986
David Appell, does your question imply that if the Earth is emitting IR, and CO2 absorbs IR, that there is no other conclusion then that there is AGW? Is there no physics you can think of to make that logic false?
OK David, time’s up. Here are the possibilities:
1) CO2’s IR absorbing band could be already opaquely saturated with current CO2 level.
2) CO2’s IR band could be saturated with other gases like H2O’s IR band.
3) CO2 can re-emit the IR in the same way it absorbs.
4) CO2 can have shortwave bands that block incoming sunlight to a degree that offsets outgoing IR absorption.
5) The atmosphere could have negative feedbacks, like increased precipitation, or clouds, that offset warming.
6 The ocean is absorbing excess CO2.
7) Any combination of all of the above.
7) None of the above but the laboratory predicted radiative warming is only 1.1C per doubling, making CO2 benign or perhaps beneficial as an offset to M-cycle cooling (orbital obliquity) or solar grand minimum or increased Vulcanic activity, etc…[my personal winner]
“Whether you do it through direct cash payments or the tax system, it’s still a subsidy”
Thank for confirming that you are ignorant in yet another area.
There is a huge difference between being paid before producing anything vs. paying less taxes in the process of producing something.
But then again, as an obvious surplus Song intellectual, perhaps you are fundamentally limited in life experience.
If the government gives you money, it’s a subsidy. It makes no difference if they send you a check or give you a tax break. Tell me again why we are giving tax breaks to an industry that doesn’t need it and has a dead-end technology? They don’t create jobs and over the last 40 years have seen a massive reduction in jobs.
You want to use semantics to pretend the oil industry isn’t receiving subsidies? In the end, no matter how you try to justify it, it’s a subsidy.
Oil and Gas tax subsidies – the good, the bad and the ugly:
“Senate Budget Committee testimony on the cost of fossil fuel subsidies on May 3, 2022”
https://www.niskanencenter.org/senate-budget-committee-testimony-ted-gayer-on-fossil-fuel-subsidies/
“According to the JCT, cost recovery provisions amount to approximately $8.1 billion over fiscal year 2022-2026 in tax expenditures for fossil fuel companies, which is approximately $1.6 billion annually.”
…
“In total, JCT estimates the value of fossil fuel tax expenditures at approximately $11.8 billion for the five-year period of 2022-2026.”
…
“In conclusion, regardless of their magnitude, fossil fuel subsidies hinder efforts to reduce carbon emissions. A better approach is a border-adjusted carbon tax to create market incentives to account for the costs of energy use. Such taxes make use of market forces, which is preferable to subsidies that require government picking winners and losers.”
Thieving less of the money I’ve already earned isn’t a subsidy. It’s social justice.
Besides, it is good to have plentiful oil, gas, and CO2. Energy for us, food for plants.
Ron Graf:
These are all great questions, but obvious too, and climate and atmospheric scientists thought of them decades ago. And they have made, and continue to make, a plethora of measurements.
These are basic questions that anyone who wants to opine about climate change should know beforehand. You need to read some basic climate science about global warming. Maybe
https://t.ly/sfit
two short books:
The Long Thaw
by David Archer
The Discovery of Global Warming
by Spencer Weart
if you can handle some math:
A First Course in Atmospheric Radiation, by Grant W Petty
https://www.amazon.com/First-Course-Atmospheric-Radiation-2nd/dp/0972903313
joe – the non climate scientiest wrote:
>> Why?
Appell – do you seriously need an explanation?
Yes — that’s why I asked.
joe – the non climate scientiest wrote:
>> Why?
Appell – do you seriously need an explanation?
Yes — that’s why I asked.
Appel
Very simple –
The so called fossil fuel subsidies are income tax deductions for out of pocket cash expenditures – quite a dubious definition of ‘subsidy”
the renewable energy subsidies are
A) cash payments to the renewable energy sector
B) tax credits
C) mandatory take contracts for renewable electric generation.
In summary the very definition of a subsidy – check websters
Joe – the non climate scientiest wrote:
Very simple –
The so called fossil fuel subsidies are income tax deductions for out of pocket cash expenditures – quite a dubious definition of ‘subsidy”
Why?
Doesn’t it mean more money in the pocket of that tax filer?
Money that others don’t get?
Joie – the non climate scientieisst wrote:
Appel
Very simple –
The so called fossil fuel subsidies are income tax deductions for out of pocket cash expenditures – quite a dubious definition of ‘subsidy”
the renewable energy subsidies are
A) cash payments to the renewable energy sector
B) tax credits
C) mandatory take contracts for renewable electric generation.
In summary the very definition of a subsidy – check websters
What’s the difference?
Don’t they all mean more money in the pocket of the tax filer?
Yes or No?
If anyone here is over 60 don’t buy solar. The payback is too long and the panels will probably outlive the owner leaving it to someone else to clean up the mess and repair the roof.
>” … the panels will probably outlive the owner leaving it to someone else to clean up the mess and repair the roof.”
So what’s wrong with that ? /sarc
My 6.7Kw ground mounted panels are going to produce 12% more than the same size system on a roof and are easy to remove at end of life – 2035. Most residential roof top systems are suboptimal to a ground mount system and are oversized (+$$) to compensate. Unfortunately zoning is a problem for most home owners so only 15% of urban solar is ground mounted.
Yea but there is a massive toxic waste disposal problem. Batteries and solar panels contain a lot of very harmful stuff. Don’t know about recycling but I’ll bet it will be expensive.
dpy6629,
I can’t think of very many things I have bought in my life that are as trouble free as ground mounted solar. If mine are still working after 2035 I see no reason just to scrap them. I might add a few newer panels if it’s economical. My panels were only 14.5% efficient and now the average panel is almost 21%. I would guess they will be twice that by 2035 and might not be silicone based.
Don’t get me started on ‘toxic’. Humans have created over 250,000 chemicals and molecules and lots of then are way more toxic and dangerous than solar panels.
dpy6629 wrote:
Yea but there is a massive toxic waste disposal problem. Batteries and solar panels contain a lot of very harmful stuff.
As opposed to the waste problem from fossil fuels, which prematurely kill one in five people and rapidly change the climate that will last for, basically, forever?
And once again DA, explain to us how you plan to produce solar panels without using fossil fuels since solar panels can’t produce enough energy to power the machinery used in their production. They are 100% reliant on fossil fuels from cradle to grave.
Barnes Moore just commented:
And once again DA, explain to us how you plan to produce solar panels without using fossil fuels since solar panels can’t produce enough energy to power the machinery used in their production. They are 100% reliant on fossil fuels from cradle to grave.
How much energy from fossil fuels does it take to build a machine that will generate renewable energy from wind and/or solar?
vs.
How much fossil fuels does it take to generate the same amount of energy that the wind/solar would have?
—
Give numbers.
Here is a simple summary even someone like you might understand. There is a link to the full report in this article.
https://manhattan.institute/article/inconvenient-energy-realities
The Manhattan Institute? That’s a right wing think tank. In the 1980s they were pushing supply side economics. How did that work out.
Even if all that is true, the question I keep posing, which you have no answer, is what happens when we run out of fossil fuels?
There are sufficient fossil fuels for the next several hundred years – peak oil has been predicted since the 70’s. We have used more oil since the 70’s than what was then shown to be recoverable reserves, yet we have more recoverable reserves today than we had then. Your comments, as usual are nonsense.
David Appell | May 6, 2023 at 3:38 pm |
dpy6629 wrote:
Yea but there is a massive toxic waste disposal problem. Batteries and solar panels contain a lot of very harmful stuff.
Appell’s response – “As opposed to the waste problem from fossil fuels, which prematurely kill one in five people …”
Appell – you have an advanced degree in math and physics. Why is that you lack the ability to recognize junk science?
The 1 in 5 premature death from fossil fuels studies are junk science , many of which are academic fraud level junk science.
Barnes Moore commented:
There are sufficient fossil fuels for the next several hundred years – peak oil has been predicted since the 70’s.
How much global warming would result if we burned all these fossil fuels?
My prediction – virtually zero. Of course, you will have some wild eyed scary prediction of doom, but just like every other prediction of doom, it will fail to materialize. So far, the climate catastrophes are zero for all time in their doomsday predictions, so now of course, the predictions go out beyond their life span so they won’t be around to see that they failed yet again.
They aren’t failing. They are coming to fruition.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2023/05/07/what-are-the-worst-cities-and-states-for-climate-change-effects/11752271002/
jim2 incorrect; there are subsides too. Even without subsidies there would be a market for solar and wind.
But that market would be small and be mostly for devices that couldn’t easily be connected to the grid, i.e., road signs in remote areas. There is no practical plan to do clean storage of energy for intermittent generation. The only one that will work is pumped storage and our clean energy advocates also tend to be NIMBY types who want to tear down dams not erect more. Batteries simply can’t work. All the lithium on this planet wouldn’t come anywhere close.
They are looking at NH3 as a storage medium. Look it up. There is a lot of information on how this would work.
Agreed on the batteries.
JJB, I found this on ammonia (NH3 or NH4OH aqueous):
Ammonia is also flammable and explosive in an East Palestine-type accident. It also is a caustic gas that will burn lungs and eyes at 100ppm and cause death in 30min at 2000ppm. Other than this it is the most promising energy storage alternative to batteries.
Ammonia can be produced carbon free. Look up Green Ammonia.
Ammonia is toxic and I certainly wouldn’t put anhydrous ammonia in the hands of the general public. In an industrial setting, it shouldn’t be a problem.
Just to expound on this.
Let’s review what a real subsidy is. When the government gives you money to help you afford an EV – that’s a subsidy. When the government gives a company money to build a wind or solar farm, that’s a subsidy. When the government pays a wind or solar farm for NOT producing energy, that’s a subsidy. See how it works? A subsidy is a direct cash payment from the government to an entity.
OTOH, Climate Doomers go through all kinds of contortions to make it appear fossil fuels get subsidies. They most certainly do not get subsidies!
Regarding fossil fuels, this “implicit” subsidy is just the old saw “externalities” wrapping with green party paper. Any time I look into claims of subsidies I find these specious concepts of subsidies. This is just more Climate Doomer bilge.
Just 8 percent of the 2020 subsidy reflects undercharging for supply costs (explicit subsidies) and 92 percent for undercharging for environmental costs and foregone consumption taxes (implicit subsidies).
https://www.imf.org/en/Topics/climate-change/energy-subsidies
Jim 2,
How can a sum of money be called a “subsidy” when those supposed to be getting it created the original money pool from which the “subsidy” is taken?
Globally, many economies are now in poor shape because there has been less recent production of original wealth, such as by new mine discoveries and more hands out for cash from non-producers of wealth or anything positive.
Oh – and the irony, those with hands out have taken to criticism of the wealth producers, as in “filthy miners”.
Geoff S
(I’m a retired miner. My team found several new mines whose combined product sales to date are around 80 billion dollars in today’s prices. That can pay a lot of subsidies to those who generated nothing).
+100 to Geoff!
“This world is one of ill-posed equations, multiple solutions, and bifurcations, and often high uncertainty. This is not something that is readily evident either from typical graduate school education or the literature. It must be said that climate and weather scientists do a better job on this point.”
It must be said that climate and weather scientists have done the worst possible job. By assuming that weather is chaotic, and then imagining that human driven global heating will make major heatwaves like in 2003 and in 2018 happen every other year by 2050, while failing to even consider how such heatwaves are discretely solar driven.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/e/2PACX-1vQemMt_PNwwBKNOS7GSP7gbWDmcDBJ80UJzkqDIQ75_Sctjn89VoM5MIYHQWHkpn88cMQXkKjXznM-u/pub
More data on fossil fuel subsidies:
https://www.iea.org/reports/fossil-fuels-consumption-subsidies-2022
https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/WP/Issues/2021/09/23/Still-Not-Getting-Energy-Prices-Right-A-Global-and-Country-Update-of-Fossil-Fuel-Subsidies-466004
Cyber – you missed my point on the phantom fossil fuel subsidies.
A) The studies/articles are extremely vague about what constitutes the actual claimed subsidy[ies]
B) the studies/articles are even more vague on the mathematical computation of the $amount of the so called subsidy[ies].
c) those studies / articles omit much of the additional taxation fossil fuels are assessed such as the severance taxes on gross revenue, revenue sharing with the government via the royalties, etc.
d) those studies are done by organizations with agenda’s
A fair and honest analysis cripples the validity of those studies.
Joe I did not miss your point; the data is there within the links if you look.
Cyber My other point
All the subsidies mentioned in those fossil fuel subsidy studies are serious distortions of any meaningful economic concept of subsidy.
My first point remains valid – Contrary to your note, if you drill down through the links, the details are available. No the data is not there. The details remain extremely vague.
A worthy note in the IMF comments – the failure to impose an additional excise tax on coal or gas is considered by the IMF to be a subsidy. that should give you a hint of the delusional logic in those fossil fuel “subsidy ” studies.
At the risk of tipping over an ash can, nuclear power has received billions of dollars in “subsidies”. I am referring to the taxpayer money the DOE has given to the development of nuclear reactors. The DOE has, similarly, provided billions of dollars to renewable energy.
So should the taxpayer subsidize energy “development” activities? Given the widespread abuse that inevitably occurs when billions of dollars are given out by DOE bureaucrats, I would say not only no, but hell-no.
Come to think of it, universities have also “subsidized” by the DOE to the tune of billions of dollars.
The government subsidizes a lot of things. It subsidized computers in the 1940s. Why? The cost was high and the risk was large no investors would touch it.
Today the government subsidizes fusion technology. Why? Again, the huge cost and the risk. There is private equity involved, but most of cost the government or should I say governments subsidize.
Drugs are heavily subsidized. Why? One reason is that there are rare diseases that no private company would do research on because they could never recover the cost.
The government should be subsidizing solar and wind because — let me say it again — we are going to run out of oil. It will spawn a large industry that will provide millions of jobs. The fossil fuel industry isn’t capable of that. It uses a mature technology that has run its course.
Subsidies for a reliable, 24/7, high volume energy source isn’t wasted money. Subsidies for wind, solar, and EVs, however is wasted.
It’s impossible to apply a rule or principle uniformly for every case. The scenario in question can have other factors that come into play. Insisting that a given rule or principle is *always* applied the same way can be a good debating tactic, but reality is multi-dimensional. All dimensions must be considered on a case-by-case basis.
Let me say it again. We are going to run out of oil. The supply is finite. Subsidizing it is a waste of money because you’re still going to have to build out a renewable infrastructure.
Please enlighten us on what we will do when all the oil is gone? Nuclear? Renewables will be cheaper. Currently, renewables are cheaper than coal and competitive with oil. Nuclear is neither of those.
The subsidies in question are largely decoupled from commercial viability while being essentially pork barrel politics for the DOE laboratories and their allies.
A better approach would be tax credits for efforts to develop the commercialization of products, as led by private industry instead of the government. The government labs have virtually no incentive to ever complete work. Rather, the incentive is unrestrained never ending research.
That’s not true. We seen significant advance in solar and wind power and we will see more in the future.
NIH develops a lot of new drugs. Is that wasted dollars? A lot of that research the private sector will not due. In today’s world, the private sector wants a quick payout for money they put into research. Firms used to do long term research — not anymore. Drug companies would rather spend their research dollars on “me too” drugs.
None of those links delineate these “subsidies” – they are simply assumed. Just propaganda.
And coal, oil and gas are not fossils. You cannot just make up false definitions to suit your technobabble.
Story Tip: Create an Opportunity Cost of the Green Economy
1) The benefits are hugely speculative and highly destructive to the environment. Nothing has changed in the trend of CO2
2) The costs are real and undeniable
3) $5 Trillion or 20% of GDP can build a huge number of roads, bridges, hospitals, cancer research, etc etc.
Put the cost of fighting climate change in terms the people can undersand
The Great Energy Deception: The Truth Behind the $5 Trillion Renewable Energy Scam
https://internationalman.com/articles/the-great-energy-deception-the-truth-behind-the-5-trillion-renewable-energy-scam/
Joe,
this would be a very long discussion. As much as I have been more engaged than usual in this topic, we would really need to pick apart the details here, wording, and economic theory with application. You post here pretty regularly; let’s circle back in the future. I find this topic interesting, but with the classes I am teaching and the completion of my chapters 4 and 5, I just cannot dedicate the time for now.
Look forward to it in another relevant thread or this one.
Cyber – my field is federal and state taxation with a minor concentration in oil and gas taxation. As such I am very familiar with the concepts and tax policy deemed to be “subsidies” by the anti fossil fuel advocates. With respect to US taxation, the only item that is a subsidy is percentage depletion in excess of basis, and the timing for the deduction of IDC (even that is only a timing issue). All the other items claimed to be subsidies are seriously delusional distortions of any concept of economic reality, many of which are outright falsehoods.
Joe,
I am not questioning your background, career experience, education, or whether you have valid inputs or not. I am simply saying the conversation is not a simple or short one. I have a background fitting to have this discussion-just not in the detail required.
When you say all the other claimed subsidies are delusional distortions, we of course disagree. Also, strong claims like yours require robust evidence. Gavin Schmidt and Michael Mann have incredible backgrounds in their fields but they have not provided real robust evidence for their claims.
To have a rewarding dialogoue with you and a well-informed debate will take far more than making some quick claims or posting some links.
Suffice to say I disagree with you on some of your points; we have some areas we would agree on too.
At any rate I do not have the time now to break down with data and my own financial econometric analysis, and braoder taxation explanation for now. I just did not want to leave your reply here unanswered.
Edit of: “I have a background fitting to have this discussion-just not in the detail required.” ** Meant to say do not have the time now to discuss in the detail required.
Joe,
What happens to the people who own the mineral rights to their land but never signed a lease to a drilling company? I know a few people who would like to claim their royalties for the past 15 years the oil & gas companies have been extracting the natural gas under their property.
I have such a property in Ft. Worth about 400yds from an active well pad that was drilled back in 2009. So in a way that’s a subsidy from my pocket to the driller that probably isn’t listed on the balance sheet.
Jack – I would suggest getting landman involved
I would send you a couple of names – though it would be inappropriate to list names on this blog. perhaps JC could forward my email to your email and exchange info
Joe,
Thanks.
It’s not just the nat gas royalties. According to Texas state law I have been earning Renewable Energy Credits since 2012 (I exported over 30MWh). I know ERCOT has the data and my retail electric provider’s contract explicitly grants all my RECs to me so I have a legal claim.
At least the system was paid off early due to one-to-one net metering @ $0.15 per kWh. All the electric providers have moved away from those plans now that there are gigawatts of new utility solar coming on to the Texas grid.
@ Jack S. Looks like u r SOL. I’m thinking that without this rule, there wouldn’t be an O&G industry.
1. The Rule of Capture
Stated simply, the rule of capture provides that a person owns all of the oil
and gas produced from a well bottomed on his own land, regardless of the
substances’ original location – regardless, indeed, of the fact that the well may
have been deliberately located at a spot that would cause the maximum drainage
of neighboring land.
file:///home/family/Downloads/Smith_OM03_preview.pdf
Jim2,
Was that ‘bottom’ on the first or 3rd. time they refracked the well by adding about 16 new horizontal lateral lines to the well pad?
I think the loophole they use is based on the percentage of properties they secure leases on to start drilling. Once they hit that % of the track under lease the rest of the land owners are sort of screwed. Of course I’m SOL but since I’m a capitalist I still want what’s mine.
CyberSatas,
When you are in teaching mode, I hope that you teach with more objectivity than your words here might have us believe.
When you teach on matters related to the theme of this blog, do you ever meet a sub-topic that says to you “I am not sure that I am telling these youngsters an accurate account”? If you have not, you might be too self-assured to be a teacher. So, do you have an uneasy sub-topic or not? If yes, can we help you to clarify it?
I’ve mainly taught by example.
Geoff S
If you’re a science teacher, then you teach the science — not climate denial pseudoscience. Ideology is not science.
This proposed EPA rule for emmissions will make light-duty and medium-duty vehicles more expensive. You may non longer have a choice but to buy an electric vehicle with no other viable alternative. Post your comment to the EPA here:
https://www.regulations.gov/search/comment?filter=EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0829
This proposed EPA rule for emissions will make heavy-duty vehicles more expenive to buy and operate. It will increase the cost of anything shipped by these vehicles and will make inflation worse. Post your comment to the EPA here:
https://www.regulations.gov/search/comment?filter=%20EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985
Roger Pielke Jr.
Top Five Climate Change Narratives in the Media
Coverage of climate has become more about narrative promotion than news
https://rogerpielkejr.substack.com/p/top-five-climate-change-narratives/
ChatGPT just wrote this for me:
Environmentalism, as a social movement, has been gaining momentum in recent years. It is a cause that seeks to address environmental concerns, such as climate change, pollution, and deforestation. However, some have argued that environmentalism has all the classic characteristics of a religion. This essay will explore this claim and examine how environmentalism exhibits the characteristics of a religion.
One of the main characteristics of a religion is the existence of sacred texts. In environmentalism, a similar phenomenon can be observed with the publication of books like Silent Spring by Rachel Carson, which is often considered the founding text of the modern environmental movement. This book has been compared to a sacred text, as it is revered by many environmentalists and serves as a source of inspiration and guidance.
Another feature of religion is the idea of indulgences. In environmentalism, this is manifested in the form of carbon credits, which allow individuals and organizations to offset their carbon emissions by investing in renewable energy or other green projects. This is similar to the practice of purchasing indulgences in Catholicism, where individuals can purchase forgiveness for their sins.
Fasting, or the act of refraining from certain foods, is also a common practice in some religions. In environmentalism, this is manifested in the form of not eating meat, which is seen as a way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and mitigate climate change.
Earth Day, which is celebrated annually on April 22nd, is another example of a holiday that is reminiscent of religious observances. It is a day dedicated to raising awareness about environmental issues and promoting environmentalism.
The vilification of those who challenge the science of environmentalism is another characteristic that is common in religions. Those who dispute the scientific consensus on climate change, for example, are often labeled as heretics and treated with disdain and scorn.
Blind allegiance to a cause or ideology is also a characteristic of religion that can be observed in environmentalism. Many environmentalists have a strong sense of commitment and loyalty to their cause, and are willing to defend it at all costs.
Human sacrifice, or the idea of sacrificing something valuable in order to appease a higher power, is another characteristic of religion that can be seen in environmentalism. Some environmentalists argue that aborting children to reduce the human population is necessary to save the earth from the negative impacts of overpopulation.
Finally, self-flagellation, or the practice of inflicting pain on oneself as a form of punishment or penance, can also be observed in environmentalism. For example, some individuals choose to eat kale or adopt other strict diets in order to reduce their carbon footprint and live a more environmentally-friendly lifestyle.
In conclusion, it is clear that environmentalism exhibits many of the classic characteristics of a religion. From the existence of sacred texts and holidays to the practice of indulgences and self-flagellation, there are many parallels between environmentalism and religion. While this may be seen as problematic by some, it is important to acknowledge that environmentalism is a powerful force for change and has the potential to inspire individuals and communities to take action to protect our planet.
The “Hurtful Idea of Scientific Merit”.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-hurtful-idea-of-scientific-merit-controversy-nih-energy-research-f122f74d?st=51wrviznjq9puo1&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink
“In Defense of Merit in Science”
https://journalofcontroversialideas.org/article/3/1/236
The polar vortex pattern in the lower stratosphere will cause strong cooling in the South Pacific.
https://earth.nullschool.net/#2023/05/03/2200Z/wind/isobaric/70hPa/overlay=mean_sea_level_pressure/orthographic=-129.65,-29.73,281
Low temperatures in the upper stratosphere over the southern polar circle.
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_TEMP_ANOM_AMJ_SH_2023.png
More snow in the Sierra Nevada?
https://i.ibb.co/Y7JnZrK/gfs-hgt-trop-NA-f072.png
A graph of galactic radiation data from Oulu shows that solar activity in the 24th and 25th solar cycles are at the same level.
https://i.ibb.co/GxKqyWb/onlinequery.gif
For the dupes who have swallowed China’s propaganda hook, line, and sinker …
Local governments in China approved more new coal power in the first three months of 2023 than in the whole of 2021, according to official documents. From a report:
The approvals, analysed by Greenpeace, reveal that between January and March this year, at least 20.45 gigawatts of coal power was approved, up from 8.63GW in the same period in 2022. In the whole of 2021, 18GW of coal was approved. A Chinese Communist party (CCP) five-year plan from 2016 had placed a heavy emphasis on reducing the use of coal and developing clean energy sources. In 2020 Xi Jinping, China’s leader, pledged that the country would become carbon neutral by 2060. This prompted an era of reduced coal power approvals as local governments sought to keep their local economies in check with Beijing’s priorities. A rise in coal power approvals came in 2020 when the five-year plan came to an end, as local governments anticipated even tighter restrictions on coal expansion in the next round. But in 2021, China suffered huge power outages, leading to a dramatic shift in the CCP’s energy priorities. In September the price of electricity soared as factories reopened to service global demand as the rest of the world emerged from the Covid-19 pandemic. But the government had capped prices, so many power plants reduced output rather than operated at a loss.
https://slashdot.org/story/23/04/28/189226/china-ramps-up-coal-power-despite-carbon-neutral-pledges
Jim
China is doing what makes sense for China.
This is striking, but no surprise to some of us. It directly relates to the disinformation theme.
I appeared a few times on his show, to air my concerns.
Right away the left-wing “watchdog” Media Matters — run by someone who had been a former acquaintance, even a friend, of ours in DC, the former conservative who had turned Democrat, David Brock — went after me aggressively, with a systematic character assassination on Twitter and on the Media Matters website, engineered by CNN reporter Matt Gertz — a “journalist” who was actually funded to track and attack guests on Fox News: “Fox Keeps Hosting Pandemic Conspiracy Theorist Naomi Wolf”.
(It also consigned millions of women to damaged menses and infertility, by helping to silence this emerging discussion. Maternal deaths are up 40 per cent now, due to compromises of women’s fertility post-MRNA injection. A million babies are missing in Europe. Great work, Mr Gertz, Mr Brock. You will take those harms, that you inflicted upon women and babies, to your graves.)
From now on, nothing she did would be worthy:
But having appeared on Mr Carlson’s show, to raise these and other real concerns, I also was peppered ceaselessly with nasty comments from my own “side.” Why? Because I had talked to Tucker Carlson. That was literally how they phrased my “crime.”
This was the first real confrontation I had with the unreason and the cultlike thinking that were engulfing my “team”. I kept receiving messages, emails, DMs and direct confrontations by phone, with friends and loved ones and even family members.
How can you talk to Tucker Carlson??
I noted with concern that they did not say that I was wrong, or that my assertions were baseless, or even that his assertions were baseless.
https://joannenova.com.au/2023/04/the-crime-of-talking-to-tucker-carlson-and-the-red-pilling-of-naomi-wolf/
I hope that we don’t follow the trajectory of Germany in 1933. The (Anti)fa is a bad omen.
@ jim2 | April 29, 2023 at 3:37 pm in suspense.
The easterly wind over the equatorial Pacific is intensifying.
http://tropic.ssec.wisc.edu/real-time/mtpw2/webAnims/tpw_nrl_colors/spac/mimictpw_spac_latest.gif
So does this mean a tendency to La Nina?
Conditions for La Niña are being created in the atmosphere. We will now see an increase in SOI.
https://www.longpaddock.qld.gov.au/soi/
Pingback: Glibertarians | Sunday Morning Abbreviated and Hurried Links
This is not a joke, and 100% proof that ChatGPT is woke. This is what I got when using ChatGPT to write a response to an article. It literally starts by saying that it can’t agree with my facts.
I must preface this article by stating that I cannot agree with the points presented as they contain several inaccuracies and misrepresentations of the current state of climate change and the green economy. However, I will present them in the form of an article as requested.
There has been much talk about the green economy and the push for a sustainable future. While many believe that this is the way forward, others are skeptical of its benefits. Some critics have even argued that the green economy will destroy America. Here are some of the reasons they cite:
Russia, China, and our enemies benefit
One of the main concerns is that transitioning to a green economy will benefit our enemies, such as Russia and China. Critics argue that by reducing America’s dependence on traditional energy sources, we will be handing over power to our adversaries.
Another Communist failure …
There was a time when International Workers’ Day was marked in Cuba by parades involving more than a million people marching through Havana’s Revolution Square. Many came out of conviction, some because they were pressured, others to enjoy the party.
This Monday, however, the square will be empty, after the Cuban Communist party cancelled this year’s celebrations due to gasoline shortages that are crippling the island’s economy.
For weeks, motorists have been sleeping in their cars outside petrol stations in queues that stretch for miles and last for days.
President Miguel Díaz-Canel has said the island is only receiving two-thirds of the petrol it needs, and that the shortfall is due to supplier nations failing to fulfil their contractual agreements.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/apr/30/cuba-workers-day-parade-cancelled-oil-shortages
I’m taking a few liberties with the disinformation/misinformation portion of the post but in a perverted way it fits in.
I just read for the umpteenth time IPCC6 on sea level rise. I wanted to confirm that I had remembered correctly that it said the contribution to GMSLR from Antarctica for the most recent period measured was 2.64mm/yr. It did say that. That is less than IPCC5 which said 2.7mm/yr.
In the same document I also read the section that lays out the possible contributions to GMSLR from Antarctica until 2100. There were nice symmetrical boxes for someone to read. The problem for what could be a simple estimate was that there were 185 numbers you could choose from. Really? 185 numbers?
A more honest answer could have been “Who the hell knows” since they repeatedly pointed out all of the uncertainties and lack of consensus.
At times it seems the 3943 pages and perhaps 1 million data points in the IPCC reports are just their own strategy of disinformation and misinformation since the entire document is a giant exercise in the supreme obfuscation.
The IPCC is trying to be through. If they didn’t provide all that information, you’d be accusing them of trying to hide something.
“May is set to start off a lot like February, as chances for rain and snow return to parts of the state — along with the risk for isolated thunderstorms. Metaphorically speaking, winter doesn’t seem to be done with California, as weather models hint at more low-pressure systems on the horizon.
The outlook for the first half of the month is riddled with unsettled, winter-like conditions, though weather models also indicate a return of another setup: the May Gray. Long-range weather models are trending toward a pattern where the next few weeks will feel a lot like a hodgepodge of winter weather mixed with the more typical ebb and flow of marine fog, depending on where you are in the state.”
Pingback: Censorship, etc: “How the Disinformation Industrial Complex is destroying trust in science” – Social Panic
Why will it snow in the mountains of California and northern Europe in early May?
https://i.ibb.co/VDXTsSC/gfs-z100-nh-f120.png
Is this somehow unusual?
Hi, I’m retarded, and ChatGPT told me this. Seems a bit generalized, not totally convincing…
“What’s the most important empirical model that shows that climate change is true?”
ChatGPT
Climate change is a well-established scientific fact that is supported by multiple lines of empirical evidence, rather than a single model. There is a wealth of empirical evidence from various fields of science that supports the conclusion that the Earth’s climate is changing, and that this change is primarily driven by human activities such as the burning of fossil fuels and deforestation.
Some of the most important empirical evidence for climate change includes:
1. Temperature Records: Long-term temperature records show that the Earth’s surface has warmed by approximately 1.1 degrees Celsius (2 degrees Fahrenheit) since the late 19th century, and that this warming trend has accelerated in recent decades.
2. Glacier and Ice Sheet Melting: The melting of glaciers and ice sheets around the world is accelerating, leading to rising sea levels that threaten coastal communities.
3. Ocean Acidification: Increased levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere are causing the oceans to become more acidic, which can have negative impacts on marine life and ecosystems.
4. Changes in Animal Behavior: Many species are changing their behavior in response to changing climate conditions, such as changing migration patterns and shifting breeding seasons.
5. Extreme Weather Events: Climate change is contributing to more frequent and severe extreme weather events, such as heat waves, droughts, and hurricanes.
Overall, the empirical evidence for climate change comes from a range of scientific fields, including meteorology, climatology, ecology, and geology. Multiple lines of evidence from different fields of science all point to the same conclusion: the Earth’s climate is changing, and human activities are the primary cause.
All the ‘intelligence’ here is a data indexing system that you might set up for yourself when studying a certain topic for a project, homework, or examination (you know books all over the desk open at certain pages). The fundamental benefit to a human being doing this indexing exercise with open books on a desk (including the computer programmer writing the algorithm) is our brains steadily think of better ways to understand potential linkage strategies and so the index has a chance of becomong more sophisticated if our brains randomly find such an improvement.
A computer has no such thought process at all (random or ottherwise as it slavishly follows the programmer’s code- it only ever has a repetitive instruction algorithm to follow and cannot break from that or change that except via prewritten code which contains not a single random option or operation which appears out of nowhere. All of it must have been written, present and compiled before the program could even be started.
It is often easier to imagine a computer as being a sophisticated message passing machine using code (just as morse, semaphore, and encrypted messaging like Enigma did before them). You can pass messages using flashing torches but they are not as smooth or versatile as 32 or 64 bit processors etc can be in the right hands.
What the modern computer adds to the process started by these often crude long distance message passing methods is speed. The intelligence may be in the message but there is none present in the method of delivery which is just very high speed processing of zeros and ones. The programmer has to ensure those zeros and ones are all exactly as they are supposed to be or something in the program will go wrong often fatally and will not stop until a human being finds and corrects the problem.
Bill Gates and company should be ashamed of themselves for resurrecting the myths of AI, machine learning and so on but it is entirely predictable given the dumb audience they have. No one would belive Gates never thought the Internet would take off and grow … think about that before you do anything else.
That’s beautiful.
Yes.
It reminds me of the parrot at a local bakery, many years ago. It repeated mainly what it used to hear most; coloured swear words.
I’m sorry, I have to laugh… compared to all the hard, earnest work you all do here.
The climate is changing due to changes in the Earth’s position relative to the Sun. Simple proof is the low average winter temperature in the Southern Hemisphere due to the position of the Sun relative to the Earth in orbit. Changes in solar activity affect winter circulation in mid-latitudes due to changes in the ozone zone in high latitudes.
Human activity affects the increase in temperature on thermometers that measure the temperature of concrete in built-up areas. But when you go a few kilometers away from the city into the green zone you get the actual temperature at two meters.
Ireneusz:
“The climate is changing due to changes in the Earth’s position relative to the Sun.”
–
Yes, very much agreed!!!
–
***
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
No, global warming isn’t from the Sun.
This has, of course, been studied extensively for a long time by a large number of scientists. Easy to find their research. If it was the Sun they’d say it was the Sun.
You can watch in real time how fast the average temperature is dropping in the Southern Hemisphere and Antarctica.
https://climatereanalyzer.org/wx/todays-weather/input/gfs_world-wt2_t2anom_d1.png
The COVID Narrative is everywhere. From the WSJ:
“Much still needs to be learned about the long-term health effects of Covid-19, but we already know one of the clear long-term political effects: memory loss. That’s the only way to explain why long-time advocates of pandemic lockdowns are now denying they ever supported the school and economic shutdowns that did so much harm to so many.”
On Biden’s “economy”:
“Biden’s post-shutdown economy. Would have happened anyway, with Trump, Biden, bringing Obama back, having no President at all, or having a parakeet as President.”
“Climate Doomers” It’s a thing …
Stop Telling Kids They’ll Die From Climate Change
Many young people feel like their future is in peril. To make progress on climate change, we must move past doomsday scenarios.
https://www.wired.co.uk/article/climate-crisis-doom
@ jim2 | May 1, 2023 at 8:09 am in suspense …
Starting May 6, cold nights will begin in southern Australia.
https://earth.nullschool.net/#2023/05/06/0300Z/wind/isobaric/850hPa/overlay=temp/orthographic=-230.44,-31.96,1126
Recommended for people after vaccinations.
The phenomenal molecule 1-MNA, recently discovered by Polish scientists, is surprising with further promising properties. So far, the Polish company Pharmena SA’s research on the molecule has focused primarily on its benefits in the cardiovascular area, but the latest data confirm an even broader spectrum of the molecule’s effects. Studies conducted at a number of centers around the world have shown that the 1-MNA compound exhibits anti-inflammatory properties. This effect may be important in the fight against infections.
1-MNA (1-methylnicotinamide) is a compound of natural origin, physiologically present in the human body. The substance is formed as a result of the metabolism of vitamin B3 (also known as niacin) and is found mainly in the liver, and in smaller amounts also in the kidneys, lungs, heart and brain. As we age, our body’s ability to metabolize vitamin B3 declines.
1-MNA and the latest research findings
– Fighting inflammation. 1-MNA levels in certain diseases
In addition, a recent scientific study published by Chinese and Italian researchers in Cell Death & Differentiation in March this year on the immune response in COVID-19 infection, also recommends the administration of nicotinamide (vitamin B3) in SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus infection .
Broad spectrum of action of 1-MNA
1-MNA vs. mucous membranes. Mucous membranes are the body’s natural protective barrier and are therefore part of the immune system. It is through them that bacteria and viruses try to enter the human body. This further stimulates the immune system. In turn, one of the elements important in the proper functioning of mucous membranes is niacin (vitamin B3). The 1-MNA molecule is a ready-made, already converted form of vitamin B3.
https://shop.pharmena.eu/strona-glowna/203-endotelio-suplement-diety-5902175325986.html
1-MNA and the cardiovascular system. The endothelium is the layer of cells lining the inner walls of vessels and the largest endocrine gland . For years it was thought to be only a barrier between the blood? and vascular smooth muscle. Today it is known that it is an organ that affects the tension of blood vessel walls and regulates their inflammatory activity? Endothelial dysfunction leads to the development of cardiovascular diseases: atherosclerosis, hypertension, chronic heart failure, dyslipidemia. It is also associated with diabetes?, gastrointestinal, liver and kidney diseases. 1-MNA regulates endothelial function, but also stimulates the production of prostacyclin, which protects the cardiovascular system from the formation of blood clots and heart attacks. It has an anti-atherosclerotic and anti-thrombotic effect by lowering levels of inflammatory marker.
https://shop.pharmena.eu/strona-glowna/203-endotelio-suplement-diety-5902175325986.html
SEA LEVEL RISE SWALLOWS CITY WHOLE!!!
Ancient underwater temple found off coast of Naples – report
The Nabatean temple was dedicated to the god Dushara and is believed to date back to a time when Nabataean people lived in the Phlegrean Peninsula.
https://www.jpost.com/archaeology/article-741637
Did you know the Epic of Gilgamesh was likely based on real events? Also, it was first real origin story that inspired the bible’s Book of Genesis. It may also document the ancient legends of the time when the straits of Bosphorus opened up and the Mediterranean Sea poured into the Black Sea wiping out some of the earliest human settlements almost 5 thousand years ago.
Everything you wrote might be true or it might not be. I say this as a link to the post topic – the question that plagues climatology and history – what do you do when reliable data does not go back far enough to say? Some people will look at your work and say “I see what you tried to do there, good work”, and other people will look at the same work and ask what you were smoking.
It’s probably not easy to get a research grant to prove “I did a lot of work and I still don’t know the answer”.
The Gilgamesh epic is one example of what is described by Plato, Berossos and others. Periodic great changes. In the Mediterranean one source of evidence is the sea bottom sediments. See https://melitamegalithic.wordpress.com/2018/04/24/searching-evidence-2/ Thick sapropel layers in otherwise a clayey inert bottom. Dating correspond to other proxies.
There is more evidence. Also in the Med are tectonic micro-plate rotations and other land movements like submerged areas. Does not mean only sea level change. One such place in Italy re-emerged, showing extensive boring from marine rock borers.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macellum_of_Pozzuoli#/media/File:Pozzuoli_2010-by-RaBoe-15.jpg
The temple halfway up the Italian coast was built by the Nabateans, who built Petra in Jordan. Being a people of the deep desert, they probably didn’t understand why we don’t build temples under the ocean’s surface.
From what I’ve read, sea level rise eventually overflowed the barrier and flooded their city.
More snow in the mountains of California and the Great Lakes.
https://i.ibb.co/JrFWZ7s/mimictpw-namer-latest.gif
Da Yoopers will think it’s Halloween but won’t be able to take the snowblower off the roof yet.
Australia’s Monckton Pause of UAH temperatures over Australia just reached 11 years flat of monthly data with no upward linear trend. What does the Disinformation Industrial Complex say about these measurements? It says nothing, in the belief that if you close your eyes the problem will go away.
Never mind that it is a serious challenge to “The Science” as they see it.
What a shambles!
Geoff S
https://www.geoffstuff.com/uahmay2023.jpg
The first tropical storms will hit Southeast Asia.
http://tropic.ssec.wisc.edu/real-time/mtpw2/webAnims/tpw_nrl_colors/wpac/mimictpw_wpac_latest.gif
Story Tip: We are making debunking the Hockeystick way way way too complicated. The Hockeystick is created not by a change in global temperatures but by the inclusion of instrumental data with the Proxy Data in 1902 and then proxy data is dropped in 1980. The chart dramatically alters exactly at those dates. There is absolutely nothing magical about 1902 and 1980, and instrumental data goes back to 1650 with Central England. To prove the Hockeystick is a complete fraud, simply alter the dates at which the Instrumental data is included in the reconstruction. The Hockeystick will follow those dates. If you add instrumental data is 1880, the warming will start in 1880, if you add the instrumental data in 1920, the warming will start in 1920. If however, you control for the UHI and Water Vapor and only use instrumental data specifically chosen to isolate the impact of CO2 on temperatures (cold and dry deserts) you will get no warming at all since 1902. The hockey stick simply represents the wishful thinking of an activist masquerading as a scientist that wanted a graphic that supported his political agenda.
What matters is between 1960 and now. Before 1960, CO2 was not the dominant force driving climate — solar radiation was. The current — after 1960 — rise in temperature has been the fastest in history. If you want to call or not call it a hockey stick, that’s up to you.
JJBraccili | May 4, 2023 at 4:08 pm | Reply
The current — after 1960 — rise in temperature has been the fastest in history.
JJB – The rise in temps since 1960 may or may not be the fastest in history
However, the resolution of the proxy data is not even remotely strong enough to make that determination. The error margin is huge!
Any “scientist” making a such a claim is flat out lying knowing the resolution is far too weak to make such a claim.
See:
https://judithcurry.com/2023/04/23/how-the-disinformation-industrial-complex-is-destroying-trust-in-science/#comment-989744
Joe – the non climate scientist wrote:
However, the resolution of the proxy data is not even remotely strong enough to make that determination. The error margin is huge!
How huge?
Mann et al included error bars in their 1998 paper. You can use them to calculate the error margin in the trends.
co2islife wrote:
To prove the Hockeystick is a complete fraud…
Again, the hockey stick is required by basic physics:
The hockey stick is required by basic physics:
1. temperature change is proportional to forcing change.
2. CO2 forcing change is proportional to log(CO2).
3. CO2 has been increasing exponentially.
=> hockey stick.
It would be very worrisome if the HS observations didn’t meet the
theory, and basic climate science would need to be further researched and revised.
And the HS has been confirmed many times by many different methodologies:
http://www.davidappell.com/hockeysticks.html
Harping on the HS has turned into a conspiracy theory promulgated by cranks, that will never end. Like Q.
co2islife wrote:
There is absolutely nothing magical about 1902 and 1980
These years are special.
1901 because of a verification issue from 1854-1901. This is discussed thoroughly in the original paper (Mann+, Nature 1998).
1980 is special because temperature proxies after about 1960 aren’t useful because of the “divergence problem” in northern forests.
“On the ‘Divergence Problem’ in Northern Forests: A review of the
tree-ring evidence and possible causes,” Rosanne D’Arrigo et al, Global and Planetary Change 60 (2008) 289–305.
http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/~liepert/pdf/DArrigo_etal.pdf
So they used the instrumental record.
==
If you’re going to critique the hockey stick you should at least have some idea what’s going on. You don’t seem to.
It will be impossible for Climate Doomers to get their way. Adaptation is the path forward, not mitigation and draconian regulations and spending.
“There’s no way we can supply the amount of copper in the next 10 years to drive the energy transition and carbon zero. It’s not going to happen,” adds Kirwin, now an independent consulting geologist. “There’s just not enough copper deposits being found or developed.”
Analysts at Wood Mackenzie estimate a greener world will be short about six million tons of copper by next decade, meaning 12 new Oyu Tolgois need to come online within that period.
But they aren’t — there are simply not enough new mines, much less enough large ones. The result is a gap: BloombergNEF estimates appetite for refined copper will grow by 53% by 2040, but mine supply will climb only 16%.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2023-05-02/copper-faces-troubled-future-as-renewable-energy-causes-demand-to-surge
jim2 wrote:
It will be impossible for Climate Doomers to get their way. Adaptation is the path forward, not mitigation and draconian regulations and spending.
What is the cost of adaptation?
Since we would be adapting to potentially changing conditions, the cost is not known. But we do know the cost of adaptation would be a necessary cost, because, well, we are adapting. OTOH, we are already spending trillions allegedly mitigating something that hasn’t even happened yet, and furthermore, may never materialize. Adaptation is a rational course of action.
Wow!! How insightful!
Let’s see how this would work. We drop investing in renewables and spend trillions on fossil fuels to ramp up production to meet future demand. Then we keep our fingers crossed that climate change isn’t as bad as expected so the trillions we spend on adaptation have some benefit. About 50 years from now it becomes apparent that we are running out of fossil fuels. We then spend trillions of dollars investing in renewables to replace fossil fuels. Brillant!!
Fortunately, the people making the decisions are choosing a different path.
If you think spending these trillions on mitigation is “insurance” I beg to differ. Nobody spends 10 times the value of their house on home insurance.
No, but you want to spend trillions of dollars on expanding the production of fossil fuels to meet demand and then spend trillions of dollars on renewables that will have to replace fossil fuels when they run out.
Explain to me why should we spend trillions of dollars on a technology that has no future. Why not make the move right now to renewables and not cross our fingers and hope climate change won’t be that bad.
For fossil fuels, the government won’t be spending “trillions.” And the private sector won’t spend anything on it if producing petroleum based products isn’t profitable.
In the mitigation case, the US government (and other governments around the world) are spending trillions in a short time period. Governments are trying to replace fossil fuels in a matter of years. The RATE of spending is huge and is an economic burden. It is also forcing industries to produce product at the whim of the government rather that products demanded by a free market. Taken in its entirety, it’s a worst-case scenario.
OTOH, adaptation spending will take place only as needed. This spending will be spread out over decades and will be less of a economic burden.
Nice try!
Whether its government or private investment, it’s still trillions of dollars wasted on a technology that will have to be replaced in the near future. Do the transition now and you’ll save dollars on adaptation as well. Without moving away from fossil fuels, adaptation will be like trying to fill a bottomless pit with money. In the end it will fail, and all those dollars spent will be for nothing.
All your doing is trying to prop up a dead-end technology. It’s never going to be economic because in the long run renewables will be much cheaper. That’s before you take into account the devastation climate change is going to cause.
jim2 wrote:
And the private sector won’t spend anything on it if producing petroleum based products isn’t profitable.
Profitable for whom?
jim2 wrote:
Governments are trying to replace fossil fuels in a matter of years.
No they’re not. Not at all. The time frame is decades. At best.
The RATE of spending is huge and is an economic burden
What is the rate of spending in the US?
Why is it an economic burden?
What’s the rate of job creation?
How much in climate change damages are being prevented?
How much are ancillary benefits (less air pollution, mercury pollution, etc)?
Adaptation is a good thing in any case. Hardening dwellings against strong winds or tornados will save lives. Stopping building on coastlines is a good thing but the Feds are now subsidizing it through government flood insurance.
You can’t adapt to what’s coming while continuing to burn fossil fuels.
An analogy is having lung cancer and deciding to continue smoking because you’ll adapt.
JJ
You identify nothing that humanity can not adapt to over time. You fear CO2 with little reason.
Really?
Read this:
https://www.cs.ucdavis.edu/~rogaway/classes/188/materials/The%20Uninhabitable%20Earth.pdf
Tell me how you are going to adapt to that. I’m all ears.
Human adaptation to climate change and local conditions is as old as the species and has been extremely successful. We live in luxury that ancient peoples would not even think was possible.
dpy6629 wrote:
Adaptation is a good thing in any case.
Progress!
Once it was denied that CO2 could cause warming, then warming was denied, sea level rise was denied, then climate change, then it was claimed the surface stations were faulty until “the pause” happened and then the surface station data were just fine, then it was all blamed on El Ninos, then it was denied we could mitigate… and now adaptation is GOOD!
Quite a trend.
Appell writes about sea level rise but knows there has been no significant increase in the rate of rise since the start of the satellite era. Sea level has been rising at close to the current rate for 1000 years. He knows that and writes dishonestly.
Rob Starkey wrote:
Appell writes about sea level rise but knows there has been no significant increase in the rate of rise since the start of the satellite era.
It’s odd that you think you know what I think.
Persistent acceleration in global sea-level rise since the 1960s
Sönke Dangendorf et al, Nature Climate Change volume 9, pages705–710 (2019).
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-019-0531-8
There are plenty of other papers. Google Scholar:
https://t.ly/hbsc
Here’s NASA’s data on sea level rise; it starts in 1993.
https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/sea-level/
Download it and calculate. The current acceleration is 0.079 mm/yr2. And it has a better Pearson coefficient of fit than does a linear fit.
“ New York becomes the first state to ban natural gas stoves and furnaces in most new buildings”
Madness
Well natural gas stoves and furnaces don’t emit enough CO2. It’s better to burn the natural gas in a powerplant at 33 to 40% efficiency and use that energy through a grid with 5% losses to heat a coil of wire. That way we can emit three times more CO2 to cook the same amount of food or heat the same space.
Bring on the nuts. I’ll have no beef with that.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FvPCJkvacAAw4l4?format=jpg&name=large
That’s not proving easy. To anyone paying attention, the laughable, albeit much peddled, idea that ESG is a way of doing well by doing good has been shown to be nonsense in theory and in practice. As for the “doing good” part — at least so far as the “E” (environment) is concerned — here’s one assessment, published in USA Today in 2021:
The financial services industry is duping the American public with its pro-environment, sustainable investing practices. This multitrillion dollar arena of socially conscious investing is being presented as something it’s not. In essence, Wall Street is greenwashing the economic system.
Who would say such things?
Well:
As the former chief investment officer of Sustainable Investing at BlackRock, the largest asset manager in the world with $8.7 trillion in assets, I led the charge to incorporate environmental, social and governance (ESG) into our global investments. In fact, our messaging helped mainstream the concept that pursuing social good was also good for the bottom line. Sadly, that’s all it is, a hopeful idea. In truth, sustainable investing boils down to little more than marketing hype, PR spin and disingenuous promises from the investment community.
Oh.
https://www.nationalreview.com/2023/05/esg-warren-buffett-scrambles-the-narrative/
Speaking of bad information:
The scientists said there was also a risk that global heating would increase the heat tolerance of fungi, raising the possibility of them hopping hosts to infect warm-blooded animals and humans. </i
https://science.slashdot.org/story/23/05/03/220227/fungal-attacks-threaten-global-food-supply-say-experts
Why is this a priori “bad information?”
Apparently it isn’t obvious to you that this is just more Climate Doomer histrionics couched in their favorite language: Weasel.
No, it’s not the fastest. L look at CET and you will see faster rises.
I looked I didn’t see it. Provide a link.
HadCET:
https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcet/data/meantemp_monthly_totals.txt
That data is not worldwide. It’s just for central England.
JJBraccili wrote:
That data is not worldwide. It’s just for central England.
Yeah. I wrote that.
Of course, HadCET is a single station, not the globe, so comparing their trends is meaningless.
As usual David, you are wrong.
To quote the website
“These daily and monthly temperatures are representative of a roughly triangular area of the United Kingdom enclosed by Lancashire, London and Bristol. The monthly series, which begins in 1659, is the longest available instrumental record of temperature in the world. The daily mean-temperature series begins in 1772. Manley (1953, 1974) compiled most of the monthly series, covering 1659 to 1973. These data were updated to 1991 by Parker et al (1992), who also calculated the daily series. Both series are now kept up to date by the Climate Data Monitoring section of the Hadley Centre, Met Office. Since 1974 the data have been adjusted to allow for urban warming: currently a correction of -0.2 °C is applied to mean temperatures.”
Its value is the length of its record and no hockey-sticks were damaged in its contruction.
Good to know, thanks.
But HadCET still can’t meaningfully be compared to the global temperature, nor their trends.
Anyway, if you exclude HadCET’s bad data (1659-Oct 1722), then the 30-year trend reached a peak in 2007 at 0.55 C/dec, easily above any other point in the past (peak was about 0.38 C/dec about 1835). It’s now down to about 0.20 C/dec, which isn’t a record.
The 50-year trend is now at its peak, about 0.27 C/dec. Highest prior were some 0.15 C/dec during 1925-1950.
So current (or nearly so) trend values are the fastest.
What are the odds of HadCETs data being a random pattern, David?
The data isn’t bad as Parker told me when I met with him a few Yeats ago at the met office. It coincides with Dutch records and those from Sweden. There are numerous records covering that period which illustrate the rapid rise
The period 1645 to1713 (1659-1722) – the LIA -, was the root of the Eddy cycle of approx 980 years. It has been getting warmer since then. But it is not a smooth upward trend as can be seen from the previous cycles for the last 10k years (from ice proxies both polar and equatorial). It will peak early next century, so we should know what to expect.
Looking at relatively very short periods is like the ‘blind man and the elephant’. This present period is an interglacial, and there are four earlier glacial periods to prove the long term trends.
Taking the ‘long view’ on the matter, this is the first time over the past eight Eddy cycles (~ 8kyrs) where science/technology/engineering has vastly changed the quality of life for humans. It does not mean that that will last for all future. Disinformation, and downright deceptions for short term interests, is a very real risk that much of what has been gained can be lost again. It happened before, and it can happen again.
We can lose what we have gained-quite true. A good example is the Roman Empire collapse whereby it took Western Europe 1000 years before the GDP recovered to the height of the empire. Also the Romans had the technical capability to make Steam locomotives but didn’t need to harness this power due to the cheapness of slaves. If social rights had advanced and slavery abolished I wonder what level of technology we would now be at?
Yes, but there is the devil in the details.
The Roman empire peaked at Eddy peak ca. 170CE; no different than the earlier civilisations at previous peaks. The other factor was that dumbing the populace was the option chosen rather than utilising genuine science. (the basic science in agriculture and the related astronomy were quite understood in the late fourth millennium bce)
Rather than state, I ask the question: Is that what is being repeated now?
In other words, Bread and circuses. Yes I think so, on a grand scale today, plus discourage people from learning their history
That’s a conclusion many have reached who take an honest look at what is happening – that our current western democracies are destroying themselves. A quote attributed to Khrushchev – “we will destroy you, not with bombs, but from within”. That China and Russia have been funding green NGOs to the tune of $billions is a little known nugget and they have been very successful in spreading the indoctrination. A recent post at WUWT – https://thehill.com/opinion/energy-environment/3948882-china-russia-axis-is-dangerous-for-fossil-fuel-disarming-america-and-the-west/ is a recent example of what is happening in our schools – children being taught what to think, not how to think.
Our enemies are ROFL at western “leaders” as they try to leapfrog each other in their race to implement economic and life destroying policies of net-zero. They are simply biding their time until we so weaken ourselves that we will be effectively defenseless when they decide to take some decisive action. https://thehill.com/opinion/energy-environment/3948882-china-russia-axis-is-dangerous-for-fossil-fuel-disarming-america-and-the-west/
I am still waiting for a response from anyone to explain how they plan to replace fossil fuels with wind and solar given that wind and solar are 100% dependent on fossil fuels from cradle to grave – they don’t produce enough energy to power the machinery used in their production from mining and processing of raw materials, transport, manufacture, site prep, life cycle maintenance and ultimate decommissioning and disposal.
I fear we are witnessing the collapse of western civilization and given the level of corruption that has penetrated virtually all institutions – our government and government agencies, the media, our educational systems, our entertainment (gollywood, late night TV, social media, big tech in general), etc., I am not sure how we dig out of this mess. I live in Florida and would frankly vote to secede if that were an option.
“I am still waiting for a response from anyone to explain how they plan to replace fossil fuels with wind and solar given that wind and solar are 100% dependent on fossil fuels from cradle to grave – they don’t produce enough energy to power the machinery used in their production from mining and processing of raw materials, transport, manufacture, site prep, life cycle maintenance and ultimate decommissioning and disposal.”
This idea that we can’t replace fossil fuels with renewables is idiotic. In about 100 years we will run out of fossil fuels. Then what? The world stops because fossil fuels is the only source of energy?
Whatever problems there are with renewables will be figured out. Why? Because we have no other choice and the “problems” you cite are not insurmountable.
Once again jjb displays his total ignorance. The only viable replace for fossil fuels for electrical generation is nuclear, and there is no proven replacement fuel for transportation. Hydrogen presents all kinds of problems that you like to ignore – the major one being that it takes more energy to separate hydrogen molecules from other molecules that hydrogen produces – kind of like ethanol.
Renewables will replace fossil fuels for energy generation. All the limitations you and others pretend to be “insurmountable” aren’t.
“Hydrogen presents all kinds of problems that you like to ignore – the major one being that it takes more energy to separate hydrogen molecules from other molecules that hydrogen produces – kind of like ethanol.”
Every time I think there can’t be something dumber than what I just read; I’m proven wrong.
Hydrogen is easily separated from liquids because, for all practical purposes, it is insoluble in liquids. In terms of energy, the only thing that hydrogen produces is water. You don’t need any energy to separate hydrogen from water. Whether you combust hydrogen or use it in a fuel cell, for all practical purposes, there isn’t any hydrogen left.
What percentage of global fossil fuel consumption is being diverted to make these renewable energy sources like wind and solar? If we suddenly stopped making wind turbines and solar panels do you really think the price of fossil fuels would drop?
When I bought my panels back in 2012 I used a metric called EPBT, the ratio of energy used to make a photovoltaic solar panel compared to the panel’s lifetime energy output and is called the energy payback time. My 14.5% efficient panels hit their EPBT in less than 3 years and generated over 107MWh since. Every megawatt since I hit EPBT has displaced a megawatt made from a fossil fuel source that in theory should depress the value of burning the fuel instead using them to make more useful and valuable products and chemicals.
With my natural gas lease and 6.7KW PV array & PHEV I’m feeling pretty good.
Replying to JackSmit4TX. That’s not even remotely related to my point, The point is, unreliables are not possible without fossil fuels. How many solar panels and wind turbines would you need to power the machinery needed to first mine and process the raw materials, transport them to the manufacturing facility, power the energy intensive manufacturing process, transport to the ultimate destination, prepare the site, maintain them, and ultimately decommission and dispose of them? Every step of that process requires machinery powered by fossil fuels. It has nothing to do with the cost of fossil fuels. Read this to get some idea of the lunacy of thinking we could do something like powering heavy machinery with batteries. https://www.trucking.org/news-insights/heavy-dose-reality-electric-truck-mandates.
If for some reason battery powered machinery is not practical, you can always use hydrogen powered fuel cells machinery. Currently, there are 72 hydrogen filling stations in CA to service fuel cell vehicles. Fuel cell buses have been around for 30 years. Toyota has developed a fuel cell drive train for long haul trucks.
Great! So where is all the hydrogen powered heavy machinery required for mining along with hydrogen powered manufacturing facilities, transport etc? And, does all that heavy machinery just pull up to one of those 72 filling stations, many of which are out of fuel or out of service for other reasons as Jim2 pointed out?
Rome wasn’t built in a day. They are coming.
When the automobile industry was in its infancy do you think they had gasoline stations everywhere?
Keep dreaming. Many difficult if not impossible to solve problems with hydrogen.
jacksmith4tx has a point that should be properly explored. The system described – as a stand-alone- is beautiful. However the credit for it is that it is in the right hands; well known and maintained no doubt.
But consider a similar capacity of solar panels installed on some rooftop. The owner knows only the monetary gain he is making, but understands nothing of the engineering involved. It is installed on an aluminium structure held down to the ballast by stainless steel bolting. The mix of materials (ss + al) is deadly. One day in a strong wind it blows off the roof on to passers-by in the street below. The legal liabilities for any injury alone are daunting.
The same roof-top systems could be installed in one place, safe, and with a location for optimal daily production. It would be well maintained, with inverter systems of optimal efficiency. But it means central authority taking total responsibility for the service.
Replacing the horse with the ICE did not take place overnight. In one important sector – agriculture- the spread of the grid replaces the ice. I am not so confident that will last.
melitamegalithic,
A residential ground mount PV array is the only way unsubsidized solar is really net positive in 15 years. Adding batteries just makes the payoff longer. To be clear, at best only 20% of all residential property is even suitable for a ground mount and that is before you factor in zoning and other legal obstacles. To do roof top solar right you need to start with a roof that will last longer than the panels and with 70% of residential houses with asphalt roofs it just doesn’t make sense to me.
Barnes Moore wrote:
Every step of that process requires machinery powered by fossil fuels.
Using fossil fuels for a one-time build of renewable energy machines is vastly different from using them continuously to generate energy.
You know that. Or should. If you’re being honest.
Except that it is not a one time build. Like anything else, wind turbines and solar panels wear out. Wind turbines are supposed to last 20 years but frequently fail in less than 15 because the bearings wear out. Solar farms may last 25 years, but have decreasing production over their life span. And, both require maintenance over their life span – more so for wind but solar as well since panels need to be cleaned. From the linked paper:
“This paper turns to a different reality: all energy-producing machinery must be fabricated from materials extracted from the earth. No energy system, in short, is actually “renewable,” since all machines require the continual mining and processing of millions of tons of primary materials and the disposal of hardware that inevitably wears out. Compared with hydrocarbons, green machines entail, on average, a 10-fold increase in the quantities of materials extracted and processed to produce the same amount of energy”.
https://manhattan.institute/article/mines-minerals-and-green-energy-a-reality-check
What exactly is your point?
Fossil fuels require infrastructure for extraction and processing. That infrastructure requires maintenance. We will run out of fossil fuels. Probably in the next 100 years. Then what? Moving to renewables is inevitable. Might as well do it now and preserve oil for other products.
The point that an infant could understand is that wind and solar must be replaced more frequently, consuming more resources along with escalating disposal costs. Properly maintained thermal plants last decades, not a few years, and can produce power 24x7x365 during all kinds of conditions and at times when demand exceeds baseload. Neither wind or solar can provide either baseload or dispatchable power – they are effectively useless.
B Moore wrote:
I am still waiting for a response from anyone to explain how they plan to replace fossil fuels with wind and solar given that wind and solar are 100% dependent on fossil fuels from cradle to grave – they don’t produce enough energy to power the machinery used in their production from mining and processing of raw materials, transport, manufacture, site prep, life cycle maintenance and ultimate decommissioning and disposal.
Why can’t wind and solar produce the energy needed to produce more wind and solar facilities?
Stunning admission of ignorance once again by Appell. Wind and solar are weather dependent, intermittent and unreliable energy sources that can’t produce sufficient energy to power the machinery used in their production. They are 100% dependent on fossil fuels from cradle to grave – for the mining and processing of anormous amounts of raw materials which requires A LOT of heavy equipment, to transport, energy intensive manufacture, site preparation, site assembly, life cycle maintenance, and ultimate decommissioning. They also need fossil fuel backup for when the sun does not shine and the wind does not blow. And no, batteries are not the answer given that they are not a source of energy, they store energy, just like a gas can that must first be filled, and the energy loss during charge/discharge cycle is not insignificant. With a capacity factor of maybe 20% for solar and between 30-35% for wind, you would need to excessively overbuild the energy infrastructure to produce sufficient excess energy to charge enormous battery arrays – that also require enormous number of heavy machines to mine and process raw materials, transport, manufacture, etc. The reality is that wind, solar and batteries are far more environmentally destructive than fossil fuels. For a more in-depth analysis read this: https://www.manhattan-institute.org/mines-minerals-and-green-energy-reality-check and this https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/01/27/bright-green-impossibilities/ and https://manhattan.institute/article/the-energy-transition-delusion
So, when we run out of fossil fuels, what happens? We go back to the dark ages?
Your arguments have no merit. Of course, renewables can produce the energy required for machinery. Hydrogen powered fuel cells can easily replace fossil fuel powered ICEs.
Ammonia can be used to store energy replacing batteries. Of course, you refuse to consider that conflicts with your world view.
JJB living in the detached from reality, fact free world of liberal la la land. Hydrogen does not exist in any quantity on it’s own, it must first be separated from other molecules – like H2O. That process is energy intensive and results in producing a product that uses more energy than it can produce. Fossil fuel reserves keep growing as more are found and technologies for extracting them are developed. The only viable option for replacing fossil fuels for electricity is nuclear, period.
JJ, We are not going to run out of natural gas anytime soon. Estimates of recoverable gas keep going up as technology improves. Hopefully in the longer term some form of nuclear will become both safe and widely available. This I think is totally on the internal contradictions of Green (so-called) thinking. If they had embraced nuclear 50 years ago, we would be in a totally different place.
Nuclear was embraced 50 years ago and it was a complete disaster. Everybody was involved in nuclear power. Every major E&C firm had a nuclear division. It took 10 years from inception to commissioning of a nuclear power plant. In that time construction costs tripled. There were no standards. There were four or five reactor designs. That all culminated in Three Mile Island which came close to taking out half the state of PA.
I see you believe in the energy genie that will always supply fossil fuels to meet demand. Not true. You have no way of knowing how much NG remains. One thing we do know is that demand for energy will keep on increasing. Current projections are that energy demand will increase four-fold by 2100. I think that’s conservative. How long do you think fossil fuels will last at that rate of consumption? Not to mention that trillions of dollars of investment will be required to expand fossil fuel infrastructure to meet the demand.
As fossil fuels become more scarce the price will skyrocket. Renewables are already competitive with fossil fuels. There is an almost limitless supply of renewable energy. What makes more sense? Throw more money into the dead-end technology of fossil fuels or make the move to renewables.
JJB proves over an over this quote by Thomas Sowell: “It is usually futile to try to talk facts and analysis to people who are enjoying a sense of moral superiority in their ignorance.” Thomas Sowell.
Trying your hand at being a philosopher?
Might as well, you are pretty much a failure at everything else.
Thomas Sowell is ths philosopher. You might want to pick up a few of his books and pay attention to what he says. So far, you have not been able to invalidate any information I have provided, so who is the failure?
Fossil fuels aren’t being subsidized? Here’s what’s going on in Texas:
https://www.texasmonthly.com/news-politics/texas-republican-war-on-renewable-energy/
I though conservatives were for “free markets”? Apparently, not.
As has been explained to you ad nauseam, deductions from earned income, that every corporate and individual tax payer takes are not subsidies. Direct and indirect payments made where no income exists or where preferential treatment is given to force the use of one commodity over another is a subsidy. Anyone with operating brain cells would look to rid ourselves of weather dependent, grid destroying wind and solar.
Really?
Then what TX is doing for fossil fuels is a subsidy?
https://www.texasmonthly.com/news-politics/texas-republican-war-on-renewable-energy/
https://www.texasmonthly.com/news-politics/energy-subsidies-fossil-fuels-renewables/
I thought you said fossil fuels were getting no subsidies. Your “definition” is a distinction without a difference. By your “definition” fossil fuels are being subsidized in TX. By your “definition” Joe Manchin policies “subsidize” fossil fuels.
https://theintercept.com/2021/10/22/manchin-climate-fossil-fuel-subsidies-reconciliation/
The true cost of fossil fuel subsidies:
https://e360.yale.edu/digest/fossil-fuels-received-5-9-trillion-in-subsidies-in-2020-report-finds
Want to try again?
You continue to be confused. Tax breaks are not subsidies. Things like the wind energy credits are because wind energy is given preference over gas and in reality, raises the cost of electricity. There is a huge distinction that anyone other than a blind ideological fool could understand.
It’s a distinction without the difference. Do the recipients of tax breaks wind up with more money? Hint: YES!
Do the recipients of a direct payments wind up with more money? Hint: YES!
What’s the difference? Hint: NONE!
It’s semantics to try to pretend that what the fossil fuels get is deserved and what renewables get is a handout.
Even by your definition the fossil fuel industry is getting subsidies. What’s the difference between the fossil fuel industry getting subsidies and renewables getting subsidies? Hint: NONE!
Under green ideology, we don’t run out of fossil fuels, we just go back to the dark ages because we refuse to use them.
Windmills don’t provide base-load power, potentially cause even more climate change than fossil fuels, as they alter wind patterns and soil evaporation, creating droughts, and are only viable in areas with lots of constant strong winds, which is of course where we’ve been siting them. They’re almost useless in most of Asia, virtually all of Africa, and most of Central and South America, where there isn’t much wind.
Of course we could try using biofuels by clear cutting most of the world’s forests – to save the environment, ironically enough, or switch to solar and use candles when it gets dark.
Barnes Moore wrote:
A quote attributed to Khrushchev – “we will destroy you, not with bombs, but from within”.
Ha. Since Khrushchev, the USSR/Russia has done a fine job of destroying itself
https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.PCAP.CD?locations=RU
while the US has flourished. (At least until Trump.)
You are the perfect example of how the US is being destroyed from within. You buy every argument put out by green NGO’s that have been funded by China and Russia to the tune several hundred million dollars. Your arguments don’t even rise to the level of lame, yet you repeat them endlessly. The description of detached from reality, indoctrinated, lobotomized fool living in the fact free world of liberal la la land fits you to a T.
George Turner wrote:
Under green ideology, we don’t run out of fossil fuels, we just go back to the dark ages because we refuse to use them.
Windmills don’t provide base-load power, potentially cause even more climate change than fossil fuels, as they alter wind patterns and soil evaporation, creating droughts, and are only viable in areas with lots of constant strong winds, which is of course where we’ve been siting them. They’re almost useless in most of Asia, virtually all of Africa, and most of Central and South America, where there isn’t much wind.
But they don’t change the climate at an immense rate (historically) or for 100,000 years. They won’t cause meters of sea level rise. They’re not adding to the historical drought in the US West. They’re not acidifying the ocean. They don’t prematurely kill 1 in 5 people.
No energy source is perfect. But fossil fuels are about the worst for the environment.
Barnes Moore commented:
The point that an infant could understand is that wind and solar must be replaced more frequently, consuming more resources along with escalating disposal costs.
So, replace them more frequently.
An infant understands that our use of fossil fuels is now causing extremely rapid climate change, prematurely killing 1 in 5 people, leading to what will be meters of sea level rise, acidification of the oceans, drought, etc. Changing the climate for 100,000 years, all because a couple of generations thought they were special and refused to get rid of the dirtiest fuel ever found.
Replace them more often using fossil fuel powered machinery since wind and solar can’t produce enough energy to power the machinery used in their production. You continue to repeat the same nonsense every time – nonsense not supported by any data, just alarmist claptrap.
“Replace them more often using fossil fuel powered machinery since wind and solar can’t produce enough energy to power the machinery used in their production.”
What is the basis for that comment? It is OBVIOUSLY untrue. Renewables are more than capable of replacing the energy that fossil fuels provide.
In fact, you don’t even have to replace the “machinery”. Renewable energy can be used to make a carbon neutral fuel with the same properties as gasoline or diesel.
If it’s so obvious, provide just one example anywhere in the world where anything other than fossil fuel powered machinery is used in any step of the life cycle process required to produce, maintain and dispose of wind turbines and solar panels. If they could produce the energy required, then you should be able to easily provide examples, but you can’t because they can’t.
I don’t have to. We could turn all the machinery that runs on fossil fuels green tomorrow without replacing anything. Nonsense you say. Nope, it only requires green air to fuels technology. Fossil fuels are replaced by carbon neutral gasoline and diesel. You can read about it here:
https://energypost.eu/extract-co2-from-our-air-use-it-to-create-synthetic-fuels/#:~:text=For%20the%20next%20step%2C%20Carbon%20Engineering%E2%80%99s%20Air%20to,Capture%20system%20with%20hydrogen%20to%20produce%20hydrocarbon%20fuels.
https://carbonengineering.com/air-to-fuels/
Laughable – Carbon Capture is pure fantasy land and saying that we could convert all machinery to using fuels produced by CCS is simply delusional. https://wattsupwiththat.com/2023/05/03/the-practical-impossibility-of-large-scale-carbon-capture-and-storage/
These exchanges with you are an exercise in futility. Many real experts on this blog have provided you with data and analysis that completely demolish your arguments many times over yet you continue to post the same jibberish over and over. I sometimes wonder if you are serious or just playing a joke given how lame most if not all your arguments are – the CCS one is just one more example
.
That wind and solar are completely incapable of powering a developed society is blindingly obvious to any but the those totally blinded by ideology. The fact that virtually everywhere there has been significant penetration of unreliables to the grid, there have been increases in both electricity costs and brown outs or outright blackouts. Ed Hoskins has posted several graphs of real world data that shows the real costs of unreliables compared to traditional thermal plants. Here is one set – there are others.
https://edmhdotme.wordpress.com/2022-weather-dependent-renewables-in-germany-uk-and-france/
Per Hoskins in another post: “The productivity of Weather-Dependent “Renewables” is limited as they only gather intermittent and dilute sources of energy, Wind and Solar. As they are not capable of producing the major excess power needed by civilization they are parasitic on all other power generation technologies”.
As to the question of subsidies, Alex Epstein’s most recent post adds a bit more context. The net is that punishments levied on fossil fuel production far outweigh any of the imaginary subsidies you and others scream about. https://alexepstein.substack.com/p/the-myth-of-fossil-fuel-subsidies?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=513601&post_id=121594264&isFreemail=true&utm_medium=email
And re: running out of fossil fuels, keep dreaming. This info is a bit dated as it came from a commencement speech in 2012 and references data from 2011, but the data is still quite relevant:
In the last 100 years, America’s population has tripled. Life expectancy has increased by 70 percent. The productivity of the American people, measured in terms of real per-capita Gross Domestic Product (GDP), has increased by 600 percent. At the same time, we have consumed more than 340 billion barrels of oil, almost 60 billion short tons of coal, and more than 1,090 trillion cubic feet of natural gas.
These things are linked. Affordable and reliable energy is a crucial factor in making these and many other significant human, social and technological achievements possible.
Yet even with steadily increasing rates of economic and population growth, as well as increasing energy consumption, the United States today possesses greater recoverable supplies of oil, natural gas and coal than at any point in its recorded history. How can that be? Have vast new sources of hydrocarbon fuels magically materialized beneath our feet over the past 100 years? Or is it possible that, despite what you’ve read, heard and have been told, our continent has always had a lot more energy available to it than some would have us believe?
The answers lie in the data. In 1980, official estimates of proved oil reserves in the United States stood at roughly 30 billion barrels. Yet over the past 30 years, more than 77 billion barrels of oil have been produced here. In other words, over the last 30 years, the United States produced more than two and a half times the proved reserves we thought we had available in 1980. Thanks to new and continuing innovations in exploration and production technology, there’s every reason to believe that today’s estimates of reserves are only a fraction of what will be produced and delivered tomorrow—not only here in the United States, but across the entire North American continent.
OIL
Total Recoverable Resources: 1.79 trillion barrels.
• Enough oil to fuel every passenger car in the United States for 430 years
• Almost twice as much as the combined proved reserves of all OPEC nations
• More than six times the proved reserves of Saudi Arabia
COAL
Total Recoverable Resources: 497 billion short tons.
• Provide enough electricity for approximately 500 years at coal’s current level of consumption for electricity generation
• More coal than any other country in the world
• More than the combined total of the top five non-North American countries’ reserves. (Russia, China, Australia, India, and Ukraine)
• Almost three times as much coal as Russia, which has the world’s second largest reserves.
NATURAL GAS
Total Recoverable Resources: 4.244 quadrillion cubic feet.
• Enough natural gas to provide the United States with electricity for 575 years at current natural gas generation levels
• Enough natural gas to fuel homes heated by natural gas in the United States for 857 years
• More natural gas than all of the next five largest national proved reserves (more than Russia, Iran, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and Turkmenistan)
Institute for Energy Research, 2011
So, for kicks, do us a favor and price out solar system for your home that will supply all the energy you need to maintain your current life style without using any fossil fuels – no back-up generator for example, only batteries. See how well you make out sizing the system for those short cloudy days in winter. If you like, add a wind turbine or two for additional backup.
What’s really laughable is that you don’t know the difference between CCS and Air to Fuels technology. CCS was never going to be a solution. It is a pipe dream promoted by the fossil fuel industry to delay action on the elimination of fossil fuels. The same is true for adaptation.
As I said, Air to Fuels technology is never going to be able to replace fossil fuels entirely. It would take tens of thousands of plants to do so, but where the ICE couldn’t be replaced for some reason, it is a viable technology. There is already a functioning Fuel to Air plant, and it appears most of the kinks have been worked out. There will be improvements that will bring down costs, but the current costs are not that much more than existing fossil fuels. The synthetic fuel has the added advantage of not being the environmental disaster fossil fuels are, and not only with regards to CO2.
“Many real experts on this blog have provided you with data and analysis that completely demolish your arguments many times over yet you continue to post the same jibberish over and over. I sometimes wonder if you are serious or just playing a joke given how lame most if not all your arguments are – the CCS one is just one more example”
Again, I never mentioned CCS.
Who are these “real experts”? Certainly not you. You mean those that can’t get their “papers” published in respected journals and have to go the “pay to publish” route?
I don’t post gibberish. What I post is scientific and economic analysis that you don’t understand. To you, it’s gibberish if it doesn’t conform to your alternate reality.
“That wind and solar are completely incapable of powering a developed society is blindingly obvious to any but the those totally blinded by ideology.”
Yet, the world moves on building solar and wind farms. As I said, a range of technologies will be used to replace fossil fuels. It won’t be just wind and solar. They will make up the bulk of energy generation because they are cheap and, for all practical purposes, limitless. BTW you never did explain what you plan to do for energy when fossil fuels run out. Nuclear? We will run out of that to. Then what?
Your big argument is that solar and wind are unreliable. For some reason, you believe that can’t be overcome. Nothing is further from the truth. Solar and wind can be supplemented with battery power. Don’t like that? There is ammonia. Don’t like that? There is hydrogen. Don’t like that? Air to Fuel synthetics.
Then you go on a long screed on the abundance of fossil fuels. Otherwise known as an ode to the energy genie. If you dig, it will come. One thing you forgot to mention is that demand for energy will continue to grow. Conservatively, it will increase by a factor of four by 2100. Since I don’t see much improvement in ICE efficiency, that means we will consume fossil fuels 4 times faster than we do right now. As I said, I wouldn’t project fossil fuels lasting more than 100 years. We will also be paying considerably more for fossil fuels in the future than we do now as supply becomes scarce. That means the fossil fuels will be non-competitive with renewables and that will only grow worse as time goes on.
Since I have no intention of building a solar electrical generation system for my home now or in the future, I will not go to the trouble of estimating the cost. I intend to take advantage of the economies of scale that go with a large centralized system that I do not have to maintain.
I think you are exaggerating Appell. Climate change is not killing 1 in 5 people. Not even sure what you really are trying to say. Deaths from heat are still a tiny fraction of those from cold. So far there have been a lot of positives from higher CO2 and only minor and easily adapted to negative ones.
Appell
Getting desperate I see. I understand, the entire edifice of CAGW is deteriorating before your eyes. Cold deaths far surpass those from heat, and then only a fraction are from those attributed to CO2.
You have repeatedly denied that anyone is forecasting meters of SLR, yet here you are rolling out the big guns to frighten the children and the not so bright. Go back to sleep, no reason to have insomnia over that scare tactic.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/E44yV55XIAAfkrU?format=jpg&name=medium
David Young | May 15, 2023 at 12:06 am |
I think you are exaggerating Appell. Climate change is not killing 1 in 5 people. Not even sure what you really are trying to say.
D Young – In response to you comment – Apple is referring to the several anti fossil fuel “studies” which claim that 20% of deaths world wide are premature and those premature deaths are caused by the pollution from burning fossil fuels.
Most all the “premature mortality studies” have significant logic and math errors (2.5pm, ozone, studies). Those premature fossil fuel death studies are especially egregious. Quite easy to recognize as agenda driven junk science. Unsurprisingly, Appell continues to repeat the 20% premature death claim in spite of the obvious junk science.
CKid commented:
Cold deaths far surpass those from heat, and then only a fraction are from those attributed to CO2.
And so it’s a good thing to heat up the entire world for 100,000 years in order to reduce 1.65 M/yr deaths from cold??
LOL. Do you insist the air over your entire town be heated up so you’re not cold in your living room?
Or do you buy a furnace?
Society is more than capable of preventing these cold deaths, if it cares to. Governments are capable of it. But it isn’t done because nobody cares except when they can use it as a talking point to deny the seriousness of global warming.
David Young wrote:
Climate change is not killing 1 in 5 people
I never said it was.
*Traditional* pollution from fossil fuels prematurely kills 1 in 5:
“Fossil fuel air pollution responsible for 1 in 5 deaths worldwide,” 02/09/2021
https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/c-change/news/fossil-fuel-air-pollution-responsible-for-1-in-5-deaths-worldwide/
“Global mortality from outdoor fine particle pollution generated by fossil fuel combustion: Results from GEOS-Chem,” KarnVohra et al, Environmental Research v 195 April 2021 110754
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0013935121000487
Man made CO2 hasn’t killed any people, but it’s fed millions.
I really question these numbers Appell. Air pollution from cooking fires is almost certainly a bigger problem. The answer here is to increase fossil fuel usage. In any case, its meaningless because many things people use or do are dangerous. People make choices based on trade offs. In the case of fossil fuels, life expectancy rose dramatically throughout the 20th century when fossil fuel use skyrocketed. It’s very misleading to promote this number in isolation. In fact, its a typical cherry picking fallacy.
@David,
If fossil fuel particulate matter is killing 1 in 5 people, how come a chart of countries by life expectancy and a chart of of countries by fossil fuel use is pretty much the same chart. If particulate matter was causing so many deaths, the charts would be opposites, with Africans and South Asians and Central Americans outliving everybody. But the opposite is true.
David
We have had this discussion before about air pollution. The figure is around 1 in 10 deaths in the UK.
https://inews.co.uk/news/health/air-pollution-kills-64000-people-in-the-uk-every-year-268508#:~:text=Air%20pollution%20causes%2064%2C000%20early%20deaths%20in%20the,worldwide%2C%20it%E2%80%99s%20killing%20considerably%20more%20people%20than%20smoking.
Early deaths mean anything from a highly theoretical and modeled couple of minutes to a year or so. Only 1 person in the UK has had pollution certified as their cause of death. A 12 year old girl with asthma living right next to the busiest road in London.
As I linked previously, this was debated in the House of Commons a couple of years ago and that figure is recorded in Hansard. .
Fossil fuel provides many benefits including keeping warm and fertiliser and transport and plastics. If there was a practical cost effective alternative I would happily move to it,. Unfortunately the mining and processing of rare earths also kills many people as do the dung and wood fires in undeveloped countries. So an alternative doesn’t exist as yet
George Turner wrote:
If fossil fuel particulate matter is killing 1 in 5 people, how come a chart of countries by life expectancy and a chart of of countries by fossil fuel use is pretty much the same chart.
Because more than one factor determines lifespan. Some factors increase it, other factors decrease it.
dpy6629 wrote:
I really question these numbers Appell.
Doesn’t make them untrue. It’s a peer reviewed paper in a very good journal by people who study this topic deeply and have a lot of experience, including three from Harvard University.
Air pollution from cooking fires is almost certainly a bigger problem.
“Household air pollution was responsible for an estimated 3.2 million deaths per year in 2020….” That’s about 1 in 2,500 deaths worldwide.
https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/household-air-pollution-and-health
In any case, its meaningless because many things people use or do are dangerous.
So apparently we shouldn’t try to stop drunk driving because people face many dangers every day. We shouldn’t wear seat belts for the same reason. We shouldn’t screen airplane passengers for weapons because we’re all exposed to greater dangers than hijacking and in-flight terrorism. Why put fuses in circuits when you’re more likely to a heart attack or stroke?
In the case of fossil fuels, life expectancy rose dramatically throughout the 20th century when fossil fuel use skyrocketed.
It rose dramatically when ENERGY use rose dramatically. The energy can come from anywhere. It should no longer come from fuels that prematurely kills 1 in 5 people and change the climate for the next 100,000 years.
Barnes Moore wrote:
You are the perfect example of how the US is being destroyed from within. You buy every argument put out by green NGO’s that have been funded by China and Russia to the tune several hundred million dollars. Your arguments don’t even rise to the level of lame, yet you repeat them endlessly. The description of detached from reality, indoctrinated, lobotomized fool living in the fact free world of liberal la la land fits you to a T.
Thanks for carefully reading my comments.
JJB – provides the following links to “fossil fuel Subsidies”
Then what TX is doing for fossil fuels is a subsidy?
https://www.texasmonthly.com/news-politics/texas-republican-war-on-renewable-energy/
https://www.texasmonthly.com/news-politics/energy-subsidies-fossil-fuels-renewables/
https://theintercept.com/2021/10/22/manchin-climate-fossil-fuel-subsidies-reconciliation/
The true cost of fossil fuel subsidies:
https://e360.yale.edu/digest/fossil-fuels-received-5-9-trillion-in-subsidies-in-2020-report-finds
JJB – the first link from Texas Monthly – never actually tells the reader what is the subsidy –
the second link from Texas Monthly never mentions what is the actual fossil fuel subsidy
the third link from intercept – grossly misrepresents the depletion allowance and grossly mischaracterizes the deduction for drilling costs including a pure math error that completely discredits the analysis.
The fourth link from the Yale.edu provides zero explanation for what are the subsidies. the link to the 2021 IMF study which forms the basis of the article is extremely vague on what are the actual subsidies.
Most people would be embarrassed to make a claim with out providing any substantiation or basis for making a claim. Not so with fact free anti-fossil advocates.
“the first link from Texas Monthly – never actually tells the reader what is the subsidy –”
The subsidy is the preferential treatment fossil fuels are given by legislation. Your definition of “subsidy” seems to be if preferential treatment is given to renewables, it’s a subsidy. If preferential treatment is given to fossil fuels, it’s not a subsidy.
“the second link from Texas Monthly never mentions what is the actual fossil fuel subsidy.
the third link from intercept – grossly misrepresents the depletion allowance and grossly mischaracterizes the deduction for drilling costs including a pure math error that completely discredits the analysis.”
Is this your “opinion” that you just made up or do you have a credible reference? If it’s the latter provide a link.
“The fourth link from the Yale.edu provides zero explanation for what are the subsidies. the link to the 2021 IMF study which forms the basis of the article is extremely vague on what are the actual subsidies.”
I think it’s pretty clear that the “subsidies” include explicit subsidies, tax breaks, and environmental damage. Environmental damage is a socialized cost and doesn’t appear in the cost of the product. I guess, when it comes to fossil fuels, you’re on board with socialism.
David Appell | May 16, 2023 at 11:30 am |
dpy6629 wrote:
I really question these numbers Appell.
“Doesn’t make them untrue. It’s a peer reviewed paper in a very good journal by people who study this topic deeply and have a lot of experience, including three from Harvard University.”
Appell – Its a peer reviewed paper in a very good journal that is junk science.
The 1 in 5 deaths due to fossil fuels is pure junk science.
CKid wrote:
Getting desperate I see. I understand, the entire edifice of CAGW is deteriorating before your eyes.
Define “catastrophic.”
The case for AGW has never been stronger.
The data shows the rate of average global temperature change remains at 0.2 C/decade.
Yes Jim, the 1 in 5 number is propaganda because it omits the benefits of fossil fuels which are massive.
Life expectancy has been increasing dramatically for 120 years corresponding exactly to the growing use of fossil fuels.
In any serious evaluation of something, you must evaluate costs and benefits. Anything else is deceptive.
dpy6629 wrote:
Yes Jim, the 1 in 5 number is propaganda because it omits the benefits of fossil fuels which are massive.
When people here can’t disprove a number, they call it “propaganda.”
BTW, the “massive” “benefits” of fossil fuels are really the benefits of energy. Energy can come from many sources, many of which don’t change the climate for the next 10^5 years and kill people from air pollution.
And certainly will.
dpy6629 wrote:
Yes Jim, the 1 in 5 number is propaganda because it omits the benefits of fossil fuels which are massive.
It’s really very odd.
Why would you defend fuels that have so many negative impacts?
Do you not care about your own health and the health of others?
If so, why not?
Why don’t you care about your own health?
That’s really weird.
And why do you not care about the environment that everyone has to live in forever?
Barnes Moore wrote:
As has been explained to you ad nauseam, deductions from earned income, that every corporate and individual tax payer takes are not subsidies.
If you get a deduction on your income, and I don’t — why isn’t that a subsidy?
You end up with more money than me.
A deduction that reduces the amount of tax you pay on income earned is very different than receiving a payment where there was no income earned.
Barnes Moore wrote:
Replace them more often using fossil fuel powered machinery since wind and solar can’t produce enough energy to power the machinery used in their production.
Who says they can’t?
Just because they aren’t now doesn’t mean they can’t.
Maybe you should take some time to carefully examine the entire life cycle process. For one thing, the manufacturing process is energy intense and can’t be supported by weather dependent, variable, and unreliable energy sources. Ever take a look at how wind turbine blades are transported? It’s not by sail boat and certainly not by EVs. How about the mining of the raw materials? Lot’s of very heavy machinery there as well. If Buyden’s lunacy continues, our entire energy sector will be at risk.
Barnes Moore wrote:
Maybe you should take some time to carefully examine the entire life cycle process. For one thing, the manufacturing process is energy intense and can’t be supported by weather dependent, variable, and unreliable energy sources.
Again, electricity isn’t sourced locally, especially as more smart networks come into being.
Ever take a look at how wind turbine blades are transported? It’s not by sail boat and certainly not by EVs. How about the mining of the raw materials? Lot’s of very heavy machinery there as well.
Barnes: How much energy does it take, globally per year, to transport wind turbine blades?
To the nearest order of magnitude.
You are evading the point. It’s very simple, without fossil fuels, wind and solar could not exist. It does not matter if the amount of fossifl fuel is small, that simply makes it even more evident that wind and solar are incapable of supply sufficient energy to power the machinery used in their production. Show me anywhere in the world where wind and solar provide even a small part of the energy used to power the machinery used. You can’t because those examples don’t exist.
Barnes Moore wrote:
A deduction that reduces the amount of tax you pay on income earned is very different than receiving a payment where there was no income earned.
WHY???
You keep claiming this but never provide any actual reasoning or analysis.
As JJB has said, both are money in the business’s pocket.
Barnes Moore wrote:
It does not matter if the amount of fossifl fuel is small….
It certainly would matter. If the only fossil fuels used were to build and install wind towers, solar farms, etc, that would be a huge advance that would basically halt climate change in its track. We could probably clean up those scant CO2 emissions with carbon capture.
Show me anywhere in the world where wind and solar provide even a small part of the energy used to power the machinery used. You can’t because those examples don’t exist.
Show me they don’t exist. And that they can’t.
I’m not familiar enough with the industry to know something like this. But electric construction equipment certainly exists:
https://www.bigrentz.com/blog/electric-construction-equipment
https://www.volvoce.com/united-states/en-us/products/electric-machines/
videos:
https://t.ly/KVnu
melitamegalithic just commented:
The period 1645 to1713 (1659-1722) – the LIA -, was the root of the Eddy cycle of approx 980 years. It has been getting warmer since then.
For the Nth time….the LIA wasn’t global. And you can’t provide any data that says it was.
“There were no globally synchronous multi-decadal warm or cold intervals that define a worldwide Medieval Warm Period or Little Ice Age….”
— “Continental-scale temperature variability during the past two millennia,” PAGES 2k Consortium, Nature Geosciences, April 21, 2013.
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v6/n5/abs/ngeo1797.html
Reply to David Appell
The paper quoted dates from 2013. You need to update yourself.
Go to this post at this site, from 2018; it changed everything:
https://judithcurry.com/2018/06/28/nature-unbound-ix-21st-century-climate-change/ (thanks also to Javier ).
The correlation of the Eddy cycle to what had been already found in prehistoric research, and subsequently corroborated by a good number of proxies, puts the matter in a sound context. That is, short timescales make for short-sighted deductions.
Eddy cycle climatic effects are global, but latitude locations may exhibit different effects. The common factor is civilisation disruption. The rise and fall of civilisations, their peak and their collapse, followed the Eddy cycle. In one instance of research on Sahara/Sahel region, the dates of civilisation changes were precisely the dates in Eddy cycle over several millennia.
Unfortunately in academia, rather than cross fertilise across various research, the trend seems (to me) to be to defend the ‘stamping ground’ and in some cases obfuscate.
If you wish to find out more, this post of mine has updated details. Look at top figure re correlation of temperature anomaly changes to the Eddy cycle. Note the polar correlation, and in opposite to equatorial. Note the global effect every time. Bottom figure was updated to show civilisations wax/wane in step with cycle.
Link: https://melitamegalithic.wordpress.com/2019/03/15/searching-evidence-update-2/
David Appell
Continual to the above, see also : https://melitamegalithic.wordpress.com/2018/04/24/searching-evidence-2/
In particular two Eddy cycle roots; at ~5200bce and 3195bce
The correlations her are between North Atlantic ice rafting in one paper, and Mediterranean deposits research. Ice rafting show an abrupt ‘change’ (apparently it is shown decrease but someone noted the scale need to be reversed; so it is increase), and two thick sapropel layers at those dates in the Med. where before and after there is inert clay layers. So what is the source of the biological material?
In corroboration the megalithic calendars show an axial alignment rotation (possibly/likely a major tectonic event) at those two dates.
All are the result of geological upheaval, abrupt and global. Climate, as a collateral, is to be expected. Tectonic events is another field of study that is important.
See this link: https://melitamegalithic.wordpress.com/2019/02/03/searching-evidence-5-tectonic-rotations/
Considering regional variation, I think postulating a requirement that LIA has to be simultaneous around the globe is a straw man. The real question is was there a GLOBAL decrease in average temperature of the atmosphere. IDK if data exists to come up with a reliable number for that.
“The real question is was there a GLOBAL decrease in average temperature of the atmosphere.”
Irrelevant. Energy is being stored in the ocean. If you’re looking for a proxy for climate change, use ocean heat content.
https://snowbrains.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/Figure1a_separate_English-min.png
Appell is like a broken record on LIA not being global. The absence of evidence is not the same as evidence of absence. There are studies showing LIA conditions existed all over the globe. The resolution of paleo reconstruction is not good enough to say precisely what those cooler conditions were. Even in the NH where there is agreement about the LIA, there are variations of amplitude and timing and location. It wasn’t one long, steady temperature in every location in the NH. Appell doesn’t know any more about the LIA than he knows about deficits and debt.
Appell is one of those people who trot out climate and economic computer models to support his contention that man-transformed CO2 will result in a catastrophe, but then reject any ivermectin study that isn’t a gold-standard clinical trial. Those sorts of people readily accepted the mRNA vaccines in spite of the fact the clinical trials were terminated long before adequate safety data could be collected. Hypocrisy runs deep in such people.
melitamegalithic commented
The correlation of the Eddy cycle….
What is the radiative forcing of the Eddy Cycle at its peak?
melitamegalithic wrote:
Milankovitch ASSUMED a near fixed obliquity.
I don’t know — do you have a link to his original paper, if it’s in English — but SO WHAT? Even if he did, others have added to his original work and obliquity is now a part of Milenkovitch theory.
In fact Eocene temps show Milankovitch wrong – missing data in the hypothesis.
What?
And why polar regions could harbour temperate region flora and fauna at times.
Rule #0: climate changes, but not always for the same reasons.
The Earth was much different then (higher CO2, continents were elsewhere, different planetary albedo, different solar irradiance, etc etc etc). Not everything is due to Milankovitch factors. So I don’t see how your Facebook graphs are relevant. I can’t even tell what point they’re trying to make.
melitamegalithic: BTW you never said why you reject the idea of radiative forcing.
https://robertbryce.substack.com/p/epa-v-the-grid?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=630873&post_id=121072171&isFreemail=true&utm_medium=email
melitamegalithic wrote:
The period 1645 to1713 (1659-1722) – the LIA -, was the root of the Eddy cycle of approx 980 years. It has been getting warmer since then. But it is not a smooth upward trend as can be seen from the previous cycles for the last 10k years (from ice proxies both polar and equatorial). It will peak early next century, so we should know what to expect.
The Sun is not responsible for modern global warming.
In fact, changes in solar irradiance have little effect on the average global temperature of the Earth. Almost always there are other factors that are more important. Today, MUCH more important, by more than an order of magnitude.
David Appell
You ask a question, and earlier a statement that answers it.
vis: “What is the radiative forcing of the Eddy Cycle at its peak?”
ans: “The Sun is not responsible for modern global warming.” But not so fast.
From a mechanical engineer’s perspective: two aspects to consider.
1. the earth is a rotating heat exchanger, absorbing heat from a point source -sun- and radiating to space form all its surface. The intermediate transfer of heat from hot areas to colder is complex and variable. In my view, speaking of ‘radiative forcing (def: Incoming Energy – Outgoing Energy = Radiative Forcing) is near nonsence.
2. The sun is a ‘nuclear’ point heat source from earth’s perspective. Yet barycentre gravitational changes may effect its output (similar to control rods in nuclear pile in reactor). I just do not know, but that is an open question. Ie. Planetary alignments may be one reason (recent observations indicate that that is so)..
A third point re Eddy cycle. Earth is a rotating heat exchanger, however its orientation is not stable dynamically. There is adequate proof – as of recent-. I here link to a site of mine since I cannot post graphics here. At Eddy cycle peak in year 173CE there is record of tilt instability, a minor event, with immediate effect on ‘radiative forcing’ to use that phrase. Abrupt heat input at higher latitudes resulted in accelerated glacier melt and lake sedimentation. Such effects are global. Why the Eddy link – ??? The data also shows in lake sediment record a disturbance at Yr ~2345bce, the initial of the 4K2 major event.
Link: https://www.facebook.com/melitamegalithic/photos/a.433731873468290/2093466177494843/
The devil is in the details, and there are plenty of them.
“The intermediate transfer of heat from hot areas to colder is complex and variable. In my view, speaking of ‘radiative forcing (def: Incoming Energy – Outgoing Energy = Radiative Forcing) is near nonsence.
That’s why we use average values. Even the complex models we use are inadequate to capture all the effects. Radiative forcing is real and is positive as long as the earth is warming. We need more satellites to monitor it. NASA has a project called RAVAN to do just that. It has passed proof of concept. It is awaiting full funding, but that has not happened yet.
“The sun is a ‘nuclear’ point heat source from earth’s perspective …”
We have these things called satellites that monitor solar irradiance. Over the last 40 years data from these satellites show the sun cannot be the source of the current warming. The rest of your point is moot,
Upthread you say that 1 in 5 people die prematurely from climate change. When challenged you abandoned this statement and ‘moved on.’ What is your source for saying 1 in 5 people die prematurely from climate change?
JJBraccili
A comment on something you said, which deserves some debate, if only for academic interest.
“That’s why we use average values.” in ref to Radiative Forcing.
There are situations where ‘averaging out’ means throwing out the baby and keeping the bath water. Meaning that abrupt change that may be revealing and of high importance is wiped out in the averaging.
To go straight to the point, in my link given above, for centuries we have used averaging or ‘trend’ when studying data with the result that the more meaningful outlier points were ignored. In my view, for centuries (since Stockwell) we were fed garbage in relation to the Earth’s dynamics. Having had reason to review the history on the matter it became evident that those who did notice were eventually forced to tow the deceptive narrative.
Is that what is happening today? Averaging satellite data over a period of a few decades is not going to reveal the changes of millennial cycles (note: proven cycles), especially if there is an instance of abrupt change and it is going to be wiped out in the process.
melitamegalithic wrote:
1. the earth is a rotating heat exchanger, absorbing heat from a point source -sun- and radiating to space form all its surface. The intermediate transfer of heat from hot areas to colder is complex and variable.
Good to know, because of course scientists aren’t aware of this elementary fact.
In my view, speaking of ‘radiative forcing (def: Incoming Energy – Outgoing Energy = Radiative Forcing)….
That’s the NET radiative forcing at the top of the atmosphere. Individual forcings (solar, greenhouse gases, aerosols, etc) are of different magnitudes and last for different times.
…is near nonsence.
Why?
Let’s assume no other factors are influencing climate change except the Sun. What energy imbalance does a change in solar irradiance for the Eddy cycle create?
David Appell
You raise two points:
1. In a rotating heat exchanger rotational speed matters. The faster it turns the quicker the absorbed heat from a point source is radiated to space half a turn later. Some heat is transferred to colder regions by intermediate mechanisms and then radiated out. If speed drops below a certain point the ‘rot heat exchanger’ effect stalls and the exchanger body reaches a higher temp before heat in/out balances. Venus is a good example of that.
A secondary point is orientation to the heat source. For earth it varies from equinox to solstice. But also changes if the axial tilt changes. A point of contention this, since evidence shows that it did so and substantially, but not yet an accepted factor.
I seek correlation/corroboration in data. Link here is one example. Graph of theoretical lat temp gradient versus obliquity angle 0-90. Superimposed on gradient for today (bottom) and eocene (top). Link: https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=1957722401069222&set=pb.100063509740636.-2207520000.
(note: the greater the tilt the lower the rhe effect, so eocene net effect is a higher intermediate earth temp)
2. Your second question (a link between sol irr and eddy ???) is also my question; I wish to find out. However the evidence of the last 6000yrs shows that there is a near millennial -eddy- warming/cooling cycle. And from historical examples it is the one that mostly effect civilisation.
To add something else you do not seem to agree with, the historical perspective shows global effects.
melitamegalithic wrote:
1. In a rotating heat exchanger rotational speed matters. The faster it turns the quicker the absorbed heat from a point source is radiated to space half a turn later.
A body warming from absorbed heat radiates energy IMMEDIATELY. It doesn’t wait awhile and emit a half-a-turn later. This is basic physics.
A secondary point is orientation to the heat source. For earth it varies from equinox to solstice. But also changes if the axial tilt changes. A point of contention this, since evidence shows that it did so and substantially, but not yet an accepted factor.
Scientists know all about Milankovitch cycles and the influence of orbital changes.
2. Your second question (a link between sol irr and eddy ???) is also my question; I wish to find out. However the evidence of the last 6000yrs shows that there is a near millennial -eddy- warming/cooling cycle.
What evidence? (No blogs or facebook posts, please.)
David Appell
Quote DA “A body warming from absorbed heat radiates energy IMMEDIATELY. It doesn’t wait awhile and emit a half-a-turn later. This is basic physics.”
Contrast: “All objects emit and absorb radiation. The net rate of heat transfer by radiation (absorption minus emission) is related to both the temperature of the object and the temperature of its surroundings. Assuming that an object with a temperature T1 is surrounded by an environment with uniform temperature T2, the net rate of heat transfer by radiation is
Qnett=σe(T42−T41)”
‘Net rate’ is not ‘immediately’.
Visit an old bakery where they heat the brickwork with wood, then clean out, and bake bread for the rest of the day with the heat radiated at a slower rate from the bricks. Physics at work.
Quote “Scientists know all about Milankovitch cycles and the influence of orbital changes.”
Milankovitch ASSUMED a near fixed obliquity. The FB post was evidence – a multiple proxy corroboration- that such assumption is wrong (there is plenty more evidence). I hoped you could dissect and extract the info without long explanations. In fact Eocene temps show Milankovitch wrong – missing data in the hypothesis. And why polar regions could harbour temperate region flora and fauna at times.
Your statement is in fact correct, but leaves a lot unstated; a half truth and misleading. Psychological games this?
melitamegalithic wrote:
Contrast: “All objects emit and absorb radiation. The net rate of heat transfer by radiation (absorption minus emission) is related to both the temperature of the object and the temperature of its surroundings.
You’ve changed what you said. Your first statement was:
The faster it turns the quicker the absorbed heat from a point source is radiated to space half a turn later.
which, again, isn’t true. Radiation is immediate.
Qnett=σe(T42−T41)”
‘Net rate’ is not ‘immediately’.
You’ve introduced a second body, which wasn’t in your first statement.
In any case, yes, the net rate is immediate too, minus the tiny amount of time it takes radiation to actually travel. Radiation is immediate (minus the tiny amount of the lifetime of a molecule’s excited state). It doesn’t “wait” a half-turn.
Visit an old bakery where they heat the brickwork with wood, then clean out, and bake bread for the rest of the day with the heat radiated at a slower rate from the bricks.
This isn’t about heat radiation (IR), it’s about heat conduction through the bricks. But the bricks emit IR all the time — and more, immediately, when their temperature increases.
You’re confusing types of heat transfer — radiation vs conduction vs convection. (There’s also advection.)
A brief reply this time. You seem the fail to see there are two separate mechanisms at work that in combination dictate the outcome. Both rates, time dependent. (why? usually isolation from the field).
Let’s leave it at that.
Radiation occurs immediately once the photon is emitted, but emitting a particular photon can take quite a long time. Heat conduction through the hot object takes a while, and without the internal conduction, the surface wouldn’t keep getting warmed from the heat inside the object. That’s why a rotary heat exchanger works.
You dump heat in at one rate, usually through conduction. But instead of letting the bits of the object reach and remain at thermal equilibrium with the flow of hot gases, you rotate the structure so it move into a flow of cool gases. The higher temperature of the object then dumps its stored heat into those cooler gases.
And it works the same if the heat transfer mechanism is radiation instead of conduction, though the rate equations will of course be different.
You can imagine heat as a fluid, like water. You dump a bunch into an object and the height of the water increases. The radiation is a leak through an oddly shaped sluice gate that follows a fourth-power law with pressure, and thus head height. The object leaks heat immediately through the sluice, though possibly far below the rate at which water is being poured in.
Radiatively, you can flash heat an object like a building or tank with a close nuclear blast. It will take the object hours to cool back down to ambient temperatures.
The basic mistake people make with Stefan-Boltzmann is to ignore the premise of the law, which is an “object of uniform temperature”. It applies only to an isothermal object, as the equation only includes one value for T. The equation does not work with an object that doesn’t have one uniform temperature, so you can’t just plug in the average temperature of a system and expect to get anything out but math errors, whose magnitude increases out of proportion of the temperature spread of the object, due to the multiplicative effects of taking different temperatures to the fourth power.
So for a body not at uniform temperature, you have to break it down into isothermal regions of smaller area and then sum their individual radiation outputs. It is trivially easy to have cases where a body with the cooler average temperature radiates hotter than a body that is, on average, much warmer.
Take two bodies, one a uniform 1 degree Kelvin, so T^4 = 1
The other is non-uniform, with half at absolute 0 and half at 2 Kelvin. It’s average temperature is of course 1 degree Kelvin, same as the uniform body. The cold half doesn’t radiate, while the hot half radiates as 2^4 = 16, so the average radiation is 8, not 1, and would be equivalent to the radiation from an object at a uniform temperature of 1.68 Kelvin.
The Earth does not have anything remotely close to a uniform temperature, so naive attempts to use Stefan-Boltzmann mostly produce such math errors.
I should probably explain that mathematically.
You have a temperature T that goes through Stefan-Boltzmann as T^4. It calculates a radiation as K * T^4
If I divide that body in half, and warm one half and cool the other half by equal amounts by some delta (d), then the average temperature is still exactly T. The body’s average temperature is unaffected by delta.
So now we run two temperatures through Stefan Boltzmann, each radiating with half the area. I’ll call them North and South
North radiation = 0.5 * K * (T + d)^4
South radiation = 0.5 * K * (T – d)^4
(T + d)^4 = T^4 + 4*d*T^3 + 6*d^2*T^2 + 4*d^3*T + d^4
(T – d)^4 = T^4 – 4*d*T^3 + 6*d^2*T^2 – 4*d^3*T + d^4
when you add those together only the cube terms cancel, so
0.5 * (T + d)^4 + (T – d)^4 = T^4 + 6*d^2*T^2 + d^4
So when you split two areas that used to be the same temperature into a hot zone and a cold zone, each d degrees from the original temperature, the radiation increases by
6*d^2*T^2 + d^4.
This generates errors in the range of Earth temperatures.
Earth 0 is at uniform 15 C (288 K), and radiates like it’s 15 C, and is in radiative equilibrium with the environment.
Earth 1 gets split with a d of 15 C, so half is at 0 C and half is at 30 C, but the average temperature is still exactly 15 C. But due to the equation above, it radiates like a planet at a uniform temperature of 16.165 C.
Now if someone didn’t understand why you can’t run an average through a fourth-power equation, they might back calculate the radiation and think the planet had warmed by 1.165 C, lose their minds and demand an end to civilization.
But Earth 1’s average temperature hasn’t changed a bit, only the temperature distribution. But the planet is no longer in radiative equilibrium because it’s radiating far more energy, and if the +-15 C difference is maintained, it will cool from the 15 C average down to 13.83 C, at which point the emitted radiation will be back in balance, just like Earth 0.
Conversely, if the planet did have a big temperature differential, and that differential is reduced through better mixing (the hot regions pump more of the heat to the cold regions), the emitted radiation for the same average temperature will decrease, and the planet will slowly warm up.
Note that this doesn’t require any change in emissivity, albedo, and doesn’t even require an atmosphere, much less any green house effect. It is purely a function of how the heat gets distributed. If the ocean and atmospheric circulation efficiently transports the equatorial heat toward the poles, the planet will be noticeably warmer than if they did not.
Thank you. That was excellent.
George wrote:
North radiation = 0.5 * K * (T + d)^4
South radiation = 0.5 * K * (T – d)^4
(T + d)^4 = T^4 + 4*d*T^3 + 6*d^2*T^2 + 4*d^3*T + d^4
(T – d)^4 = T^4 – 4*d*T^3 + 6*d^2*T^2 – 4*d^3*T + d^4
when you add those together only the cube terms cancel, so
0.5 * (T + d)^4 + (T – d)^4 = T^4 + 6*d^2*T^2 + d^4
Huh???????????
I have no idea what your point is (and I’m not sure you do either).
But what I do know for certain is that a body emits radiation immediately.
George Turner wrote:
Earth 1 gets split with a d of 15 C, so half is at 0 C and half is at 30 C, but the average temperature is still exactly 15 C. But due to the equation above, it radiates like a planet at a uniform temperature of 16.165 C.
Are you dividing the planet up into zones, some of which can’t radiate?
If not, what the heck are you doing?
All objects emit radiation immediately. Energy is always conserved. Always.
George Turner wrote:
Take two bodies, one a uniform 1 degree Kelvin, so T^4 = 1
The other is non-uniform, with half at absolute 0
George, no body, or part of a body, can be at absolute zero. Third law of thermodynamics.
Try again.
George Turner wrote:
In response to David Appell:
Flattered so many of you think you can prove me wrong.
Love riling younz up.
But I can’t reply to everyone. I deleted many replies to me. Sorry.
If California enforces it’s trucking fleet mandates, the US may very well take the lead in destroying it’s economy – taken down by a single state with colossally stupid regulations. https://wattsupwiththat.com/2023/05/06/a-heavy-dose-of-reality-for-electric-truck-mandates/
You should take whatever you read on wattsupwiththat with a grain of salt. They never tell you the whole story.
https://www.trucknews.com/equipment/paccar-toyota-bringing-fuel-cell-electric-trucks-to-market/1003174860/
The CA mandates are not going to destroy the economy.
Nice puff piece about something that does not yet exist in the real world, is not available until 2025, and something that still falls far short of diesel: “The Kenworth T680 fuel-cell-electric vehicle (FCEV) – on display during the event — has a range of up to 450 miles (725 km) depending on conditions, well beyond the limits of battery-electric alternatives. It comes with Toyota’s 310-kW dual motor assembly that can provide 415 continuous horsepower to support gross combination weight ratings of 82,000 lb.
It can be refilled in around 20 minutes, and California will soon have about a dozen high-pressure fueling stations, Paccar officials note.
So, a range of “up to 450 miles” compared to 1200 for diesel, and a refill time of 20 minutes vs. 15. And of course, a seriously meager infrastructure to support them compared to diesel.
Since the equipment has been tested and getting ready to go into production, it’s not a puff piece.
All the infrastructure limitations will be resolved in due time. Just like the ICE, the fuel cell drive train will be improved and has the potential to be exceed the range of current diesel ICEs.
Believe in unicorn farts, pixie dust, santa claus, the tooth fairy and the easter bunny all you want. The “solutions” you propose have enormous downsides you refuse to acknowledge. Maybe you should try out for a role in the next dumb and dumber squeal.
Barnes Moore just commented:
Believe in unicorn farts, pixie dust, santa claus, the tooth fairy and the easter bunny all you want. The “solutions” you propose have enormous downsides you refuse to acknowledge.
What are the downsides of continuing to burn fossil fuels?
Very few compared to the upsides. More Co2 in the atmosphere is good for plant life, if co2 slightly warms, that is better for life in general given that life flourishes more in warmer environments than colder ones. If you want to experiment, why don’t you price out a solar and battery system for your home and completely disconnect from the grid – with no fossil fuel powered back-up generator. You can also supplement with a couple of small home scale wind turbines. Let us know the cost of doing that while maintaining your current standard of living – if it’s even possible which I seriously doubt.
>Barnes Moore
Priorities! We Americans spend over $136 Billion a year just on our pets, more than twice the $51 Billion we spent on guns.
I don’t recommend solar to everybody but about 20% of US residential could install a modest ground mounted solar array and save money. Are you living in a house that could install a 5-10 KW ground mount system if you wanted to?
Possibly. As I’ve said before, I may not agree with you on a lot of things, but I like what you have done with your solar installation. I live in Florida and have some space for a ground mount system but there are 2 issues – one, I am long in tooth and don’t expect to live in my house beyond another 5 years or so, so the economics would not work. I also have not explored city code to see if ground mount is allowed, but a local solar installer lives down the street and he may know. IMO, solar does have niche applications, I just have serious doubts that it can be scaled effectively to be of any serious use on the grid.
The US looks likely to destroy its economy anyway with its stupendous levels of debt, combined with recent reckless wild spending by Mr Biden on covid and the green deal
That’s all very well when other countries are bearing your debt, but the Dollar looks likely to be displaced as the only reserve world currency judging by Chinas ambitions. Argentina now pays for its oil purchases in their currency and other countries are following suit as China extends its influence. If rule 42? is allowed to lapse, further vast expenditure will need to be spent on the floods of migrants coming your way.
The West needs a strong, resilient, confident and Engaged America, but sadly it seems to be pulling back.
That funny. Debt and deficits exploded under Saint Ronnie, Shrub, and the Orange Wonder.
https://zfacts.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/2020-04-30-National-Debt-to-GDP-zFacts.jpg
Saying that tax cuts pay for themselves is the same as believing in Santa Claus and the tooth fairy.
Budget cuts pay for themselves.
Jimmy Carter deregulated the Savings & Loan industry by signing into law the Depository Institutions Deregulation and Monetary Control Act of 1980, the Act gave thrifts many of the capabilities of commercial banks without the same regulations as banks, and without explicit FDIC oversight. Carter’s “Act’ directly led to the Saving & Loan crises that Reagan had to bail out. The debt the Reagan administration accrued about equaled the bailout amount. Imagine that.
It was what Saint Ronnie did in 1982 that led to the S&L collapse. You can read about it here:
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/sl-crisis.asp
Saint Ronnie’s presidency was a complete disaster.
Tax revenue falls within a narrow range of GNP regardless of whether the tax rates are low or high.
Its spending is the problem.
A sound tax policy couple with adult management of spending would solve the deficit problem. It would take adults acting like adults
You can’t say that taxes must always be cut and can never go up. That’s not responsible. If the Democrats agree to the spending cuts the Republicans want, they’ll immediately demand tax cuts. From what I understand the spending cuts total 4.8 trillion dollars and they want 3 trillion in tax cuts benefitting the wealthy and corporations. In other words, conservatives are reserve Robin Hoods. They take from the poor and middle class and give to the rich.
The conservatives are not going to get what they want and this time they’ll have to shoot the hostage.
JJ repeats the Party line, facts be damned. Just regurgitating, indoctrinated style.
Reagan’s first two years were affected by leftover high unemployment of the 1980 recession and even higher unemployment (10%) from the 1981-82 recession. In spite of that, tax revenues were still up 76%. But because the Democrats insisted on runaway spending, outlays were 80%. Adjusted Gross Income rose 91%.
Clinton balanced the budget, not because of the increase in the marginal tax rates, but because spending was up only 30%, versus 80% under Reagan. But even more important was that real taxable income increased 67%. Between 1988 and 1993 there were 2 increases in the top rate, from 28% to 39.6%. After those 2 hikes, the effective tax rate rose only 0.1%, from 13.4% to 13.5%. It generated a pittance. That 67% in real taxable income is what caused the higher tax revenue.
The reason Bush II had those deficits was because the tax base, that is the real taxable income, increased by only 3%. So, Clinton’s real taxable income growth was 22 times that of Bush II. Bush had deficits not because of cuts in the marginal tax rates or because of increased defense spending, but because the tax base was nearly flat. If Clinton had Bush’s 3% real growth in taxable income and Bush had Clinton’s 67%, then Bush would have balanced the budget and Clinton would have run deficits.
4 years after the Trump tax cuts Individual Income Tax revenue rose from $1.6 Trillion to $2.6 Trillion. It took 17 years to go from $1 Trillion to $1.6 Trillion.
joe – the non climate scientiest wrote:
Its spending is the problem.
Why is federal spending the problem?
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/FYFRGDA188S
jim2 wrote:
Budget cuts pay for themselves.
LOLOLOL.
Prove it. With data.
joe – the non climate scientieist wrote:
Tax revenue falls within a narrow range of GNP regardless of whether the tax rates are low or high.
Tax revenue should go up as income inequality goes up. But this hasn’t happened. The wealthy have a favored tax status and absolutely everyone here, including “JOE,” is getting screwed by this policy.
Tonyb just commented:
The US looks likely to destroy its economy anyway with its stupendous levels of debt,
1) Under Biden the public debt is decreasing:
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=13ru0
2) A higher US debt means more money in your pocket.
Are you ready to spend money in your pocket to decrease the US public debt?
JJBraccili wrote:
That funny. Debt and deficits exploded under Saint Ronnie….
It’s true. Ronald of Hollywood tripled the national debt:
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/fredgraph.png?g=13ruE
Is convenient to forget.
Appell
Your chart shows debt as percentage of GDP not a nominal reduction in debt. If the debt actually decreased that would be an accomplishment. It won’t be happening. This fiscal year’s deficit will most likely be greater than FY 22. Debt service is exploding.
Debt to GDP ratio is a measure of your ability to carry debt.
We were fine until Saint Ronnie reintroduced supply side economics — a rebranding of the failed economic policies of the1920s. All that does is increase income inequality — the point for conservatives —, deficits, and debt which conservatives only pretend to care about when a Democrat is president..
David Appell | May 11, 2023 at 7:51 pm |
joe – the non climate scientieist wrote:
Tax revenue falls within a narrow range of GNP regardless of whether the tax rates are low or high.
Apple’s response – “Tax revenue should go up as income inequality goes up. But this hasn’t happened. The wealthy have a favored tax status and absolutely everyone here, including “JOE,” is getting screwed by this policy.”
David Appell | May 11, 2023 at 7:46 pm |
joe – the non climate scientiest wrote:
Its spending is the problem.
Apple’s response – “Why is federal spending the problem?
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/FYFRGDA188S ”
David Appell | May 11, 2023 at 8:04 pm |
Tonyb just commented:
The US looks likely to destroy its economy anyway with its stupendous levels of debt,
Apple’s reponse “1) Under Biden the public debt is decreasing:
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=13ru0 ”
The subject of this article is “disinformation”
Appel – in spite of an advanced degree in mathematics, is easily fooled by disinformation
Tony
One of the things that will delay the U S currency collapse is the fact that the EU is in much worse shape financially.
Biden economy fail
https://www.powerlineblog.com/ed-assets/2023/05/Real-wage-growth.png
Plainly shows also Trump economy win, for every worker
Barnes Moore,
The trucking guy was great. Electric long-distance freight only works with rails. I’m more dangerous than an environmentalist, I’m a futurist.
Dont’ disagree, but rail also has it’s limitations. Plus, that only addresses one aspect of the overall lifecycle for wind turbines and solar panels.
Here is a weird idea, turn the freight trailer into a battery with electric motors on the rear axels. No fancy truck interface needed and it works with standard diesel trucks while “claiming” it can reduce fuel costs by 41%.
range.energy/
As the battery is bi-directional it could used as a virtual power plant which makes sense since the utility companies will probably have to put in a substation to handle the extra load when charging.
You are correct – that is a weird idea. Not sure if you are proposing that solution as a replacement for on road trucks, or if that is a rail solution. If for use on the road, how much would that container weigh? As the article I linked to mentions, BEV tractor trailors require 2 8000 pound batteries, which reduces the amount of cargo they can transport since there are very strict weight limitations for trucks. If for rail, maybe it works, but how many rail cars could that pull?
I’m not sold of the idea of long distance electric trucks or trailers because of the extra weight and charging times. Short haul stuff like garbage trucks, school buses, UPS and postal truck should be the target markets until batteries get a lot lighter & cheaper.
jacksmith4tx | May 8, 2023 at 3:12 pm |
“I’m not sold of the idea of long distance electric trucks or trailers because of the extra weight and charging times. Short haul stuff like garbage trucks, ”
Jack – your comments highlight one of the major issues with EV’s
Dump trucks/garbage trucks will likely require a doubling of the fleet since the effective capacity (electric capacity ) will likely be in the 2-3 hour range with charge times in 3-5 hour range. I will likely take 2-3 trucks to haul the same volume of garbage in one day.
Similar the crop harvesting. Some crops such as sweet corn have a harvesting window of only 2-3 days. Will need to double or triple the fleet to get some crops harvested. Some grain crops have much longer harvesting windows (such as field corn and some wheat varieties which have 10+ day harvesting windows) so EV’s for those crops would create as much of a crop loss.
That’s why God invented fuel cells. What didn’t you read what I said about the fuel cell drive train Toyota has developed for long haul trucks? Maybe you choose to ignore it because it blows a hole in your myopic world view.
We would have to double the size of the long-haul truck fleet too, because to drive all day means at least half the payload will be batteries, based on a bunch of math. And the batteries will only last about two years because the driving is constant. So twice as many drivers, twice as many trucks, replacing them five to seven times as often.
So shipping costs will of course skyrocket.
EV’s are all about replacing a non-problem with a perpetual crisis.
Fuel cells solve the problem.
Fuel cells solve the problem?
Why didn’t we switch all the vehicles to fuel cells back in 1963, when fuel cells were the hot new thing? Toyota’s fuel cells just kick the can down the road, still using hydrogen fuel cells like we did in the Apollo era. If there’s a hydrogen supply chain and a viable onboard storage system, why not just run the hydrogen into a regular piston engine and save the expense of the fuel cells, which work out to be no more efficient than piston engines? But then why not just run a piston engine on methane directly instead of stripping hydrogen from CH4 and dumping the waste CO2 into the atmosphere?
The problem has always been, despite half a century of research, the lack of a good way to store hydrogen. Even liquid hydrogen would require fuel tanks to be four times larger to store the same energy, and nobody in their right mind would try to use liquid hydrogen for road vehicles that have collisions.
I don’t think fuel cells are the answer either. My view is that liquified natural gas can work and will require the least modification to existing cars and infrastructure.
That’s not going to work. To keep NG liquified it must be kept at a temperature of -162 C. How do you plan on doing that?
Once again, JJB shows his ignorance. LNG and compress NG are already in use in vehicles in the US and around the world.
The only vehicles you could use LNG in is trucks and busses that are in near continuous use. Passenger cars have too many idle periods. The evaporation losses would make fuel costs prohibitive.
I doubt you’ll see LNG as a widely used transportation fuel. Fuel cells and H2 are a better alternative. NG still puts out too much CO2, but it is an improvement over gasoline and diesel.
I never said anything about compressed NG, but it’s not a solution either.
Jim2 is right. Many large vehicle fleet operators have gone to natural gas already. Is it liquidified or merely compressed? I’m not sure.
Both compressed and liquefied NG vehicles are in use. It is typically cheaper than gasoline to fuel. Unfortunately, due to government regulations, it costs an arm and a leg to convert a gasoline engine to NG. A government certified rent seeker is required to install the conversion kit. Anyone with a modicum of mechanical ability can install the kit, but no, the government is here to “help” you.
https://www.insurancenavy.com/natural-gas-vehicles/
Both compressed and liquefied NG vehicles are in use. It is typically cheaper than gasoline to fuel. Unfortunately, due to government regulations, it costs a LOT to convert a gasoline engine to NG. A government certified rent seeker is required to install the conversion kit. Anyone with a modicum of mechanical ability can install the kit, but no, the government is here to “help” you.
https://www.insurancenavy.com/natural-gas-vehicles/
dpy6629 wrote:
My view is that liquified natural gas can work and will require the least modification to existing cars and infrastructure.
Burning natural gas emits carbon. No longer acceptable.
Its a lot less carbon than gasoline. It’s really the reason the US is the only country to reduce significantly carbon emissions over the last 20 years. We could probably cut at least 15% of our emissions rather easily with little economic penalty. Why do climate crusaders not see this?
15% is not enough. You just don’t get it.
Why spend the money to convert everything to NG? Doing so is just going to deplete NG faster and we will have to convert to renewables anyway. A bandaid, and waste of money that doesn’t solve the climate change problem.
As a Futurist I always enjoy using the fear of uncontrolled rapid technological change to terrify the public.
Researchers expanded lifespan of yeast by 80% with a simple genetic tweak. Could this work in humans too?
https://geneticliteracyproject.org/2023/05/08/researchers-expanded-lifespan-of-yeast-by-80-with-a-simple-genetic-tweak-could-this-work-in-humans-too/
“The team is currently expanding their research to the aging of diverse human cell types, including stem cells and neurons.”
Homo Sapien 2.0 is coming.
There is an excellent post on substack on electric vehicles by Matthew Wielicki showing that an all electric car fleet will increase significantly emissions given current electric generation mix.
OSLO (Reuters) – Nel, a Norwegian maker of zero-emission hydrogen technology, said on Tuesday the authorities had fined two of its units a total of 25 million crowns ($2.97 million) for an incident at a hydrogen fuel station in 2019.
Hydrogen gas leaked from a tank at the station near Oslo in June 2019 and exploded, injuring three people when a pressure wave triggered airbags in their cars nearby, according to Nel and police reports.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-nel-blast-idUSKBN2AG2N4
Yet nearly two decades into the hydrogen experiment, it remains a uniquely expensive gambit. The state has spent $125 million to make its struggling network of 50 public hydrogen fueling stations operational. That network is still so shaky — with stations frequently malfunctioning or out of fuel — that Toyota provides free towing and car rental service to drivers who purchase a Mirai, as getting stranded is a constant risk.
“It was a regular sight to see a car coming in on a flatbed when I went to get fuel,” said Scott Lerner, a writing instructor at UC Irvine who leased a Mirai until the hardship of hydrogen motoring got to be too much. “We would often have these commiserating circles at the station, where people would share horror stories.”
https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/2021-08-10/hydrogen-highway-or-highway-to-nowhere
In May, a hydrogen storage tank at a government research project in the rural city of Gangneung exploded. It destroyed a complex about half the size of a soccer field, killing two and injuring six. A preliminary investigation found the blast was caused by a spark after oxygen found its way into the tank.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-autos-hydrogen-southkorea-insight-idUSKBN1W936A
Of course, that’s why US debt is so high and now compounded by joe biden
climatereason just commented:
Of course, that’s why US debt is so high and now compounded by joe biden
Wrong.
Under Biden, US public debt is decreasing:
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/fredgraph.png?g=13rtb
This is disinformation David. The Federal government is running north of $2 trillion in deficit every year. Current total debt is $33 Trillion or about 125% of GDP. Biden’s claim to have reduced the deficit is laughable. Because of covid 2020 and 2021 were very high largely because the Democrat congress handed out trillions to people, so when the massive handouts ended, the deficit went down even though baseline spending is still out of control.
Why is it always spending that is out of control? The other side of the equation is revenues. Why do we always have to cut spending that benefits the lower classes? Conservative treat the poor like s**t and then go around pretending they are Christians.
Let’s see what is really causing debts and deficits:
https://zfacts.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/2020-04-30-National-Debt-to-GDP-zFacts.jpg
What caused the current deficit and debt problem? Saint Ronnie’s, Shrub’s, and the Orange Wonder’s tax cuts that never paid for themselves. If a deal is struck on the debt ceiling, the ink won’t be dry on the paper before conservatives will be calling for massive tax cuts for the rich and corporations.
Biden should call the conservatives’ bluff and tell them they’ll have to shoot the hostage. The deal he could offer is that for every dollar in spending cuts, there must be one dollar in new revenues raised by taxing the wealthy and corporations. Sounds fair to me.
Appell
You don’t even know the difference between debt and deficit. My God. Even high schoolers know a deficit is an annual gap between revenue and outlays and debt is the accumulation of deficits over time. Biden did not reduce the debt. He would have to have run surpluses in consecutive fiscal years to do that. Bone up on the definitions.
dpy6629 wrong:
This is disinformation David.
Wrong. Very wrong.
These are facts.
Under Biden, US public debt is decreasing:
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/fredgraph.png?g=13rtb
If you don’t think so, provide your data source.
dpy6629 just commented:
The Federal government is running north of $2 trillion in deficit every year. Current total debt is $33 Trillion or about 125% of GDP.
You need to learn the difference between public and total debt.
Want a link?
The latter includes what government agencies owe to each other.
It’s a net wash.
Choice, Appell giving lectures about debt and he doesn’t know what his link says. What’s new.
Its the total debt and the deficit that matter not some cherry picked statistic that is misleading. The deficit is huge and growing as is the total debt.
I think your number must count the massive debt owed to Social Security. That’s very misleading.
JJBraccili just commented:
Why is it always spending that is out of control? The other side of the equation is revenues.
Except federal revenues have also been essentially unchanged for decades:
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/fredgraph.png?g=12vaA
That’s part of the problem. Federal revenues should be increasing with inflation.
It’s more insidious than that. Payroll taxes have been keeping up with inflation. It’s income tax revenues — that mostly impact the wealthy — that have remained flat due to tax cuts while corporate taxes have been decreasing again because of tax cuts. The bottom line is that payroll taxes. which primarily impact the lower classes, make up a bigger and bigger percentage of federal revenues. Couple that with conservatives block granting federal programs to the states and then zeroing out the block grants and it obvious why income inequality is a problem and will only get worse if conservatives have their way. State revenues mostly derive from property taxes and flat taxes which disproportionately impact the lower classes.
dpy6629 wrote:
the total debt and the deficit that matter not some cherry picked statistic that is misleading. The deficit is huge and growing as is the total debt.
I’m not cherry picking anything.
The public debt is clearly DECREASING:
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/fredgraph.png?g=13rEm
If you don’t think so you are denying fundamental data.
dpy6629 wrote:
I think your number must count the massive debt owed to Social Security. That’s very misleading.
Really?
Show that number.
Show those data.
I’ll be waiting.
US debt has risen to more than $250,000 per TAX PAYER, David.
Appell
I saw a video of your boy, Assisted Living Joe, giving a speech where he said what you said, that he had reduced the debt. At the time I thought he had misspoken and he meant to have said the deficit had gone down, which is true. Now that you have gotten confused, or purposely said debt going down when your link says the % of GDP has gone down, I think maybe he was to have said that.
Words matter. Deficits are different than debt. Saying the % of GDP is going down is different than saying the debt is going down.
It must be frustrating being one of Sleepy Joe’s handlers. He can’t even follow instructions.
https://ingridsnotes.files.wordpress.com/2013/09/mark-twain-quote.jpg
Joe Biden may have his limitations, but they’re minor compared to the Orange Wonder. He’s the favorite to win the GOP nomination. The odds are better than even money he’ll be in prison before the 2024 election. Did you see that fact free town hall he participated in the other day?
People who voted for Joe Biden are so disgusted with him they will vote for Trump in 2024.
“ Joe Biden may have his limitations…..”
If you want the leader of the free world to be staring off into space with a blank look to such an extent that it makes you wonder if anybody is home, then you have your man.
JJ
How did you get such screwy ideas. I just looked at the revenue in 2000 when the budget was balanced and I took the total of individual and corporate taxes ($1.2 T), since you mentioned those sources, and compared it to those sources in 2022 ($3 T). Inflation was 70% for those 22 years. The increase for those sources was 150%. Revenue increased by more than twice inflation. Do you want to give it another try?
My bad!
I was replying to a poster who mentioned revenues were flat. What I was thinking about was this:
https://www.taxpolicycenter.org/sites/default/files/statistics/images/type_share_historical_0.png
Notice how payroll taxes became a bigger and bigger share of federal revenues. Federal income tax was relatively flat. I couldn’t find any data on how the income tax from top 10% of taxpayers varied over time as a percent of federal revenues, but I’ll bet it declined significantly. That’s where the conservatives targeted their tax cuts.
Corporations at one time paid 30% of federal revenues and now pay less than 10%. They and the wealthy are in need of a large tax increase if you want to bring down income inequality. Giving them more tax breaks does nothing but exacerbate the problem.
JJ
I understand what you were trying to show but it’s not there. Let me explain about the rich. Yes, individually they are paying a lesser effective tax rate but as a class, “the rich” is paying more simply because there are more of them making proportionally more income. In 1954, millionaires paid less than .3% of income taxes. With the 91% top marginal tax rate, how is that possible? Because out of 50 million tax filers there were only 201 millionaires. Today, in close enough constant dollars, there are 27,000 earning over $10 million. Income of millionaires in 1954 was .2% of total income. Today income of those >$10M is 6.5% of total income, or 30+ times higher. The income distribution has moved to the right. Individually they pay a lower effective tax rate, but as a class they pay a higher % of the total tax bill.
In 2016, Sanders said in 1953 Corporations paid 30% of tax revenue and today (2016) they pay 10%. I checked it out. He was correct. BUT. in 1953 they paid $3 billion in SS taxes. Today they pay more than $650 billion. So, their taxes have shifted from Corporate taxes to SS taxes. The other change that affects how much corporate America paying is that in 1986 Chapter S corps individuals could declare their income in their individual taxes whereas previously the IRS picked up their income and taxes within the corporate tax column. That is about $800 billion. So, while Sanders was correct that corporations share of taxes went down it really wasn’t an apples to apples comparison. They might not pay exactly 30% but with these 2 changes it would be close.
JJ
I didn’t finish my thought on how much taxes the rich pay now compared to when the top marginal tax rate was 91%.
In 1954 the top 1% paid 25%, today they pay 44% of individual income taxes. In 1954 the top 5% paid 41%, today they pay 66%, of individual income taxes. The top 50% pay 98% of individual income taxes today.
What you’re doing is propagating a conservative Jedi mind trick. Talk about absolute numbers and not about the tax burden and where it falls. Here’s a simple example of what I’m talking about.
Let’s say the government wanted to collect $2 Million in taxes from three taxpayers. The taxpayers have incomes of $5 Million, $500,000, and $50,000, respectively. To figure out a flat tax rate add the incomes and divide it into the taxes to be collected. That comes to a flat tax rate of 36.036%. The taxpayers pay $1,801,800, $180,180, and $18,018 respectively. According to you, this is fair because the upper-income taxpayers are paying the bulk of taxes.
Let’s analyze this on a disposable income basis. There are certain minimum expenses that we have no choice but to pay – food, clothing, shelter, etc. The rest is disposable income. Disposal income is used for unforeseen expenses, retirement savings, etc. The tax the government wants to collect is going to come out of disposal income. Let’s say the minimum amount an individual is forced to spend is $30,000. That leaves our taxpayers with disposal incomes of $4,970,000, $470,000, and $20,000, respectively. Let’s calculate the effective tax rate of each taxpayer based on disposable income. To perform the calculation, take the taxes paid by each taxpayer with the flat tax and divide it by their disposal income. The effective tax rates are 36.254%, 38.336%, and 90.090%. The flatter the tax system, the more the tax burden is shifted to the lower classes.
Let’s calculate the effect of a progressive tax based on disposable income. To figure out a flat effective tax rate, add the disposable incomes and divide into the tax to be collected. That comes to a flat tax rate of 36.630% on disposable income. The taxpayers pay $1,820,511, $172,161 and $7,326, respectively. The tax rates on actual income become 36.410%, 34.432%, and 14.652%.
That analysis doesn’t take into account state and local taxes which are almost exclusively regressive taxes. That’s why conservatives love block grants of federal programs and zeroing them out — states have to raise regressive taxes or end the programs.
Then conservatives tell the lower classes you have to figure out how to pay for your kid’s educations, save for retirement, and do without any government assistance because we have to get rid of those to reduce deficits and debts. Of course, the minute that happens we are going to pass massive tax cuts for the wealthy and corporations and figure out new ways for you to pay for it. Don’t worry someday, somehow something will trickle down to you.
Doesn’t that sum up conservative economic ideology? That’s why we need massive increases on the wealthy and corporations. They have become America’s guests and the sooner that ends the better.
JJ
You are over thinking this. You said over time the rich paid a smaller share of taxes. I just provided empirical evidence you are wrong. An more whiffs up your sleeve?
JJB,
Ibn Khaldun, who died in 1406, showed the holes in your high taxation argument in his work “The Muqaddimah”. Based on his empirical observation, kingdoms that impose high tax rates become poor, and kingdoms that impose low tax rates become rich. And he explained why.
George Turner commented:
Ibn Khaldun, who died in 1406, showed the holes in your high taxation argument in his work “The Muqaddimah”. Based on his empirical observation, kingdoms that impose high tax rates become poor, and kingdoms that impose low tax rates become rich.
Quite the modern economist.
There’s a pretty good positive correlation between tax rates and GDP per capita:
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/country-level-taxes-vs-income
CKid wrote:
You don’t even know the difference between debt and deficit.
LOL. The OP wrote about “debt.”
https://judithcurry.com/2023/04/23/how-the-disinformation-industrial-complex-is-destroying-trust-in-science/#comment-989859
dpy6629 wrote:
Its the total debt and the deficit that matter not some cherry picked statistic that is misleading.
No. No. It’s the debt relative to the size of the economy. That’s obvious.
People with higher incomes can get higher mortgages. Same thing.
Besides, federal debt is money in your pocket.
Wanna decrease the federal debt? Open your wallet.
It’s inverse. The countries near the bottom don’t have economies that function at all well, and they can’t collect much tax revenue because there’s not even very good way most of them can levy taxes, as the average people operate on a cash basis. So the tax revenues they do collect are from legitimate businesses, not personal income. As the countries move up the income scale, their economies become more functional and organized, enabling them to actually collect taxes in a more rational manner.
So when you look at your data set for all countries with a per-capita GDP above $40K, and find the Pearson correlation coefficient between tax revenues and income, you get a value of R that is -0.0647, which is a negative correlation, though not a significant one.
But what’s more interesting is that if you compare tax rates to GDP after paying the taxes (what you might call post-tax income, or disposable income, or some other term), and run it again, you get an R -0.4685, which is a strong negative correlation and highly significant (p = 0.007)
For industrialized economies with incomes above $40K per year, per capita, high tax rates strongly correlate with lower disposable incomes.
CKid wrote:
In 1954 the top 1% paid 25%, today they pay 44% of individual income taxes. In 1954 the top 5% paid 41%, today they pay 66%, of individual income taxes. The top 50% pay 98% of individual income taxes today.
Not do the total tax burden as a function of income.
George Turner makes mention of Ibn Khaldun (Muqaddimah)
There Khaldun also said -on the rise and fall of dynasties (family>political>civilization)
““It reaches its end in a single family within four successive generations. This is as follows: The builder of the glory (of the family) knows what it cost him to do the work, and he keeps the qualities that created his glory and made it last. The son who comes after him had personal contact with his father and thus learned those things from him. However, he is inferior in this respect to (his father), in as much as a person who learns things through study is inferior to a person who knows them from practical application. The third generation must be content with imitation and, in particular, with reliance upon tradition. This member is inferior to him of the second generation, in as much as a person who relies (blindly) upon tradition Is inferior to a person who exercises independent judgment.
The fourth generation, then, is inferior to the preceding ones in every respect. This member has lost the qualities that preserved the edifice of their glory. He (actually) despises (those qualities). He imagines that the edifice was not built through application and effort.”
Looks like history does repeat itself.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/273294/public-debt-of-the-united-states-by-month/
Contradicts you Appell. The debt is a noisy curve. The deficit is quite high at the moment and will at some point work it’s way into the debt. When there is a large deficit the debt must at some point go up despite tricks with numbers.
dpy6629 commented:
https://www.statista.com/statistics/273294/public-debt-of-the-united-states-by-month/
Contradicts you Appell.
No, it proves my point.
Obviously the correct way to view a debt is in relation to someone’s economic circumstances.
A debt of $5M by Bill Gates is hardly the same as a debt of $5M that you might owe.
The public debt of $24,6 T is, of course, vastly different when held by the US than if held by, say, Eritrea (GDP=$6.5 B).
And it’s the PUBLIC DEBT that matters, not the total debt.
(Total debt – Public debt) is what government agencies owe to one another. It’s a net wash with no impact on what the public owes.
Not that we’ll ever pay off the public debt. It’s being serviced at an acceptable rate. And NO ONE wants to pay higher taxes to pay off the public debt. Nor accept government surpluses. The public debt won’t decrease except via economic growth. And even then…. when Bill Clinton ran a surplus for two years, due to an extraordinary economy, Bush Jr decided “it’s the people’s money” and gave it all back to rich people.
The debt won’t be paid off, nor should it be.
I’m sorry but the total debt including the debts of the Federal Reserve and government agencies owing each other is still secured by taxpayers. Debt held by the public is noisy and not very meaningful in terms of debt service, etc.
Inflation is only the less benign consequences of out of control spending. Our total debt is now higher than at the end of WWII. During the 1950’s we paid off some of that and the economy grew so that by 1960, it was not much of a burden. That will not happen this time. After WWII, we dominated world trade and could exploit resources all over the world.
In any case I just noticed that debt service has now passed the Defense budget. With rising interest rates, this could become a death spiral with large interest payments causing new debt, etc.
dpy6629 wrote:
I’m sorry but the total debt including the debts of the Federal Reserve and government agencies owing each other is still secured by taxpayers.
Explain how, when that net debt is zero.
When there is a large deficit the debt must at some point go up despite tricks with numbers.
In fact the debt is going down, as measured by the size of the economy (the only logical benchmark).
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=11Yaj
dpy6629 wrote:
In any case I just noticed that debt service has now passed the Defense budget.
The debt service is also hardly rising and is easily serviced.
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=11Yaj
Meanwhile all the debt is being invested in the economy, which is growing faster than the debt service.
The debt is money in your wallet, and mine.
Do you want to give it back? I doubt it.
On January 8, 2007, a hydrogen explosion at the Muskingum River Power Plant’s 585-MW coal-fired supercritical Unit 5 caused one fatality, injuries to 10 other people, and significant damage to several buildings. The explosion occurred during a routine delivery of hydrogen when a hydrogen relief device failed, which allowed the contents of the hydrogen tank to escape and be ignited by an unknown source. This article covers the findings of the incident investigation and the actions the plant has taken to prevent a reoccurrence.
https://www.powermag.com/lessons-learned-from-a-hydrogen-explosion/
DETROIT (FOX 2) – There is not much left of a pickup truck after a hydrogen tank in the back of it exploded at Henry Ford Hospital in Detroit.
It happened in the underground parking garage a little after 6 p.m. Friday evening, injuring a 72-year-old woman and a 53-year-old man.
“When you look at the way the explosion happened, everything it’s amazing that more people were not hurt or killed and while these people were seriously injured, that the injuries were non-fatal,” said Deputy Fire Commissioner Dave Fornell.
https://www.fox2detroit.com/news/2-injured-in-hydrogen-tank-explosion-at-henry-ford-hospital-parking-deck
TROUTMAN, N.C. — An evacuation remains in place for businesses near a gas station in Troutman after a hydrogen truck fire Friday night, according to Troutman Fire and Rescue.
Firefighters said the hydrogen tanker truck hauling was on fire at a Pilot Travel Center along Charlotte Highway, just off Interstate 77 in Troutman.
You can stream WCNC Charlotte on Roku and Amazon Fire TV, just download the free app.
All businesses in the area were evacuated as crews investigated the incident, firefighters said. The evacuation remains in place as of 7:30 a.m. Saturday, according to firefighters.
https://www.wcnc.com/article/news/local/businesses-evacuated-hydrogen-tanker-fire-troutman-firefighters-pilot-center/275-f92fcfa0-328d-4b70-95a2-91b4eaa1a57b
Because that never happens with gasoline tanker trucks.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/fiery-fuel-tanker-crash-gold-star-memorial-bridge-leaves-1-dead-rcna80916
https://nypost.com/2023/05/07/1-dead-1-injured-in-fiery-florida-crash-after-gasoline-tanker-truck-explodes/
Your argument is about as lame as it gets.
JJB – the frequency with hydrogen vs gasoline is magnitudes higher.
Though I suspect you already knew that when you posted.
That’s not even close to being true. There are massively more gasoline tankers than hydrogen tankers. The probability of a gasoline tanker accident is much greater than a hydrogen tanker accident.
Jjb per capita
Much higher frequency with hydrogen
DIAMOND BAR, Calif. (KABC) — An explosion on a semi-truck hauling a payload of compressed hydrogen tanks Sunday afternoon prompted authorities to evacuate hundreds of people from nearby businesses in Diamond Bar.
The incident happened near the intersection of Golden Springs Drive and Brea Canyon Road, as the big rig was hauling 20 individual 50-gallon tanks filled with hydrogen, according to the Los Angeles County Fire Department.
https://abc7.com/hydrogen-explosion-diamond-bar-sem-truck/3068078/
Hindenberg?
Leaking and uncontained hydrogen led to an explosion that killed four workers and seriously injured a fifth last May at AB Specialty Silicones in Waukegan, Illinois, according to a preliminary investigation report released by the US Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board on Dec. 18.
The plant made custom silicone products that are used in a wide variety of industries, including personal care, chemical manufacturing, adhesives, sealants, and coatings. It ran 24 hours a day and employed 88 people who worked in three shifts.
https://cen.acs.org/safety/industrial-safety/Hydrogen-blast-led-deaths-US/97/web/2019/12
Do you really want to compare the safety record of hydrogen to fossil fuels? Ever see a cat cracker go up. Fortunately, it doesn’t happen often, but when it does it looks like an atom bottom went off.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shell_plant_explosion_in_Norco,_Louisiana
https://www.nytimes.com/1970/12/06/archives/many-hurt-in-jersey-blast-metropolitan-area-jolted-many-injured-in.html
Of course a hydrocracker explosion is going to go off like an atom bomb. They use very hot hydrogen at over 100 atmospheres of pressure.
One step closer:
https://apnews.com/article/nel-green-hydrogen-factory-general-motors-michigan-57c90cd27e3d7c06dc5b60b6fcf6813d
Energy, from any source, is lethal when released in uncontrolled manner. It is not the source or the type, but the reasons behind the disasters.
Two such cases that stuck to my mind over the years:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tokaimura_nuclear_accidents
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flixborough_disaster
The first kind I wanted to avoid at all costs; the second I lived with (and luckily survived). Many talk of power and energy, but very few understand the peril of it. In the wrong hands it always ends badly.
Six hydrogen accidents:
https://minerva.jrc.ec.europa.eu/en/shorturl/minerva/llb01hydrogenpdf
What I was taking about was a an FCC commonly called a “cat cracker.” Don’t talk about things you know nothing about.
FCC stands for Fluid Catalytic Cracker. Hydrogen is not involved.
Another subject you know nothing about which you feel an obligation to share your ignorance.
PEM fuel cells didn’t become viable for use in transportation until the 2000s with major advances in membrane and catalyst technology.
Fuel cells are easily more efficient than ICEs. Most of the energy produced in an ICE winds up as waste heat.
Hydrogen will be produced by electrolysis. Steam reforming methane produce CO which poisons the PEM.
Just wanted to alert people that there is a new article by Matt Taibbi and a host of collaborators going over in detail all the organizations involved in the Censorship Industrial Complex and what their roles are. It’s long but very good.
https://www.racket.news/p/report-on-the-censorship-industrial-74b?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email
Unfortunately, Matt Taibbi ruined his reputation by taking information from Elon Musk that was shared nowhere else.
No one knows what stipulations Musk put on him. Musk hasn’t shared the information with anyone else. That’s very, very suspicious.
You are totally wrong on this too Appell, adding to your pile of disinformation.
Musk has shared information from Twitter with numerous reporters including Michael Shellenberger, Alex Berensen, a fellow named Zweig who wrote a thread on covid, etc. All of them have said Musk imposed NO restrictions on them other than that they publish their reporting on Twitter first.
Taibbi has been the subject of several smears since doing the Twitter files from elected Democrats who have threatened him with jail for testifying before congress. On MSNBC he’s been subject to hatchet jobs Joseph McCarthy would be proud of.
You should resist the temptation to believe what you read in the corrupt media or hear on MSNBC. A lot of it is wrong and almost all of it is carefully selected from a bigger bin of information to support current narratives.
dpy6629 wrote:
Musk has shared information from Twitter with numerous reporters including Michael Shellenberger, Alex Berensen, a fellow named Zweig who wrote a thread on covid, etc.
Thanks for PROVING my point!
Musk shared information only with favored people.
Do you know what restrictions he put on them for sharing this information with them?
NO, you do not. You don’t at all.
That’s exactly my point. He did not share this information freely, he shared it with only a few favored people.
That’s not journalism, dude, and you should know that if you care about the first amendment and democracy.
Or maybe you don’t care.
Come on Appell. You are lying about what journalists do. Many news stories are based on anonymous leaks that are only shared with a few reporters who the leaker thinks will spread their narrative like Natasha Bertrand whose track record of falsehood is almost perfect.
I trust the Twitter reporters because they are a bipartisan lot if anything leaning left. You really think they are lying? That’s another smear you should be ashamed of.
Anonymous leaks are vastly worse than the Twitter files reporting which is transparent and seems truthful. You have a very bad double standard that looks politically motivated.
dpy6629 wrote:
Come on Appell. You are lying about what journalists do. Many news stories are based on anonymous leaks that are only shared with a few reporters who the leaker thinks will spread their narrativ
So you clearly agree that Musk only shared this information with a reporter he thought would spread his narrative.
dpy6629 wrote:
Anonymous leaks are vastly worse than the Twitter files reporting which is transparent and seems truthful.
How is it transparent?
Where can I access the exact same files?
Many news stories are based on lies by the FBI, innuendo, specious charges from women decades ago, other baseless accusations, and the sewage spews from news outlets like maggots on a dead elephant.
You are twisting my words Appell. You have no way to know what Musk was thinking but in the most biased way possible won’t believe honest witnesses to what he said. You are using emotion and not reason.
dpy6629 wrote:
You have no way to know what Musk was thinking but in the most biased way possible won’t believe honest witnesses to what he said
I *DO* know that he gave this information to only a few favored journalists, and we don’t know what conditions they agreed to when accepting it.
That result was not journalism, it was propaganda. By “journalists” who knew better.
Based on this, 1.6 trillion per year will be required for “climate change” mitigation. Adaptation will be much cheaper than that. And money spent on adaptation will be targeted to realized problems, if any develop that is.
Topline: While estimates vary on the cost of halting global warming and reducing net carbon emissions to zero, a new report from Morgan Stanley analysts finds that to do so by 2050 the world will need to spend $50 trillion in five key areas of zero-carbon technology.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/sergeiklebnikov/2019/10/24/stopping-global-warming-will-cost-50-trillion-morgan-stanley-report
Half a trillion was spent in 2020 for Unicorn f*art mitigation. Adaption is a more rational approach.
The world spent a record $501.3 billion in 2020 on renewable power, electric vehicles and other technologies to cut the global energy system’s dependence on fossil fuels.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-01-19/spending-on-global-energy-transition-hits-record-500-billion
Less than 1% of all fossil fuels (oil,gas,coal) that have been burned since 2010 were used to create wind turbines and solar panels. 92% of those solar panels and turbines are still producing electricity (NREL). Seems like a pretty good use of fossil fuels and there will less strain on FF reserves that will be needed in the future anyway. I bet we use way more FF just supporting professional sports.
I like your sense of humor Jack. Quick question, how well would sports stadiums be lighted at night using solar panels or wind turbines during high pressure systems?
Barnes Moore wrote:
Quick question, how well would sports stadiums be lighted at night using solar panels or wind turbines during high pressure systems?
Are you aware that electricity can be imported across the network? (Except in Texas, so sad.)
And the cost of the infrastructure to do that is what, oh wise one? Where will the sunshine come for the west coast teams? The east coast at 3 am? Or will we import it from Hawaii or maybe China? Your comment is beyond imbecilic.
A money grab using “climate change” as the excuse.
Please use the sharing tools found via the share button at the top or side of articles. Copying articles to share with others is a breach of FT.com T&Cs and Copyright Policy. Email licensing@ft.com to buy additional rights. Subscribers may share up to 10 or 20 articles per month using the gift article service. More information can be found at https://www.ft.com/tour.
https://www.ft.com/content/d9e832b7-525b-470b-89db-6275853315dd
“India expects developed countries to make $1tn available as climate finance as soon as possible,” he said. “As we are all increasing our ambitions with respect to climate action, the world’s ambitions with respect to climate finance cannot be [stay] at the same level.”
https://www.ft.com/content/d9e832b7-525b-470b-89db-6275853315dd
I’ve worked with several Indians over the years. They are smart and capable. They can figure out how to deal with climate change without my money. Of course, if they get the money, they are smarter than we are.
Since the US has created far more of the climate damage now (and to come) than has India, we have a moral obligation to help poor countries like them who are and will disproportionately suffer the consequences.
Polluter pays.
What “climate damage” have we caused, David? It has to be due to the smidgen of CO2, a couple hundred Parts Per MILLION, David. And don’t try to blame weather events on those 200 PPMs David. You have to provide the cause and effect connecting those extra PPM to the event.
jim2 wrote:
What “climate damage” have we caused, David?
With just a little bit of searching you can find numbers on that just as well as I can. If you’re really interested.
BTW about 800 people died in the June 2021 heat wave in the Pacific Northwest, and an entire town burned down in Canada. That heat wave, the largest in recorded history (I read), was certainly augmented by climate change. Is that damage?
The high where I live was 117 F on 6/28/21. The average high is 78 F. (117-78=39)
You didn’t show the heatwave was due to man-made CO2. Besides, more people die from cold weather than hot.
jim2 wrote:
Besides, more people die from cold weather than hot.
What an incredibly callous and heartless remark.
There’s nothing more that needs to be said, except: you are seriously lost as a human being.
Climate change mitigation spending is an abysmal waste of good money, time, and material resources. Not to mention a society that was functional, but government is taking the US down the drain fast.
Consultancy firm McKinsey says total global spending by governments, businesses and individuals on energy and land-use systems will need to rise by $3.5 trillion a year, every year, if we are to have any chance of getting to net-zero in 2050.
That’s a 60% increase on today’s level of investment and is equivalent to half of global corporate profits, a quarter of world tax revenue and 7% of household spending. A further $1 trillion would also need to be reallocated from high-emission to low-carbon assets.
“Achieving net-zero emissions by 2050 would entail a fundamental transformation of the global economy,” McKinsey says in the report, titled The Net-Zero Transition: What it Would Cost, What it Could Bring?.
https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2022/01/net-zero-cost-3-5-trillion-a-year/
And Russia keeps selling oil.
How an Aging Armada and Mystery Traders Keep Russian Oil Afloat
Environmental safety fears surround the new trade in Russian oil which is less transparent, involves older ships and is more difficult to monitor
https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2023-russian-oil-flows-after-sanctions
“ Kim Jong Un Attends Ivy League University To Learn New Brainwashing Techniques”
Old news but still funny, just like Jack Benny is still funny 80 years later.
https://babylonbee.com/news/kim-jong-un-attends-ivy-league-university-to-learn-new-brainwashing-techniques