The Best Video On Climate Change That You Will Ever See

Annual CO2 emissions chart from Data in Our World.

This is an absolutely brilliant speech by British satirist, Konstantine Kisin.

Is Kisin’s Video For You?

  • If you think that you, president Biden, Gretta, Al Gore, or anyone in government will do anything that matters about climate change, the video is for you.
  • If you think that you, president Biden, Gretta, Al Gore, or anyone in government will not do anything that matters about climate change, the video is also for you.

It’s less than seven minutes long. Play it.

Play the video then think about the lead chart and the path of China and India while noting the whole continent of Africa is not even on the scale. 

By the way, the population of India will soon to surpass China. 

Importantly, and on a personal level, the single best thing you can do for the environment is to not have kids

Climate Deniers

I have been accused of being a climate denier. Mercy. Actually, I am a climate realist.

Climate change is real and constant and has been ever since the earth formed. 

The debate is over how much is manmade and even more importantly, what to do about it, whether it’s manmade or not.

Regarding what percentage is manmade, I don’t know, nor does anyone else. But let’s say you disagree. 

Then OK, I agree with you. Let’s assume recent climate change is 100% manmade. So what do we do about it?

That has been my line of questioning for a long time. I just have never been able to express my line of thinking as clearly as Kisin in the above video.

A Big Green Mess in Germany With Coal a Stunning 31 Percent of Electricity

Assume there is a problem, then if there is a solution, it will not be the like of Gretta, AOC, Al Gore, president Biden, or the Green Party hypocrites who will fix it.

Look no further than the Big Green Mess in Germany for what happens when politicians are faced with the decision to heat homes cheaply or cut back on CO2

The EU plans to tax other nations for not addressing climate change, while Germany bulldozes a town to increase the size of a coal mine. It’s also lignite coal, the dirtiest kind.

Vice Chancellor Robert Habeck, a Green who is Germany’s economy and climate minister, defended the agreement as “a good decision for climate protection” that fulfills many of the environmentalists’ demands and saves five other villages from demolition.

World’s Largest Tax Scheme

For discussion of the EU’s hypocritical carbon tax scheme, please see EU Imposes the World’s Largest Carbon Tax Scheme.

Meanwhile, the US is marching down an idiotic path towards electric vehicle mandates with no plan on where to get the minerals for the batteries. Nor does president Biden have an reasonable plan for the infrastructure needed. 

Fed Chair Warns President Biden “We will not be a climate policymaker”

Preposterous ideas have gotten so out of hand that Fed Chair Warns President Biden “We will not be a climate policymaker”

Without explicit congressional legislation, it would be inappropriate for us to use our monetary policy or supervisory tools to promote a greener economy or to achieve other climate-based goals. We are not, and will not be, a climate policymaker,” said Jerome Powell.

I am not one who often praises the Fed, but that paragraph deserves a standing ovation. 

Constant Hype

The hype is constant and has been consistently wrong. In 2019 I noted Ocasio-Cortez Says World Will End in 12 Years: Here’s What to Do About It

The world will still be here in 2050.

On October 29, 2022, I noted UN Seeks $4 to 6 Trillion Per Year to Address Climate

Yeah right. Politicians are going to give Africa, India, and third world countries trillions of dollars and tax the hell out of them if they don’t comply.

The Hope of Fusion vs the Pomp of Politicians and Climate Activists

If there is a climate problem, science will find the answer, not politicians or activists.

For discussion, please see The Hope of Fusion vs the Pomp of Politicians and Climate Activists

Nonetheless, there’s A Mad Rush to Build More EV Factories despite the fact we have no idea or plan to secure the minerals needed for the batteries. 

And Germany has turned to bulldozing towns to produce more coal. 

What a hoot.

This post originated at MishTalk.Com

Please Subscribe!

Like these reports? I hope so, and if you do, please Subscribe to MishTalk Email Alerts.

Subscribers get an email alert of each post as they happen. Read the ones you like and you can unsubscribe at any time.

If you have subscribed and do not get email alerts, please check your spam folder.

Mish 

Subscribe to MishTalk Email Alerts.

Subscribers get an email alert of each post as they happen. Read the ones you like and you can unsubscribe at any time.

This post originated on MishTalk.Com

Thanks for Tuning In!

Mish

Subscribe
Notify of
guest

166 Comments
Newest
Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
OMFG
OMFG
1 year ago
Importantly, and on a personal level, the single best thing you can do for the environment is to off yourself now
Fixed it for you Mish
JackWebb
JackWebb
1 year ago
Aside from my disdain for political videos, I have a question for EVERYONE here, and hope there will be some answers.
How often have you changed your mind about global warming as the result of an online debate?
I will go out on a limb and suggest that the answer from EVERYONE, at least if they’re being honest, is “never.” This is why I do my very best to avoid that debate online. Or in person, for that matter. It’s basically a religious question, and I don’t know of anyone who has changed their religious views after an online debate either. Online debates on most issues, and pretty much about all politics, are not only performative, to use the latest Washington Weasel Word ™, they are pointless and boring.
Lisa_Hooker
Lisa_Hooker
1 year ago
Reply to  JackWebb
7.
tbergerson
tbergerson
1 year ago
Moderated for spam. Ok. I will post at the top.
If you can read and understand what is presented in the followingarticle called “Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems” and tell me how I am wrong, I would love to hear how.
Jojo
Jojo
1 year ago
Increased CO2/CH4 levels may well be exacerbating current global warming but a far bigger contributor may be the eccentricity of the Earth’s orbit. Our orbit can be eccentric and the Earth can wobble a bit as we revolve around the sun. If the planet comes closer to the our solar furnace, the whole planet is going to get hotter. There isn’t much that can be done about this other than as I suggested in one of my other posts, moving underground, which would protect us from an increasing hotter world.
========
Orbit of Doom: The Surprising Connection Between Earth’s Orbital Patterns and an Ancient Warming Event
JANUARY 15, 2023
An international team of scientists has suggested that changes in Earth’s orbit that resulted in hotter conditions may have played a role in triggering a rapid global warming event that occurred 56 million years ago. This event, known as the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM), is considered to be an analog to modern-day climate change.
“The Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum is the closest thing we have in the geologic record to anything like what we’re experiencing now and may experience in the future with climate change,” said Lee Kump, professor of geosciences at Penn State University. “There has been a lot of interest in better resolving that history, and our work addresses important questions about what triggered the event and the rate of carbon emissions.”
The team of scientists studied core samples from a well-preserved record of the PETM near the Maryland coast using astrochronology, a method of dating sedimentary layers based on orbital patterns that occur over long periods of time, known as Milankovitch cycles.
Portlander2
Portlander2
1 year ago
Reply to  Jojo
The rise in CO2 concentrations we’re seeing now, and associated climate changes, happened in just the past 100 years or so. The changes in earth’s orbit that you describe are gradual. Life can adapt if the change is slow enough. So, it’s not just the change in climate, but the rate of change, that is most alarming today. Temperature change in the oceans will be much slower, but other CO2-induced changes (e.g. ocean PH) are happening pretty rapidly. More acidity (lower Ph) hits the base of the food chain (plankton, corals and shellfish) with potentially large consequences to all life. We don’t yet know how serious or soon these consequences will occur. This means RISK. What level of uncertainty/risk are we willing to tolerate? Since there is no Planet B, I would suggest our risk tolerance should be extremely low, and act accordingly. This means, not basing decisions on the most likely scenario or even worst case scenario, but the worst, worst case scenario.
Lisa_Hooker
Lisa_Hooker
1 year ago
Reply to  Portlander2
Exactly.
All the money should be spent to save us from planet-killing asteroids.
Nothing else is capable of totally destroying the Earth.
Can I sell you a bridge?
Portlander2
Portlander2
1 year ago
Reply to  Lisa_Hooker
Actually, NASA is working on that!
mrchinup
mrchinup
1 year ago
Great one Mish!
Portlander2
Portlander2
1 year ago
If you think that you, president Biden, Gretta, Al Gore, or anyone in government will do anything that matters about climate change, the video is for you.
This speech is about the important role of technology and innovation to solving the climate crisis. I applaud that message. I do not recall that he said anything about the government having no role in accomplishing that.
Where did most of the breakthroughs in renewable energy technologies come from over the last few decades? It started in the ’80’s with government funded R&D, followed by a long period of public-private partnerships. Then States mandated renewable electricity through portfolio standards. This helped achieve large economies of scale, so now the private sector can finally cash in. Al Gore and Greta played their role too. How did voters come to support these initiatives in government funded R&D without the spotlight on the climate crisis they provided?
So Mish, who is funding R&D in fusion, solid state batteries, and so forth?
So my retort is, if you think government has nothing to do with anything that matters about climate change, this video is for you.
blacklisted
blacklisted
1 year ago

Climate cycles occur whether people are on the planet or not. Pollution is not climate change and pollution is improved by prosperity. Have you not ever been to an impoverished country?

GruesomeHarvest
GruesomeHarvest
1 year ago
Mish, This is hardly the best. There are so many good ones out there such as Richard Lintz (MIT climate scientist) vs Bill Nye.
blacklisted
blacklisted
1 year ago
Importantly, and on a personal level, the single best thing you can do for the environment is to not have kids.”
You sound like a Malthusian who does not understand that populations also follow cycles. Populations in the West have already flattened or are in decline. Only someone that has never had kids would suggest to not have kids.
GruesomeHarvest
GruesomeHarvest
1 year ago
Reply to  blacklisted
Malthus was and is right. As population grows, there is a greater reliance on technology to maintain the population. This leads to a very fragile state of existence. I prefer quality of life to quantity of life. What’s wrong with limiting yourself to two kids and then doing a good job of raising them. Western societies are already self limiting. It’s the 3rd world that is over producing with idiot Westerners enabling them.
blacklisted
blacklisted
1 year ago
Poor countries have more kids because they have to – they die more often and they need more hands to tend the farm and help parents in old age.
In the welfare West where govt falsely claims to take care of people from cradle to grave there is no need for kids to take care of parents. Prosperity eventually leads to fewer kids. If you want to reduce the # of kids in any country, make them prosperous.
Those that don’t understand cycles think Gates and the other ignorant eugenicist are justified in their evil actions. Ironically, they are often the same sheeple that got jabbed, not realizing they participated in the great die off. The mother WEFers, while they do target black and brown people, will take any deaths that reduce the population.
KidHorn
KidHorn
1 year ago
Reply to  blacklisted
Almost all current population growth is from black people in Africa. And this will never be mentioned like it would be if say it were Nordic countries or Russia.
blacklisted
blacklisted
1 year ago
Reply to  KidHorn
See reply above. The West used to increase their populations too, until they became more prosperous.
Lisa_Hooker
Lisa_Hooker
1 year ago
Reply to  blacklisted
One could also say until the West became more civilized. If one wanted to.
rum_runner
rum_runner
1 year ago
>> “Regarding what percentage is manmade, I don’t know, nor does anyone else.”
This is categorically false. There is near unanimous consent in the scientific community that climate change is man-made. 97% of climate scientists think so (NASA). You are deliberately and disingenuously trying to present the issue as being unresolved when it is not.
I saved a quote of yours from a while back that I think captures your true feeling on the matter.
“”There is no “proof” of man-made global warming. There is data to support a THEORY, much of it fake, but some of it not. The time-frame analysis is clearly insufficient and there are thousands of factors. It is likely, we do not yet know the biggest cause of what’s happening.”
tbergerson
tbergerson
1 year ago
Reply to  rum_runner
Your 97% figure is false.
Read this then tell me how I am wrong
Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems
Anti-Human Anti-Civilization and Pro-Human Pro-Civilization
GruesomeHarvest
GruesomeHarvest
1 year ago
Reply to  rum_runner

Yes most “real” climate scientist do think there is some contribution from man generated CO2. However, they are not the shrill crowd and they are not projecting dire consequences.

Science is about debate and at its core it is skeptical. Thus the clowns preaching utter catastrophe are not scientist, the are politicians and true believers.
rum_runner
rum_runner
1 year ago
>> “and they are not projecting dire consequences.”
That is categorically false. Climate scientists are very concerned. The majority of IPCC authors in an anonymous survey expect 3C or more global warming by the end of the century. That is incompatible with current civilization.
Lisa_Hooker
Lisa_Hooker
1 year ago
Reply to  rum_runner
Sorry, but I find that people with your grasp of logic and your though process are incompatible with current civilization.
You need to read more and write less.
rum_runner
rum_runner
1 year ago
Reply to  Lisa_Hooker
And what should I read, Lisa? And what logical fallacy did I present?
cj47
cj47
1 year ago
Reply to  rum_runner
I’m not going to call rumrunner a liar, but he sure repeats a lot of ridiculous lies.
rum_runner
rum_runner
1 year ago
Reply to  cj47
Calling someone a liar without specifying what they’ve lied about is just lazy slander.
KidHorn
KidHorn
1 year ago
I recently saw a youtube video about covid and how it effected the environment. Car emissions were way down. As expected. What wasn’t expected was the end result. Less CO2 emissions, in of itself, led to lower temperatures. At least theoretically. And I have no doubt it did. But cars emit more than CO2 and H2O. They also emit smog like pollutants. And these block sunlight. So you have more direct sunlight striking the earths surface which warmed things more than the drop in greenhouse gasses cooled things. There was a big spike in methane emissions. CH4 is a much stronger greenhouse gas than CO2 and H20.
KidHorn
KidHorn
1 year ago
I think the plan is for new batteries that are far less dependent on rare earths. Things are already moving in that direction. The extra needed energy will come from all or most building having solar panels. I don’t know if it will realistically happen, but that’s the plan.
TexasTim65
TexasTim65
1 year ago
Reply to  KidHorn
New batteries that don’t require rare earths will help with cars but not much else.
Solar panels aren’t really usable on the scale that’s needed for the entire world energy requirements especially because they have to be constantly replaced. Nuclear (fission and hopefully one day fusion) is the path forward for the foreseeable future but no one wants to admit that.
KidHorn
KidHorn
1 year ago
Reply to  TexasTim65
The batteries can be used for everything current batteries are used for. Cars have more restrictions than other applications.
The solar panels are meant to augment the grid. Not completely power it. There are new solar panels that are plastic strips. Installation is no different than installing a sticker. Some think, these can be put on cars to help charge. I think the looks would have to improve.
jivefive99
jivefive99
1 year ago
This is dad’s counter-argument to everything: “Hey, whatever you are complaining about, there is always someone somewhere that has it worse than you. Therefore, the best thing to do is nothing.”
TexasTim65
TexasTim65
1 year ago
Reply to  jivefive99
He didn’t say to do nothing.
He said your wasting your precious time and energy protesting and complaining. Instead you should be spending that time and energy on something productive that might help with the problem (reducing your own footprint, maybe if your really lucky and brilliant make a breakthrough of some kind that helps with the problem etc).
dadbod
dadbod
1 year ago
The don’t have kids angle is a non-starter. To explain a little why, I recommend highly the film ‘idiocracy’. In particular the intro / first scenes of the film – can’t explain here – one of those ‘have to see it’ ones.
Saw a comment about volcano dust acting to cool the atmosphere, and another that reducing the population would reduce climate effect. A bit of dangerous thinking taking it a bit too far :- perhaps in future there may be a nobel prize for climate awards for those innovatively waging high casualty wars, or initiating a light nuclear winter
– Nooooooooooooooo.
PS, PapaDave, it would be nice to see less comments from you complaining about whiners and complainers in comments section. Maybe practice what you preach 😉 (wow, ignored already, ta)
PapaDave
PapaDave
1 year ago
Reply to  dadbod
It isn’t just whiners and and complainers. I also identify the cult conspiracy kooks, anti-science crowd and politically motivated morons. And then I IGNORE them all. Saves me a lot of time, not having to read their useless posts. Do I miss an occasional good point by not seeing their posts? Maybe. But its worth it to not see the other 99% of the crap that they write. I have already hit IGNORE on alexwest after a couple of replies. He is certainly not worth my time from this point forward.
Lisa_Hooker
Lisa_Hooker
1 year ago
Reply to  PapaDave
PapaDave, it is entertaining to watch you slowly confine yourself to a smaller and smaller echo chamber of your own making.
But you are always worth a read.
PapaDave
PapaDave
1 year ago
Reply to  Lisa_Hooker

Or perhaps more people with intelligence and a grasp of reality will start commenting, and bring fresh ideas on how to take advantage of what is happening in the world today.

Still, I would be happy to keep reading this blog and a handful of intelligent folks with insightful comments, while ignoring the rest.
KidHorn
KidHorn
1 year ago
Reply to  dadbod
I put him on ignore a long time ago. I didn’t even know he still posted.
Webej
Webej
1 year ago
Climate change is real and constant and has been ever since the earth formed.
This is literally not true.
The big reveal of the ice cores and all other types of other paleological records we have learned to read was that the prevailing uniformitarianism about geological time was not correct. There were marked and sudden shifts, catastrophic shifts in the prevailing regime, including mass extinctions. Climatic equilibria are punctuated by huge and chaotic changes before a new regime of relatively stable cycles reasserts itself, largely in accord with chaos theory.
tbergerson
tbergerson
1 year ago
Reply to  Webej
Which actually makes what Mish said true. That there is and always has been climate change. On a grand scale. The entire earth was frozen or nearly soright down to the equator 650 million years ago. CO2 has varied from 180 parts per million (or .018% to maybe 8000 parts per million since the rise of large scale multicellular life on earth after the Cambrian Explosion around 500 million years ago.
Webej
Webej
1 year ago
Reply to  tbergerson
But not constantly. The big surprise was the suddenness change could take.
It’s also a completely uninformative comment. If I were a police detective, wondering how this person died, it is not helpful if someone chimes in: People have been dying sometimes unexpectedly for millennia.
Do we analyze the economy by concluding — the economy has always had ups and downs, in fact, for many empires is quite suddenly died altogether.
Christoball
Christoball
1 year ago
Massive human migration has had the worst effect on Earths ecology in the last two centuries. You can’t release a million members a year of any predatory species into any bio system and not have ecological carnage.
Jojo
Jojo
1 year ago
The video was very good!
Whatever role human contributed role weigh in the current state of climate change (and I believe that role to be substantial), I contend that we are too far along to achieve much in terms of mitigation. All we can hope for is to slow future increase, IF we are able to take meaningful action.
But as Kisin makes clear, it is doubtful that the poor people the world over will go along with any such plans as raw survival is what their focus is day to day.
The key to reduction in the damage that accelerating climate change will impose on human society is population stabilization and moving forward, population reduction to a significant degree, perhaps by 90%.
Such a reduction will not occur willingly.
If there isn’t a significant population reduction, then climate conditions on the planet will eventually become too difficult to support human life (See: Mars or Venus) and humans will die off, build environmentally isolated compounds to live in, move underground or be forced to leave the planet entirely.
AnonymousEcon
AnonymousEcon
1 year ago
Reply to  Jojo
You’re a troll that either doesn’t understand the implications of your very own words or you’re very much in tune with the utter garbage that is produced by your keyboard which makes you no different than the genocidal maniacs of the 20th century.
KidHorn
KidHorn
1 year ago
Reply to  Jojo
What nonsense. Rising CO2 levels won’t extinct the human race or drive people underground. Mars has almost no atmosphere. It has the opposite of global warming.
Jojo
Jojo
1 year ago
Reply to  KidHorn
My post was clearly above your ability to understand it.
KidHorn
KidHorn
1 year ago
Reply to  Jojo
OK, then explain to me the connection between mars and global warming.
Lisa_Hooker
Lisa_Hooker
1 year ago
Reply to  KidHorn
Obviously the Martians are cooling their planet by moving heat to the Earth.
rum_runner
rum_runner
1 year ago
Reply to  Jojo
You are absolutely correct. And I think it unlikely humanity will get its act together in time. The chickens are starting to come home to roost.
alexwest
alexwest
1 year ago
stop/tax/prohibit private airplanes, then i would believe science about climate change!
🙂
alexwest
alexwest
1 year ago
= Science / climate change
science only has existed for about 200-500 years on earth. same as book printing.
earth exists about 5 bln years.
if someone thinks people somehow can change climate i have bridge to sell! it is big one!
AnonymousEcon
AnonymousEcon
1 year ago
Reply to  alexwest
I’d love to see Mish do a feature article on the climate change that has occurred on Mars. There is a need to pursue a cleaner Earth, but when you’re destroying civilization to “save” Earth, what’s the benefit? Especially, when looking at Mars, it leads you to wonder if we can even stop anything?
KidHorn
KidHorn
1 year ago
Reply to  AnonymousEcon
Mars problem is it’s too small to hold an atmosphere. Where did you get your education?
PapaDave
PapaDave
1 year ago
Reply to  alexwest
Since you repeated this post, I will repeat my response:
Science has been around since man himself. The earliest scientific writings that still exist today are from 3000 BC in Mesopotamia.
And scientific achievements are as old as man. For example, in 240 BC, Eratosthenes was the first to calculate the circumference of the earth. Which is fascinating. The ancient Greeks knew the earth was a sphere in 300BC, yet there are still anti-science morons who think the earth is flat.
Perhaps you are a member of the flat earth society as well.
Webej
Webej
1 year ago
Reply to  PapaDave
Cultural appropriation and anachronistic to call it science.
Yes, they were brilliant, but they didn’t think of it as science.
It does no justice to the differences between cultures to incorporate their endeavours under the rubric of empirical science which only came about historically during the enlightenment.
PapaDave
PapaDave
1 year ago
Reply to  Webej
Completely disagree. Just because the word “science” is relatively modern, doesn’t mean that Greeks, Macedonians, Babylonians and others were not using science and the scientific method. They were the first to make use of Geometry, Trigonometry, Astronomy, Chemistry, Medicine, Architecture, Engineering etc.
They started it all and fortunately, we have “some” records of what they were doing in the field of science. We, on the other hand, have merely categorized and expanded their early efforts.
Webej
Webej
1 year ago
Reply to  PapaDave
Yes, but they lived in a culture with a different concept of history and a different relationship to nature. There was no deliberate societally embedded exercise of “science” as we know it, no empirical experimental method, no technological ethos (and much of what they could have done was not implemented in practice). The rise of science & technology was in many ways a rupture with what has always gone before.
Lisa_Hooker
Lisa_Hooker
1 year ago
Reply to  PapaDave
They also developed and made use of Alchemy and Astrology.
And, one of my absolute favorites, Phrenology.
Unfortunately we have not sufficiently followed up on these early efforts.
PapaDave
PapaDave
1 year ago
Reply to  Lisa_Hooker
Phrenology. Lol!
Lisa_Hooker
Lisa_Hooker
1 year ago
Reply to  PapaDave
There is a big difference between popular “Science” and the correct application of the “Scientific Method.”
They don’t teach this in school any longer unless you are a STEM major.
Food for thought:
The Earth is in truth flat, but it is warped into the oblate spheroid we perceive by Einstein’s gravity.
alexwest
alexwest
1 year ago
= china and comminism
am i only one who knows /red Marx books? Marx is father of communism idea!
—–
to kill private capital is MAIN IDEA IN MARX writings. cornerstone of all! ring THAT RULES THEM OF ALL 🙂
you cant have 500 + billionaires and 100.000xx millionaires in China and have communism. it is like dry water!
USSR was communist country, everybody was poor as church mice.
China is run by 1 party monopoly, it has 19th century style capitalism (no pensions, no worker rights, etc)
USA/ Britain run by 2 party duopoly. there are some worker and and human rights!
from economy standpoint there is no diff between Britain and china.
alexwest
alexwest
1 year ago
his speech was not brilliant! blah blah blah!, Russians dont have loos. Chinese are bad!
alexwest
alexwest
1 year ago
and that chart!
FANCY TO PUT THIS CART ONLY PER CAPITA?
last time i counted USA ppl is about 3% (330 mil / 9 bln) of world, but somehow USA emits 15 % of totall ( 5/35 * 100% )
Yooper
Yooper
1 year ago
Reply to  alexwest
As has been said a million times, the earth doesn’t care about per capita emissions, but total emissions, and western nations have insignificant impact now.
alexwest
alexwest
1 year ago
=brilliant speech by British satirist, Konstantine Kisin.
sorry Mish, as most Americans most of times you are very bad at geography, and-or world affairs!
he is Russian j$ew living in Britain. it is in his Wikipedia!
his English is not very good, thus i assumed he was born in Russia, and i was right, he was !
ps
and his speech was not brilliant! blah blah blah!, Russians dont have loos. Chinese are bad!
PapaDave
PapaDave
1 year ago
Reply to  alexwest
“his English is not very good,”
Lol! His English is far better than yours!
Go away little troll.
GruesomeHarvest
GruesomeHarvest
1 year ago
“Global warming”, and the less directional “climate change” are a political agenda and not science. Its more a hysterical religion.
A sane humanitarian and environmental policy would entail:
1. Stop all the stupid neocon wars
2. Stop 3rd world immigration to the West.
3. Encourage/incentivize birth control in 3rd world countries.
Over population is the biggest issue impacting the environment. The populations in Western countries are shrinking, which is a good thing. The populations in 3rd world countries are exploding which is the problem: especially if they want to increase their standard of living.
MarkraD
MarkraD
1 year ago
“”Global warming”, and the less directional “climate change” are a political agenda and not science. Its more a hysterical religion.”
Indeed, a diabolical plot to get us to buy energy from cheaper sources that third world despots can’t control.
Personally, I like lining the pockets of sociopathic barbarians even if it’s more expensive, but that’s just me.
KidHorn
KidHorn
1 year ago
The only place with much population growth is sub Saharan Africa. Black people are having a lot of kids. No one else is.
TexasTim65
TexasTim65
1 year ago
Reply to  KidHorn
Seems like south east Asia too, specifically India.
KidHorn
KidHorn
1 year ago
Reply to  TexasTim65
Seems entirely poor countries. Africa has the most.
MarkraD
MarkraD
1 year ago
Important distinction, climate denial is defined as someone that doesn’t believe co emissions play a role in climate change.
Whether or not you subscribe to the belief isn’t my point.
alexwest
alexwest
1 year ago
Reply to  MarkraD
=climate denial is defined as
is there some kind of law or something? 🙂
Lisa_Hooker
Lisa_Hooker
1 year ago
Reply to  alexwest
Not a law.
It’s a AGW commandment, like from a mountaintop.
Sunriver
Sunriver
1 year ago
If the first world wants a solution to Co2 emissions, the hard-working, brilliant engineers at Exxon, British Petroleum, Big Oil etc. is where you go to find solutions. Not soup throwers who want energy taxes that will end up doing nothing to reduce Co2 emissions.
This gentleman is spot on.
Webej
Webej
1 year ago
Reply to  Sunriver
Except that they spent money setting up fake think tanks to spread misinformation, even hiring former tobacco industry shills.
They had the best science in the 70’s but chose serve evil instead.
PapaDave
PapaDave
1 year ago
I mostly liked the video by Konstantine Kisin. I pretty much agreed with everything he said:
1. Science tells us that climate change is real and we need to act on it.
2. The best way to act on it is through science and hard work.
3. Protesting, complaining and whining are counter-productive.
4. Rather than protesting and whining, each individual could spend their time actively attempting to reduce their own personal carbon footprint as much as they can. It is a tiny contribution but it is better than wasting your time protesting.
5. Personally, I am incented to reduce my carbon footprint if it saves me money.
6. And I am incented to keep holding a lot of oil and gas stocks, which have made me a ton of money over the last two years. Because the entire energy transition that the world is attempting (with little success) is helping to keep oil and gas prices high. And high prices should continue for the rest of this decade. And I can’t do anything about it except recognize it and profit from it.
Which brings me to this blog. There are a lot of whiners and complainers here as well. And quite a few anti-science and cult conspiracy lfolks. I find it best to hit the IGNORE button on them, as they are just a waste of time. I don’t like wasting time on complainers.
alexwest
alexwest
1 year ago
Reply to  PapaDave
=1. Science tells us that climate change is real and we need to act on it.
no really! science only has existed for about 200-500 years on earth. same as book printing.
——
earth exists about 5 bln years. if you think people somehow can change climate i have bridge to sell! it is big !
btw, what is your hi school and University education to even have a nurve to decide what is right or not?
btw
and that Misin guy . he is comic. and very bad one, not science guy. i hope you do understand that?
PapaDave
PapaDave
1 year ago
Reply to  alexwest
Lol! You aren’t very bright, are you. You don’t even understand what you just said.
How do you know that the earth is about 5 bln years old (actually 4.543 billion). Not because you were there. Its because of science and scientists who figure these things out. These brilliant folks can tell you the age of the earth, plus the entire history of earth and its climate. They can explain all the times when the earth was much hotter than today, much colder than today, and why. They can explain all the earth’s natural cycles and the length of time it takes for climate to change. They can also explain how, in addition the the natural cycles, mankind is now affecting earth’s climate by adding greenhouse gasses to the atmosphere at significant rates. Perhaps you don’t realize it, but there is no previous period in earth’s history when there were 8 billion humans impacting the planet. We hit 1 billion humans in 1800 and have added 7 billion more in only 222 years. All at the same time that we began burning fossil fuels and pumping out greenhouse gasses in earnest. Scientists have known since 1896 that because mankind was adding more greenhouse gasses to the atmosphere, he was warming the planet and altering the climate.
However, I suspect that this is all beyond your understanding.
Btw, your spelling and grammar don’t inspire much confidence that you know what you are talking about.
hi school, nurve
Also, science has been around since man himself. The earliest scientific writings that still exist today are from 3000 BC in Mesopotamia.
And scientific achievements are as old as man. For example, in 240 BC, Eratosthenes was the first to calculate the circumference of the earth. Which is fascinating. The ancient Greeks knew the earth was a sphere in 300BC, yet there are still anti-science morons who think the earth is flat.
Perhaps you are a member of the flat earth society as well.
tractionengine
tractionengine
1 year ago
Reply to  PapaDave
Unfortunately you have been reduced to arguing with alexwest (and his ilk) who so obviously is correct in everything because he has thought it through, based on the latest scientific methods and his unerring reviews of all the facts. We should all be so fortunate to have such an open and capacious mind. I must say, I thought he would be on your ignore list!
I like to read opposing views to check my thinking or conclusions. A logical argument is useful but his angry yelling adds nothing. Amusing? Yes. Helpful? Not a chance.
The video? I agree with everything. We sit here in our centrally heated and air conditioned macmansions and presume to know how “the rest of them” should live. God save us from the alexwest crowd. At least the protesters get off their asses and act on their beliefs – misguided as the video explains.
PapaDave
PapaDave
1 year ago
Reply to  tractionengine
You are correct. I am wasting my time. I will hit IGNORE on alexwest so I don’t waste anymore of my time on him. Thanks. Life is too short to waste time on morons.
Webej
Webej
1 year ago
Reply to  PapaDave
the word is incentivized
And we would be better off to spend military order of magnitude money on research and alternative energy than all trying to skimp on our carbon footprint.
PapaDave
PapaDave
1 year ago
Reply to  Webej
Both incent and incentivize are acceptable. Incent, incenting, and incented are merely shorter, more efficient terms. However, they are more commonly used in North America, in particular, by the AP. So, if you live elsewhere, you probably prefer incentivized.
Like aluminum (NA) vs aluminium (UK). We drop the i.
And yes, “we would be better off to spend military order of magnitude money on research and alternative energy than all trying to skimp on our carbon footprint.” I agree.
However, I don’t get to decide what the government and corporations decide to spend money on. And neither do you. All we can do as individuals, if we want to actually make a positive contribution right now, is personally reduce our carbon footprint. And I will do that if I am incented to save money.
In addition, since the newly passed Inflation Reduction Act provides government incentives for green hydrogen and renewables, I have begun to take small positions in various renewable companies, such as Plug Power. So I have been incented to put some money into renewables; however, at this point, I remain heavily invested in oil and gas companies, because they are going to continue to make a crap load of profits for the rest of this decade. I cannot change what is happening in the world, but I can recognize it and profit from it.
Webej
Webej
1 year ago
Reply to  PapaDave
The best way to have a small carbon footprint is to be poor, or to live in commensurate modesty.
To me, incent is just some new malapropism like actionable or convict when convince is meant, or birth for give birth.
The problem is not that neologisms are new. In fact, I admire American culture for its creativity with funny and apt one-liners.
The problem is that most neologisms (and many concepts) are fashioned and used to conceal instead of to reveal, to take on airs, to pretend you are saying more than you in fact are.
PapaDave
PapaDave
1 year ago
Reply to  Webej
Color me skeptical your Honor. But its a gray area. I apologize if I haven’t learned the King’s English and I accept your right to criticize me. Don’t take offense. Perhaps if I traveled to England by airplane I would realize my errors and we could dialog.
JackWebb
JackWebb
1 year ago
There is only one type of video I will watch without a transcript or comprehensive summary: news. Other than that, if there’s no transcript or summary, my stance is that the video couldn’t be very important. This applies regardless of the subject or the point of view. I very strongly suspect that I’d agree with this one, but it doesn’t matter. Oh well, the world will keep turning without my help, I’m sure.

Meanwhile, Bitcoin is up about 25% in a month, and the S&P 500 is rockin’ and rollin’. I’m short both of them, and we all know that markets go up and down, but I’m expecting to take losses on those bets.

Jimbob
Jimbob
1 year ago
Climate deniers may be those that can’t or won’t see earth as a control volume, influenced by solar radiation, changes in inner earth magma, and other gross effects. I’m patiently waiting for real science.
PapaDave
PapaDave
1 year ago
Reply to  Jimbob
Hi Jimbob. The science is already well known. No need to wait.

Solar radiation is responsible for 99.97% of the energy impacting earth. The inner core is responsible for the other 0.03%.

Overall, Earth’s interior contributes heat to the atmosphere at a rate of about 0.05 watts per square meter while incoming solar radiation adds about 341.3 watts per square meter.
Both numbers have been remarkably steady over time (like the last 10000 years). And we don’t expect any change for the next 10,000 years.
Interestingly, the incoming solar radiation is only enough energy to keep the earth’s “average” temperature at -18C. (A fact that scientists have known since 1824). Fortunately the earth has an atmosphere with some greenhouse gasses that trap some of the solar irradiance and keep the average temperature at around 15C. (A full 33C warmer than without the greenhouse effect). This average temperature has increased from 14C around 100 years ago to 15C today because of the extra greenhouse gasses we are pumping out. The science is all well established.
In addition, there are slight changes that occur in the earth’s orbit, tilt, and wobble, that can effect global temperatures over time periods of tens of thousands of years. But which have negligible effect over periods of a few hundred years.
Massive volcanic eruptions can also cool the planet a little bit by filling the atmosphere with particulates that can slightly block the solar radiation for a while.
But there are no significant changes in the sun’s solar irradiance or the earth’s inner core that make a difference.
tbergerson
tbergerson
1 year ago
Reply to  PapaDave
there are no significant changes in the sun’s solar irradiance or the earth’s inner core that make a difference
Wow. That is just plain wrong. Ever heard of te Deccan Traps? Siberian Traps?
Solar irradiance changes can make an absolutely enormous impact as can mantle-plume eruptions, not the piddly little volcanic eruptions we get today but big ones. And actually they dont have to be Deccan trap big either. Toba?
Your time frame of 10,00 years is wholly inadequate to grasping the situation
Recent research, and I would provide a link but comments here are almost impossible to get through, but it showed on the north coast of Greenland, 2.4 million years ago, there was a temoperate forest. This is after the forerunners of man started to evolve but before any industrial activity right?
Mastodons and other large creatures lived there. Geologically right where it is now.
And guess what. CO2 levels then at 400PPM or .04% of the atmosphere, very similar to right now (415ppm). Temps 50 degrees F higher than now. FIFTY. On the north Coast of Greenland.
This was RIGHT before the onset of the last large scale period of glaciation, which started about then and lasted until about your 10,000 years ago, though we are still coming out of it even today. (Even the intellectual malfeasants at NASA agree that sea levels have risen over 400 feet since the end of that ice age a little more than your 10,000 years ago. Over 400!!! And we are worried about a few feet due to climate change)
Yeah burning fossil fuels has caused CO2 levels to rise, and it is something we should study and try to minimize, but ehre is no climate emergency. And ending covilization as if there were is just plain evil and anti-human.
PapaDave
PapaDave
1 year ago
Reply to  tbergerson
First : I said solar irradiance has been remarkably stable for the last 10,000 years and you try to tell me I am wrong because of 2.4 million years ago. Just for that, I should tell you to F off.
Second: while solar irradiance reaching the earth is remarkably stable, how much gets through the atmosphere is entirely dependent on clouds and levels of aerosols in the atmosphere, as well as time of day, season, latitude etc. It has nothing to do with how much solar irradiance the sun emits, “which is remarkably stable”. Your reference to Deccan and Siberian traps which identify areas that receive more sunlight based on the variables I just mentioned merely shows you don’t have a clue about solar irradiance.
Third: solar irradiance does not cause volcanoes to erupt; rather, large volcanoes cause the spread of a lot of aerosols, which cool the climate by lowering the amount of solar irradiance reaching the planet.
How you can take science and bastardize it to fit your preferred cult beliefs is completely moronic

Regarding Co2 levels and previous periods of hot and cold on earth: scientists know that CO2 levels have been as high as 3000 ppm and also close to zero over earth’s 4.5 billion year history. Scientists understand this and can explain it. Yet somehow you seem to think that this is some kind of revelation. It isn’t. It merely shows your total lack of understanding of the actual science.

Scientists can and have explained the entire history of earth’s climate. That’s why you are aware of mastodons in Greenland, sea levels that were much higher and much lower in the past. And big changes in temperature that take place over millions of years. You then try to cherry pick the info to somehow imply that scientists are wrong.

Scientists are not wrong. You are.

They can explain the climate of the past and of the present. And they can explain how mankind is currently causing a rapid change in earth’s climate that cannot be explained by any natural cycle.
You can now take your quack science and shove it up your stupid arse. F ing idiot.
Lisa_Hooker
Lisa_Hooker
1 year ago
Reply to  PapaDave
PapaDave, your continued fervor and zeal on this topic is a magnificent sight to behold.
PapaDave
PapaDave
1 year ago
Reply to  Lisa_Hooker
Science tells us that the earth is spherical, it is 4.543 billion years old, it has gone through many different natural climate cycles, as well as sudden climate change from extraneous circumstances (like a large meteor impact or massive volcanic eruptions). It also tells us that we are currently experiencing man-made climate change from our relentless emissions of greenhouse gasses.
I get pissed off when someone tries to tell me that the earth is flat, or only 4000 years old, or that the current climate change is natural and not man made.
Those folks are all morons.
Sadly, I am probably wasting my time. I doubt that anything I say will register with these idiots. Because they are too f ing stupid to understand the science.
I cannot change the science. It is what it is. And it says that man- made global warming is going to keep getting worse as we keep adding more greenhouse gasses to our atmosphere.
All I can do is take advantage of the energy transition that is currently happening. Because it provides an opportunity to profit by owning oil and gas stocks.
Oil prices are going to keep going higher over time. I have made a crap load of money from oil already. And I plan to continue to cash in.
Avery
Avery
1 year ago
To reminisce back to 2019 when the biggest crisis for the California Cupcakes was about what kind of straw was in their coffee drink!
stlrose
stlrose
1 year ago
Two words: Nuclear energy. The solution is right in front of us and we aren’t pursuing it. Why?
PapaDave
PapaDave
1 year ago
Reply to  stlrose
Because of Fear: Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, Fukushima, etc. And the war in Ukraine is demonstrating the possibility of more nuclear accidents.
Plus they are very expensive and take a decade to build. Even if we started a big effort now, it would be a long time before they can make much difference.
But I agree that we should be trying to expand our nuclear power.
In the meantime, we will keep using more fossil fuels for the rest of this decade and I intend to profit from that use.
KidHorn
KidHorn
1 year ago
Reply to  stlrose
Because people can’t differentiate between a nuclear reactor and a nuclear weapon. These same people probably think microwave ovens heat using uranium.
One-armed Economist
One-armed Economist
1 year ago
You just like it for it’s woke attacking demeaner which IMHO is rather shallow. As is saying we need to address CC on one hand, and we don’t on the other.
MPO45
MPO45
1 year ago
Mish….Off topic but perhaps you could look into the whole “bank runs coming” from the FDIC people themselves.
Jack
Jack
1 year ago
Reply to  MPO45
Wtf? This 1 min “leaked” video from the FDIC’s Systemic Resolution Committee has then talking not “if” but “when” bank runs happen in near future.
Wow – if true and video clip not taken out of context, this is an eye opener on how bad things really are out there.
Never heard of a bank bail-in before (other than what happened in Cyprus a couple years ago).
Seems banks can legally cancel all bank deposits if they please.
Just saw Greg Mannarino’s video from Jan 11 – will have to look more into this to tomorrow.
Lisa_Hooker
Lisa_Hooker
1 year ago
Reply to  Jack
I think what they intend is to convert some fraction of cash deposits to a type of common equity in the bank. Equity without voting rights. Perhaps akin to the non-marketable “US bonds” that Social Security holds. The main feature being that you can’t spend it when you want to spend it.
Jack
Jack
1 year ago
Reply to  Lisa_Hooker
Agree banks should not be able to gain equity with nothing in return.
So be like government buying GM back in 2008 but paying full price.
Makes sense but am sure what the law really allows.
Lisa_Hooker
Lisa_Hooker
1 year ago
Reply to  Jack
Jack, the bank doesn’t gain equity, the depositor owns the equity and is still a liability to the bank. It’s just that the equity is not very negotiable. And if the bank actually fails the value of the equity could become zero.
Six000mileyear
Six000mileyear
1 year ago
He and Nigel Farage could start a political comedy/satire club. ROFLMA
Rbm
Rbm
1 year ago

Looks like with the uae guy put in charge of the gobal climate conference money for renewable energy will go to making fossil fuels clean. basically a way to deal with pollution. Wants to keep us hook on the ole ff wagon. .

vanderlyn
vanderlyn
1 year ago
it seemed quite obvious to me that decades ago, the collaboration of the likes of GE and sierra club and governments, was just about the money. however i do think the track record of us all is very good for cleaning up the air and water pollution from the acid rain in mountains of east to hudson river to so many coastal and rivers and lakes.
Mish
Mish
1 year ago
If people don’t have kids, I assure you that manmade climate change will totally stop.
MPO45
MPO45
1 year ago
Reply to  Mish
it may be too late.
Of course, the people largely responsible for this mess will largely be dead by the next decade so why should they care?
billybobjr
billybobjr
1 year ago
Reply to  MPO45
Snow Pack in Northern Hemisphere highest in 56 years or since satellites could measure .
My link trumps your link .
MPO45
MPO45
1 year ago
Reply to  billybobjr
Did you bother reading the article? The net result of ocean temperature rising is aberrant weather. Essentially your link confirms the link I posted, try to do some thinking and put 2 and 2 together.
billybobjr
billybobjr
1 year ago
Reply to  MPO45
Global warming = can mean cooling so lets change the narrative to Climate change . The Antarctic
set all time ice extent a few years back caused by Global warming no I get it .
AnonymousEcon
AnonymousEcon
1 year ago
Reply to  MPO45
Awesome way to debate. By chance, do you work for the Circular Reasoning Company?
8dots
8dots
1 year ago
Reply to  billybobjr
“Whiteface” can be hell on earth, not today, best season !
TexasTim65
TexasTim65
1 year ago
Reply to  MPO45
I hope your not implying boomers are responsible for climate change – lol
Everyone who is alive today is responsible just as much as people who were alive in the 80s and 50’s and 20’s etc.
As long as world population continues to increase, CO2 emissions will continue to increase unless there is some true clean energy breakthrough on a mass scale at very cheap prices.
Doug78
Doug78
1 year ago
Reply to  Mish
Is that what you propose?
billybobjr
billybobjr
1 year ago
Reply to  Mish
That is a prediction a agree !
Matt3
Matt3
1 year ago
Reply to  Mish
All those that see man made climate change as a problem should totally eliminate their carbon footprint BEFORE asking others to sacrifice the joy of family. Mish, if you want to “make a difference” and eliminate your carbon footprint, I sure you can. Go ahead.
Mish
Mish
1 year ago
Reply to  Matt3
Actually, it’s those screaming and hollering but have kids who are the hypocrites.
Me?
1. I am not screaming and hollering
2. I don’t have kids
KidHorn
KidHorn
1 year ago
Reply to  Mish
Society would completely collapse long before climate change stopped.
Jojo
Jojo
1 year ago
Reply to  Mish
Eventually…
MPO45
MPO45
1 year ago
If there is a climate problem, science will find the answer, not politicians or activists.
Couldn’t disagree more with this statement. There are numerous articles about Exxon knowing full well how their product would affect the atmosphere via CO2 emissions back in the 60s and 70s and they still went ahead and did it. They had the science and knowledge and that meant nothing because there were profits to be had.
There are two fundamental forces at work in modern human society: Mother nature and human stupidity. Mother nature is favored to win 5 billion to 1.
MPO45
MPO45
1 year ago
Reply to  MPO45
JackWebb
JackWebb
1 year ago
Reply to  MPO45
Nothing from CBS “News” can ever be trusted, period.
billybobjr
billybobjr
1 year ago
Reply to  MPO45
What did they do ? So this is Exxon’s fault . What product were they making gas ? The official government narrative
was the next Ice age was at hand 60s and 70s
Webej
Webej
1 year ago
Reply to  billybobjr
One of their products was stifling their own scientists and setting up fake think tanks and hiring tobacco industry shills to spread the message that the science was premature and uncertain.
TexasTim65
TexasTim65
1 year ago
Reply to  MPO45
So what’s your point? If Exxon didn’t pump the oil some other company would have gladly done so.
Oil companies don’t decide world oil consumption or politic’s. Even governments don’t dare decide oil consumption because they won’t be in power long enough to make it stick.
Lisa_Hooker
Lisa_Hooker
1 year ago
Reply to  MPO45
“They had the science and knowledge and that meant nothing because there were profits to be had.”
Isn’t this essentially PapaDave’s philosophy and plan of action?
CRZYHUN
CRZYHUN
1 year ago
Excellent and again it took a ‘foreigner’ to state the case as others are too woke to their nose from thier opposite side. Or to put it another way ‘a fish could not discover water’.
Directed Energy
Directed Energy
1 year ago
The comfort and convenience of mankind surpasses all issues the planet “may” face. Even tossing used motor oil in the trash can but that’s just my opinion.
The green solutions don’t have the finance, not even close. The hot button topics of the near future are health care funding and Social Security. Once those reach critical mass in the media, the climate will take a backseat for years.
8dots
8dots
1 year ago
GC weekly reached WTC Sept 2011 high. Bubbles, including the dbl tops climate change bubble, tend to collapse.
Doug78
Doug78
1 year ago
Ego, etsi nihil habeo quod ad te scribam, scribo tamen quia tecum loqui videor.
FromBrussels2
FromBrussels2
1 year ago
Reply to  Doug78
YES and hodie mihi cras tibi …..and of course, hostium munera non munera ….. ain t that fn right
Doug78
Doug78
1 year ago
Reply to  FromBrussels2
Tot homines, quot sententiae.
Lisa_Hooker
Lisa_Hooker
1 year ago
Reply to  Doug78
Quos Deus vult perdere, prius dementat.
Omnes stulti hic sumus.
worleyeoe
worleyeoe
1 year ago
Can’t find your hyperlink, Mish, but I looked this guy up on youtube. About a 7 min video puts the whole thing together. Nice!
Matt3
Matt3
1 year ago
Mish,
Your statement on children may be fine for you but as a free person, I disagree and will encourage my children to have children.
My children have been the best thing in my life. I imagine that as my life ends, they will be what I have treasured. Not some investment or my own accomplishments but rather the people that I’ve loved and have loved me.
When we have and raise children, we see a purpose and a world much larger than ourselves. It’s good to have people that will carry on and that you place ahead of yourself. It makes you a steward of the future.
I can be sure you don’t have kids or you would understand the feeling.
billybobjr
billybobjr
1 year ago
Reply to  Matt3
Thankfully for Mish his parents didn’t take his advice . I for one am thankful for the gift of life that my parents gave me
and to not pass it on if possible would be awful selfish in my opinion . I am thankful for my children and grandchildren
as I get older it adds excitement and purpose to life.
Jojo
Jojo
1 year ago
Reply to  Matt3
Your children may wind up living in a climate and/or economic dystopia as represented in many SF stories and movies.
Although I am sure that as with Lake Woebegon, your pogency will be above average and will reside on top of all the human detritus below.
Matt3
Matt3
1 year ago
Reply to  Jojo
Appreciate the complement. If things do go bad, I would expect my heirs to be above the mess. I’ve raised them to think and be resilient enough to do so.
Jojo
Jojo
1 year ago
Reply to  Matt3
Suggest reading the famous SF novel “Beggars in Spain” by Nancy Kress.
FromBrussels2
FromBrussels2
1 year ago
….sending more offensive weapons to Ukraine will at one point ‘solve’ ALL climate change issues !…. ……there’s always a positive side of things if only one is willing to look for it…..
Lisa_Hooker
Lisa_Hooker
1 year ago
Reply to  FromBrussels2
Investing in a fallout shelter contractor?
denker
denker
1 year ago
Good speech but i think George Carlin does it more effectively and amusingly. link to youtube.com
Jojo
Jojo
1 year ago
Reply to  denker
Are there any current satirists doing Carlin type commentary?
PapaDave
PapaDave
1 year ago
“If there is a climate problem, science will find the answer, not politicians or activists.”
Mostly correct. And I mostly agree.
It is nice to see that you have faith in science to find the answer to the climate problem. But there is no need for you to question it; science tells us that there IS a climate problem. And there is no need to question whether most of the recent climate change is man-made; science tells us that it IS mostly man-made.
Science, and scientists are amazing. For hundreds of years, their dedication and hard work has built the foundations of our modern world. Their brilliance has allowed us to understand the workings of the universe and our own planet; whether it is in chemistry, physics, biology, or dozens of other disciplines.
Scientists have known for over a hundred years that mankind’s emissions of greenhouse gasses are warming the earth’s atmosphere and altering the climate.
They also have figured out billions of years of earth’s climate history, and the natural events that caused it.
And most importantly; they can explain the difference between natural change and the change being caused by man.
One problem with science is that most of it is non-profit and requires funding from government or the private sector. And the private sector tends to limit funding to projects that only show promise of profit. So government and politicians will be involved in many projects; like it or not.
I would suggest that it is best to ignore most of the hyperbole of politicians, and instead focus on the science. Because as you said, it is the science that will correctly identify the problems and the solutions.
While I agree with you that science will be key to solving the climate problem, I am not very optimistic. I also agree with you that politicians are currently mucking up the solutions, and making things worse, instead of better.
But politicians mucking things up is what I expected. Which is why I agree with some of your previous commenters that we will continue to use more fossil fuels, not less, for the rest of this decade. And since the fossil fuel companies have been cutting back on capex for almost a decade now, in anticipation of less future demand, they are going to make a lot of money from the resultant rising prices.
Thanks for the blog. It has helped me make a lot of money in the last two years.
ThatsNotAll
ThatsNotAll
1 year ago
Reply to  PapaDave
Did you watch the video? It doesn’t matter how much Europe, Australia, Canada and the US believe in the science of Climate Change. Carbon emissions for the next century will be dictated by what India and China do, with Africa, South America and the rest of Asia also contributing to increases.
And for citizens of the First World, what danger do they face by “Climate Change”? There is the great irony. The people most threatened by Climate Change are the world’s poor, the people in greatest need of abundant, cheap, fossil fuel energy are the world’s poor and the people most threatened by Climate Change policies are the world’s poor. The world’s rich who lament Climate Change are pretenders and charlatans.
PapaDave
PapaDave
1 year ago
Reply to  ThatsNotAll
Yes. I watched the video. And I agree with virtually everything he said.
And I agreed with most of what Mish said as well.
What’s your point?
ThatsNotAll
ThatsNotAll
1 year ago
Reply to  PapaDave
The idea that “science creates solutions” supposes “Science” has some claim on the solutions people want or need. History shows the worst tyrannies are those lead by persons claiming to be the “Science”.

“Science” is a process of collecting knowledge in order to create new human capabilities. Human ingenuity creates solutions taking into account new capabilities and the economic and moral realities humans face.Climate Change is a problem the same way poverty is a problem. Grand efforts to solve it invariably result in the problem becoming institutionalized. So much money and politics becomes invested in solving the problem that actually solving the problem would be extremely disruptive to the status quo! Consequently, the problem cannot be solved, but must always exist and fear of the threat always elevated.

PapaDave
PapaDave
1 year ago
Reply to  ThatsNotAll
I agree with Mish. Science discovers knowledge and solutions. You, of course are free to disagree.
Perhaps you hate science? That’s too bad. It is the result of the human ingenuity you mention, and it is crucial to our modern way of life.
ThatsNotAll
ThatsNotAll
1 year ago
Reply to  PapaDave
Repeating what I wrote since you appear to have missed it:
“Science” is a process of collecting / organizing knowledge in order to create new human capabilities. Human ingenuity creates solutions taking into account new capabilities and the economic and moral realities humans face.
Science provides the knowledge of converting sunlight to electricity. Human ingenuity uses that knowledge in many constructive ways. Politicians mandating that this capability must replace superior firms of electricity generation are destructive to human progress. The ideal way of providing for the human need and want for power is not a scientific problem.
PapaDave
PapaDave
1 year ago
Reply to  ThatsNotAll
I agree with Konstantine Kisin; science and hard work will be the way to solve the problem of global warming over the long run. He said it well.
I also said that politicians will continue to muck up the solutions to climate change. (And I intend to take advantage of that financially by continuing to invest in oil stocks. )
You, on the other hand, simply want to complain to me about politicians who are mucking things up. Something I already know.
So I ask again. What is your point in constantly complaining about something I already know?
If you are going to keep wasting my time with this garbage I will add you to my long list of people to ignore.
MPO45
MPO45
1 year ago
Reply to  ThatsNotAll
“The people most threatened by Climate Change are the world’s poor”
Wrong. The people most threatened aren’t the poor, they have been getting by with little to nothing most of their lives. The most threatened are people accustomed to having 3000 sq ft homes with indoor plumbing, heating, cooling. Those that drive gas guzzling SUVs and fly around the world to vacation. Those people will lose their cushy lifestyles when hoards of poor come calling for their piece with pitchforks and torches. It won’t be long, just wait and watch, there is a reason millions of people are at the southern US border and growing every year, that problem isn’t going to go away anytime soon.
billybobjr
billybobjr
1 year ago
Reply to  PapaDave
PapaDave = Climate Nazi anyone who doesn’t agree with his so called consensus on the science of Climate has a problem .
There are thousands of scientist and many experts that have questioned this theory and they are credentialed with degrees
in these fields some are the most respected in these fields of study . These folks should be silenced because they don’t have
the knowledge that has been gathered from his own little echo chamber from sites that support his opinion . He has no
expertise in these area . These entities that spew this stuff have been caught through emails lying distorting data ect. The
models and predictions of these entities have been spectacularly wrong time and time again . The Papa brags about coming
to discussion board and hitting ignore on people who don’t agree with his discussion . Please ignore me you are clueless
worleyeoe
worleyeoe
1 year ago
Reply to  billybobjr
Um, you don’t pump 1 cubic mile of oil out of the ground EVERY DAY, much of which goes up into the atmosphere as CO2, without creating climate change. And that doesn’t include the flaring off of methane from the production of oil & natural gas. And deforestation isn’t exactly climate friendly either.
Granted, I agree there have been any number of instances where the purveyors of climate change have been caught red handed cooking the books. However, that doesn’t mean climate change isn’t real. The questions have always been:
At what rate / how much is the climate changing?
What will the effects look like every decade moving forward?
What can we do about it? With the obvious argument here being the guys point about the poor & their leaders are not going to give a crap about climate change, thus the wokeness factor of it all. Britain at 2% of global CO2 emissions can’t do anything to undo what China & India are going to do, save innovation which is his main point.
To suggest that mankind isn’t disrupting the balance of nature in harmful ways is just patently absurd. And anyone who can’t come to grips with this fact really has no business trying to defend mankind’s destruction of the planet.
And the last I checked, PapaD’s ethos is he believes it’s an issue, erstwhile he’s mainly concerned about how to profit off of the situation.
Can’t blame him there. He’s one guy which is 1/68 millionth of the UK.
billybobjr
billybobjr
1 year ago
Reply to  worleyeoe
You have a problem . If you have a theory and you predict what will happen because of what the theory shows then it doesn’t
happen according to your theory then it was bogus science .The future will make the theory sound or not and it has proven to
be bogus numerous times. Ice age coming in the 70s and it has been way colder with way higher CO2 in the earths past if
you want to believe that. Please make your prediction so we can check back in a decade and find out if it is true like there will be
no ice in the arctic and long island will be under water and there will be no polar bears and so many more .
billybobjr
billybobjr
1 year ago
Reply to  worleyeoe
A cubic mile of oil is approximately the world’s yearly consumption of oil. if you take all the oil ever pumped and place it in the ocean it
is not even covered by a rounding error compared to the vastness of the oceans . Like a little spec of the coast somewhere a few grain of sands on the beach is about what it represents. Volcanos spew huge amounts of gases and they have periods of high activity and low activity
the earth seems to have handled it without us being here many times when CO2 was much higher than it is today .
worleyeoe
worleyeoe
1 year ago
Reply to  billybobjr
My bad. I redid my math. 262 days, and we’ve been doing that for at least 10 years now, plus whatever the previous 100 years adds.
I don’t disagree with most of what you’re saying, but mankind is definitely having a negative effect on earth’s climate.
Christoball
Christoball
1 year ago
Reply to  worleyeoe
World wide oil extraction is actually only one cubic mile a year. This is about 1/64 of and inch covering the entire United States, or 1/900 of an inch covering the entire land mass of the world. It would be 1/3110 of an inch covering the whole world. The fact that most of it is cleanly burned rather than spread as a thin film is comforting.
HippyDippy
HippyDippy
1 year ago
The real hoot are all the idiots who will just go along with whatever stupid idea their fearless leaders come up with. The level of submissive behavior of the slaves amaze me. Anything to keep from growing up and ruling yourself. Slaves are the problem. Without them, there’d be no one to bow down as commanded. Pathetic.
SyTuck
SyTuck
1 year ago
Sorry Mish, but encouraging people to not have children is the worst policy to endorse.

People without children have no reason to care for the planet. It’s not their problem. Will some people sacrifice their comfort for the sake of the future? Sure, there’s always those that like to gain social credit and virtue signals.

However the vast majority will just take their double incomes and run; If not when they’re feisty 20 year olds, but certainly when they’re bored and apathetic 40+ year olds.

atryingshepherd
atryingshepherd
1 year ago
Reply to  SyTuck

I’m trying to wrap my head around these words. Is encouraging people to not have children really the “worst” policy? Really? nothing is worse than that? How about using diesel technology from the 60’s. Using hairspray technology from the 80’s.

Is “encouraging” really a policy? Even if I can accept the word salad, how many kids should people have? Who decides?

I think of climate change as a tragedy of the commons with an assist from natural cycles.

ThatsNotAll
ThatsNotAll
1 year ago

The modern world is made possible by abundant cheap energy found in fossil fuels, and humans have never been safer from the whims of Mother Nature. The more fossil fuels are eliminated, the more vulnerable humans become to the chaos that is natural weather. When storms come, do you want reliable power or do you want “green” power?

Lisa_Hooker
Lisa_Hooker
1 year ago
Reply to  ThatsNotAll
I want a boat.
Jojo
Jojo
1 year ago
Reply to  Lisa_Hooker
Waterworld:
Scooot
Scooot
1 year ago
Reply to  SyTuck
“Sorry Mish, but encouraging people to not have children is the worst policy to endorse.”
World population growth seems out of control to me.
Maximus_Minimus
Maximus_Minimus
1 year ago
Germany: ~80 million population
Sweden: ~10 million
Chine: ~1,500 million
India: ~ 1,500 million
USA: ~ 320 million x 2 = 640 million (multiplied by two to account for profligate, wasteful lifestyle)
Earth: > 8,000 million
Who frets about it? Mostly really the likes of tiny countries at the top.
1. Climate change is real
2. It’s mostly man made
3. Nothing can be done about it, until Al Gore loses half of weight, goes in front of the camera to say how it’s done.
alexwest
alexwest
1 year ago
exactly!!! Mish is pretty much disingenuous here as if he does not what capita means!
Lisa_Hooker
Lisa_Hooker
1 year ago
1. Yes, climate change exists and varies a lot.
2. “Mostly?” Well, there’s no evidence yet that establishes “mostly.” Significant perhaps, but “mostly” is unproven.
3. There are a number of things that can be done. No one is working seriously on them.

Stay Informed

Subscribe to MishTalk

You will receive all messages from this feed and they will be delivered by email.