Conscious Choice cover

From the press release: In this ground-breaking new history of early America, historian Robert Zimmerman not only exposes the lie behind The New York Times 1619 Project that falsely claims slavery is central to the history of the United States, he also provides profound lessons about the nature of human societies, lessons important for Americans today as well as for all future settlers on Mars and elsewhere in space.

 
Conscious Choice: The origins of slavery in America and why it matters today and for our future in outer space, is a riveting page-turning story that documents how slavery slowly became pervasive in the southern British colonies of North America, colonies founded by a people and culture that not only did not allow slavery but in every way were hostile to the practice.  
Conscious Choice does more however. In telling the tragic history of the Virginia colony and the rise of slavery there, Zimmerman lays out the proper path for creating healthy societies in places like the Moon and Mars.

 

“Zimmerman’s ground-breaking history provides every future generation the basic framework for establishing new societies on other worlds. We would be wise to heed what he says.” —Robert Zubrin, founder of founder of the Mars Society.

 

Available everywhere for $3.99 (before discount) at Amazon, Barnes & Noble, and all ebook vendors, or direct from the ebook publisher, ebookit. And if you buy it from ebookit you don't support the big tech companies and I get a bigger cut much sooner.


Drop in aviation during COVID lockdowns caused no change in high cirrus clouds, contrary to predictions of climate models

The uncertainty of climate science: In the twenty-five years since I became a science journalist, I cannot count the number of high profile press releases and scientific papers that I’ve read claiming that the increase in aviation and the resulting contrails from airplanes was going to be a major contributor to human-caused global warming. According to the models, the increase in contrails was increasing the high altitude cirrus cover, and thus in a variety of ways acting to warm the planet.

Well, a paper just published in Geophysical Research Letters took a look at the effect the sudden and almost complete cessation of aviation during the 2020 COVID lockdowns had on high altitude cirrus clouds. If the models were right, the lack of air traffic should have caused a reduction in cirrus clouds, thus demonstrating the models were correct.

The models were wrong, once again. From the abstract:

We find that, despite the very large reduction in air traffic, neither cirrus cover nor temperature ranges changed by enough to be detectable relative to the year-to-year variability of natural cirrus. Comparing the satellite observations to previous model-simulated aviation cirrus, we determine that any aviation-induced change in cirrus would have a much smaller magnitude than would be inferred from climate model simulations. These results suggest that the warming effect of cirrus clouds produced by aircraft may be smaller than previously believed. [emphasis mine]

In other words, air traffic apparently has no impact on the high altitude cloud cover. The models that said this traffic was a contributor to global warming were 100% wrong. It apparently is not.

Of course, there remains some uncertainty even with this result, as it is for only one year. The effect of air traffic on clouds could have been disguised in 2020 by the natural fluctuations normally seen from year to year, though the paper’s authors think not.

Assuming this data is confirmed, the authors also concede that the plans to mitigate contrails by rerouting planes so that they do not all fly along the same routes could be very counter-productive. It will cause those detours to burn more fossil fuels, while changing nothing in the cloud cover in the upper atmosphere.

Ah, the law or unintended consequences once again rears its ugly head. Too bad global warming activists never seem to admit it exists, even though it constantly bites them in the rear, time after time after time after time after time….

Readers!
 

I must unfortunately ask you for your financial support because I do not depend on ads and rely entirely on the generosity of readers to keep Behind the Black running. You can either make a one time donation for whatever amount you wish, or you sign up for a monthly subscription ranging from $2 to $15 through Paypal or $3 to $50 through Patreon.


Your support will allow me to continue covering science and culture as I have for the past twenty years, independent and free from any outside influence.


Your support is even more essential to me because I not only keep this site free from advertisements, I do not use the corrupt social media companies like Google, Twitter, and Facebook to promote my work. I depend wholly on the direct support of my readers.


You can provide that support to Behind The Black with a contribution via Patreon or PayPal. To use Patreon, go to my website there and pick one of five monthly subscription amounts, or by making a one-time donation. For PayPal click one of the following buttons:
 


 

Or with a subscription with regular donations from your Paypal or credit card account:


 

If Patreon or Paypal don't work for you, you can support Behind The Black directly by sending your donation by check, payable to Robert Zimmerman, to
 

Behind The Black
c/o Robert Zimmerman
P.O.Box 1262
Cortaro, AZ 85652
 

Or you can donate by using Zelle through your bank. You will need to give my name and email address (found at the bottom of the "About" page). The best part of this electronic option is that no fees will be deducted! What you donate will be what I receive.

68 comments

  • Max

    “These results suggest that the warming effect of cirrus clouds produced by aircraft may be smaller than previously believed”

    I find it odd that they’re claiming plane travel causes warming… There are no claims as such because clouds cause cooling. It was believed that increase cloud cover would cool the planet and was the reason for allowing chemtrails for climate control and waste disposal.

    It is well known when a volcano irrupt’s with more CO2 released at once then all humans ever, The aerosols (volcanic dust) cool the planet for a short time. (When the volcano in Indonesia irrupted, there was no summer for two years)

    Here is another example of science corruption where with a stroke of a pen, up becomes down and science facts become uncertain.

    It’s been three months since I’ve seen a contrail similar to the ones I’ve been watching half of my life (since the late 80s when regular fuel was outlawed in favor of unleaded, removing sulfur which was responsible for photo chemical smog)
    Something is up, and it worries me that no one’s noticed or is talking about it when it used to generate so much angst among environmentalists.

    They’re asking for trillions of dollars to control the weather (and prevent New Yorkers from changing their climate by moving to Florida… ha ha)
    Still the science is being canceled, the reflecting of heat off of cold upper atmosphere CO2 is a violation of the second law of thermodynamics. This has never been resolved and is being ignored.

    How do you fight the firm religious belief in invisible monsters?

  • wayne

    Max-
    good stuff.

  • Cotour

    And the beat goes on:

    From the Daily News: “Nine years after Sandy, rush to resiliency: Climate change is here and NYC is under threat”

    My understanding of SS Sandy was that it was the result of a confluence of a hurricane arriving and driving up and into the Hudson river which produced a super high tide timed perfectly that inundated the lower lying areas of the city like the subways and the streets of lower Manhattan.

    I remember making a big pot of pasta fagiole and some garlic bread and serving it to the many people who came in for shelter and had no electricity in their homes. I was the only place where you could come in, sit down, get fed a hot meal and charge your phone or computer.

    IT WAS A HURRICANE!

  • Questioner

    Cotour:

    Here is something for you as a “constitutional fanatic”. A new constitution is being created here for Mars. Maybe you can contribute. But I fear it is already taking on leftist or liberal traits.

    “Defining a Martian Constitution – Gilley/Earnshaw – 2021 Mars Society Virtual Convention”

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=smCFN8D2EvQ

  • I thought the headline was a joke! That it was a real – and legitimate/interesting – study was quite the surprise.

  • George

    Interesting how years-old fiction is seeming to be actually a prophecy. For example, Questioner, the liberal constitution for Mars is built into The Expanse stories. I think I might casually look for other stories that have become prophecies, aside from The Simpsons episodes.
    On Global Warming, we need another collection of articles like CO2 Science used to post, or Junk Science. Maybe Mr. Zimmerman can link these much the same as he did his Blacklisted Americans posts?

  • Lee Stevenson

    Regarding the “volcanoes emit more CO2 than humans” trope… It’s a lie… This Forbes article ( including links to sources) explains why.

    https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2017/06/06/how-much-co2-does-a-single-volcano-emit/

    I don’t understand why all you right wing dudes seem to see stuff in either black or white?
    The science is still out on many matters. I will admit that sometimes results of scientific studies are published with a bias in the PRESENTATION of the results, but results of genuine scientific investigation are just that.

    The whole point of science is to present results, and let others prove them wrong. If proven wrong, they are false. If proven right they become a theory. If proven correct beyond reasonable doubt they become a law.

    The science is pretty much pointing towards anthropogenic caused global warming/climate change.

    If this is true, we are in for real problems for humanity. If it’s not true, would it not be good to perhaps cut out our CO2 and other greenhouse gases anyway? For the sake of potential problems for our decedent’s? Oil is going to run out at some point, and I am of the opinion we HAVE allready messed up the goldfish bowl we live in to the point our kids are going to have to manufacture some interesting machinery to scrub the air, to stop massive migration from areas that have become unliveable, to put unsustainable strain on areas like Europe, most of the US and middle Africa.

    If you believe that man made climate change is all bullcrap, just put a percentage on your belief.

    If you are less than 100% sure, just ask yourself, would you put a gun against your great grandchilds head with that that percentage of a live round?

    I would not. And we are the generation, perhaps the last generation that have the chance to do something about it.

  • Jeff Wright

    I never put much stock in some of the CFD models. Too many variables. It is also why I want to see SLS evolve into a side mount Energia…for LARGE SCALE airframes for hypersonic tests…tiny test articles are ingots-not airframes…and I do not trust computer models.

  • Cotour

    Questioner:

    I take that designation as a “Constitution Fanatic” as a high compliment, thank you.

    I am listening to this attempt by whom ever these people are to design a Constitution specifically for Mars. Just 10 minutes in and I have not heard any fundamental philosophy that would designate anyone’s Rights as an individual, or where those Rights might emanate from. They seem to skip right over all of that, sounds very U.N.ish to me so far.

    All I am hearing is a bunch of technical observations. Sounds like this Constitution might be one of those 2500 beauties that are pumped out of the U.S. Congress.

    Here is a point of interest: Who is going to enforce any Constitution on the Communist Chinese? I suppose this is a exercise that will keep a bunch of nerds busy for a while.

  • Cotour

    “2500 page beauties”

  • Lee Stevenson

    A question….

    Does anyone here believe that we, as post industrial humans, are messing up our planet to a dangerous degree?

  • Lee Stevenson

    I actually have 48 hours off work, and my kids are with their mother this weekend, so I’m free and able to interact ;-)

  • Questioner

    Yes, Cotour, maybe trying to set up a Catholic diocese on Mars is more promising than the Constitution thing, the way these leftist nerds do it. What strange people did Robert Zubrin gather in his Mars society? A collection of left do-gooders who probably want to realize their ideal society on Mars ?! Your comment on China is correct, they don’t care. Comment: I bought Chinese stocks anyway. I’m pretty ruthless, ha ha …

  • Lee Stevenson: I think our technology is certainly modifying the planet, as it has done since the first human shaped the first tool several million years ago.

    I also think that we, as tool makers who specialize in using that skill to adapt to the environment, are beholden to carefully consider what we do, and apply rational thought in order to make sure what we do does not make things worse.

    How dangerous what we have done so far with the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere remains far from proven, however. We don’t yet really understand the climate and don’t even know yet if it is definitely warming.

    Moreover, there is ample evidence, that global warming activists refuse to read or recognize, that a warmer global climate might actually be beneficial, encouraging plant growth in regions that are now barren or too cold.

    That does not mean I advocate warming the planet, only that I think we must be very careful with what we do, in all cases. The fear-mongering by your side (the left), does not encourage care, only panic.

  • Questioner

    Cotour:

    This Mars Society video is about freedom on Mars, which the moderator believes must be engineered to prevent tyranny, because Mars is a tyranny-prone environment.

    “Engineering a Free Mars – Dr. Charles Cockell – 2021 Mars Society Virtual Convention”

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=en9DDqlkml0

  • Lee Stevenson

    Bob, thank you for your thoughtful answer to my question!
    My position is more of a “safety first” stance than an alarmest position… I actually believe we probably have the science to extract greenhouse gases out of the air before we have any massive collapse of civilization. But the road there might be hard,

    Not on us in the west, but those in the middle East may suffer… Well, let’s be honest… We genuinely have know idea how it’s all gonna pan out… Earth may tilt another degree or 2 and we enter an ice age..

    My point is only that we are playing a game that no one knows the outcome of…. And when it comes to an existential threat to humanity, caution is probably the best option.

    I am also planning on buying a big chunk of land in the north of Sweden out of my retirement fund… It’s frozen right now… But stands a good chance of being prime real estate in my kids lifetimes ;-)

  • Lee Stevenson

    Oops, forgot to say…. My side … quote ” the left ” is not your left… I am absolutely left, but admirer this website for its freedom of thought. I disagree with most of it, ( imagine a winking smiley )

    I don’t think campaigning for a less polluting society should be a left or right issue… I honestly believe this is something humanity can agree on..

    From the Sudan to West Virginia… There are natural resources that can be utilized to create power… Getting the world off fossil fuels just cannot be a bad thing. And handled correctly can create jobs and improve people’s lives.

    You and I and everyone here knows the sun pumps more energy to our earth than we could ever use… We just need the will to capture it…

    When we don’t have to worry about hypersonic Chinese nukes…. Perhaps we will have time to think about the problem …

  • Cotour

    I think it is entirely reasonable to develop requirements and methods of cleaner and clearer technologies and to clean and clear any poisonous / materials from the environment / oceans / air.

    (Every individual is by default or should be by default an environmentalist. Corporations not so much. Governments not so much. Both will injure or kill you if you give them the opportunity)

    Cleaner and cleaner methods of transportation, a combination of very efficient fossil fuel driven vehicles as well as electric / hybrib or fully electric vehicles.

    Does man effect his environment? Yes. Does man effect the environment to the degree that is being touted by the Leftist / Globalist control freak nuts? No, not to that degree IMO. Does the climate change? Yes. Is the climate changing primarily due to mans actions? I doubt it.

    Every individual is by default an environmentalist.

    ————

    “This Mars Society video is about freedom on Mars, which the moderator believes must be engineered to prevent tyranny, because Mars is a tyranny-prone environment.”

    Talking about technology and the proximity of moons and the like is not developing a Constitution for Mars. That is more logistics. Call me when they actually are focusing on actual elements of a Constitution that deal with the mechanisms of government, people and Rights. Until then this is just nerdy happy talk about something that will probably not be even realistic for another 50 years? 100 years?

    You do not “Engineer” like a nerd to prevent tyranny. Rational balanced people who understand the abuse of power develop a philosophy of human Rights and what those in government must never do to tread on them. That is a Constitution. Idealistic nerds who have no experience in the realities of the abuse of power, who have grown up in the lap of luxury have no idea about what a Constitution is or is not IMO. I am sure they mean well and have the best of intentions. And we all know where that can deliver everyone concerned.

    Anything more than 4 or 5 pages can only structure disaster and a Socialistic “Paradise” in the long run. IMO.

  • Cotour

    I think they will be more serious in constructing a Constitution when they deal with how they are going to deal with the hookers and who controls the alcohol and the laser pistols.

  • Mike Borgelt

    “Does anyone here believe that we, as post industrial humans, are messing up our planet to a dangerous degree?”

    Not me. The West actually cleaned up the worst of the air and water pollution at great cost while giving up useful and effective industrial chemicals.
    CO2 isn’t pollution, most likely has a small effect on global temperature around 0,5 deg C for doubling which is negligible even if detectable in the error band. We can change regional climate – clear land and plant crops. Build large cities and get localised urban heat island.
    70% is covered in water, some more in ice and snow. If we had to I think we could make a valiant but probably doomed attempt at staving off the next ice age. The ice will be back soon enough. What most people think of as “normal climate” has only been around for 10,000 to 12,000 years and for around half that time it was warmer than today even though CO2 levels were lower.
    The real danger is the hysterical reaction by the left which may well end technical civilization and all its benefits. This will be known as “bad luck”.

  • pzatchok

    I love this straw man argument.

    ” If you believe that man made climate change is all bullcrap, just put a percentage on your belief.

    If you are less than 100% sure, just ask yourself, would you put a gun against your great grandchilds head with that that percentage of a live round?”

    I could say the very same thing about having a gun in the home. If it could even stop one home invader from harming your child wouldn’t, shouldn’t you have one in the home?At what percentage are you willing to risk your childs safety? If its even one percent wouldn’t it be worth the cost?

    I could say the very same thing about leaving a helmet on your child all the time.
    If we slowed trains down to just 10 miles an hour how many children could be saved?
    If we outlawed all personally owned powered vehicles how many children would be saved?

    Its for the children no longer tugs at my heart strings.

    Pick what climate you think is perfect for the world and I can show you that that climate has not been the major climate of the planet for the last 20 billion years,
    The planet has been both warmer and colder for far longer than the perfect climate the eco climate fanatics are using as an example.

    We are humans and pretty smart. We lived through the last few ice ages and the warming periods between them. All because we are adaptable. We will adapt and live on.
    Just make sure your children are smart enough and adaptable enough to outlive those who are not.
    Mine is.

  • Questioner

    Cotour:

    That should be more to your liking. They talk in this video a lot about aspects of a Mars government and also about the Mars constitution.
    They even plan to call a convention on the subject.

    “Martian Governance Framework – James Gilley – 2021 Mars Society Virtual Convention”

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W7rrKY16paA

  • Questioner

    Cotour:

    I would like to add one more thing to my last comment. In the meantime I have the impression that the topic of “colonization of Mars” attracts massively leftists (like space travel as a whole) because it is the ideal opportunity to fantasize about building a new society. And we know that the main activity of the ruling left (communists) is the artificial creation of societies. Of course, I don’t think that’s a good thing.

    I am of your opinion that the basic human problems of living together in societies outside the earth are the same as on earth, because people remain the same. Due to the extreme conditions (scarcity of resources, hostile environment), however, the social conditions and pressure will only become much more extreme and very clear hierarchies will be necessary. So if it ever comes to that, which I have great doubts about, a first Martian settlement can only be organized militarily, with a commander at the helm who makes the fundamental decisions if the settlement is to be viable in the long term.

  • wayne

    Outland (1981)
    The first 9 minutes…
    https://youtu.be/-J8mOOtS7XI
    9:00

  • Chris

    On the “Is Man impacting the planet” thread (Lee, Bob, Mike and Cotour et alli)
    I agree with Bob. Of course we are affecting the planet – look at photos from space. Irrigation creates circles of green. Cities (Shenzhen for example) splay across landscapes ..etc This is just one bit of evidence.. We, humans inhabit the earth , we will affect it.
    Is our output harming the earth – I don’t know. Certainly there are examples of pollution and great pollution at that (Lake Karachai – Russia & Lake Victoria – Tanzania come to mind). However, as man has moved from subsistence – when we can’t worry about pollution just survival to higher and freer(this is key) societies our tendency to pollute goes down, This is actually remarkable, We got larger in population and we got kinds cleaner. There is a LOT of work to be done here. Lower packaging, more recycling, less crap in the ocean …etc. These are apparent.
    What is not apparent – is the earth warming, what are the energy sources heating the earth and are we affecting this and the climate. There are a lot of people claiming that they know. I see no convincing data.

    If you have climate – it will change. Indeed, I live where about 10,000 years ago a several mile high glacier would be outside my door (there’s an esker just down the road and the nearby park is “Moraine State Park”). What caused the change from miles of ice outside my door to warm to 4-season climate – dunno. And neither does anyone else. There are theories and I welcome the study of what might have been the cause.

    Is the earth warming – we don’t know. (Tell me how you are taking the earth’s “temperature” and how you did that in the past) Why is the climate changing? We don’t know, but from prior observations we should expect the climate to change. Are we affecting the climate and if so how much – we don’t know.

    We should study these things BUT we should be OPEN MINDED on how we study them and not biased in our funding

  • Lee Stevenson

    @pzatchok, my argument is very much not a “straw man” argument…. My personal opinion probably matches the majority of posters here…

    However, where we do differ, is that I consider the outcome of the worst case scenario to be of a high enough probability that we should address the issue of anthropogenic climate change with urgency.

    Should we really just cruise along as we are doing, confident that we are right, and to hell with what our kids will have to deal with if we are wrong? Or would it not be better to consider the worst case scenario a genuine possibility, and try our best to minimise the risk of that outcome?

    The stakes are huge in this game. Perhaps the largest mankind has ever played. To be complacent in the belief that you are right and the climate activists are wrong, when the reality is we don’t actually know, is very much like playing russian roulette with our children’s future.

    I hope the chamber is empty. But I believe we should do everything we can to ensure they don’t even have to play.

  • Cotour

    Lee:

    Does your position on this subject justify destroying America in pursuit of that goal while all other mass polluters are given a pass in order to catch up? Because that is the overarching goal of those who propose these limitations. America is the problem in the world and it must be ham strung or completely eliminated.

    America has great power and potential in its population and its system of governance and would bury most every other economy / country if it were not hampered as it is. “America is the problem”, so the Left and the Globalists propose. Because that, America is the one thing that stands in their way to installing their Socialist agenda. You know, that Socialist life sucking and incentive destroying agenda that you do not want to see on Mars. But you seem to crave here on planet earth.

    That IMO is like standing in a pool and bailing water into that very same pool and saying you are emptying the pool. The action of just moving the water means nothing.

    America specifically as I understand has gone a long, long way to actually dialing down significantly its CO2 output and pollution. The Chinese and the Indians, not so much. They are exempted from the equation because of a classification.

    When you are serious about limiting CO2 and pollution across the board and can enforce it then you are serious. Until then its just political happy talk.

    And IMO what ever man does its the sun and its position related to the earth that determines what is what as far as climate on planet earth goes. How much does CO2 contribute to that equation? Probably some, but its that sun / earth relationship that tells the tale.

    IMO of course.

  • Cotour

    And if you and the “Environmentalists” were serious you would be crying for updated nuclear and or something like the ECAT to seriously produce power.

    But the issue of CO2 and fossil fuels has too much leverage in it to accomplish those other political agendas that desperately need to be fulfilled in the push for Socialism.

    What fascinates the Left or the weak minded about this Socialist model of operation? Why do they constantly harp on this issue? They want and need everyone to be “Equal” ? “Equal” does not ever get you to Mars, or any place else.

  • Cotour

    This appears to be someone and the organization that he and another young man manifested who is actually doing something related to pollution:

    https://youtu.be/-Tt88hdVCpo

    Political affiliations aside, I would have to and do support these efforts. I could do without the ceremonies and the “Your hero’s” / PR. But there is a plastics pollution issue in the oceans and rivers of the world and these young people appear to be taking action to help resolve it.

    And I am sure there are enough corporate contributors and government grant programs that make this all possible.

    So make it happen.

  • Questioner

    Cotour:

    Your extensive efforts to convince these people are in vain. That’s my impression.

    Lefts are left wing, because that is their attitude towards life (ultimately a feeling of inferiority). That is what is defended in the end, not the secondary convictions derived from it in the case of detailed questions. That is why their positions are defended down to the last across all contradictions.

  • pzatchok

    The true belief that man can in his ignorance destroy the planet and at the very same time believe mankind can save the planet with his brilliance.
    This is hubris. True total and complete hubris. Their own thought that they alone are smart enough to see this problem and they alone can save us.

    Its the same thing you see in the true believers of a religion.
    The difference is that with religious fanatics they have ways of saving you and are happy to tell you how to better live.
    The eco religion can not tell you exactly what they want you to do because then not a single person would follow them. They will never tell you that they really want all industry to be shut down. Mankind to go back to living in huts and foraging for food. That is their ultimate goal because anything less is not perfection.

    Lee for one wants us to give up all carbon fuels. All petroleum products.
    He wants us to go back to wind farms and hydro electric. Well hydro electric is very destructive to the river environment, just look at Chinas new super dam.
    Wind generators as yet do not produce more power than it took to manufacture them and then maintain them. The same with solar panels.

    Without power we will have no chemical industry. Without the chemical industry we would have no drug industry, No drug industry and ………

    And do you really think the eco fans will start advocating for more nuclear power plants? After Japan?

    Lets save the planet and start by moving all the eco fans New Zealand and then shutting off the power.
    At least until they come up with a real plan to save us.

  • Lee Stevenson

    Ok, good morning from Sweden Guys…. I will work backwards.

    @pzatchok, quote… “Lee for one wants us to give up all carbon fuels. All petroleum products.
    He wants us to go back to wind farms and hydro electric. “.
    No. I believe that petroleum products for power production are both dangerous and non sustainable. Nuclear is without a doubt the way forward, preferably a decentralised system, small, container sized thorium reactors scattered everywhere. Difficult to send the system down with an internet attack, clean and green.
    You love putting words into my mouth. Stop projecting what you “THINK” I think please.

  • Lee Stevenson

    @Cotour , quote “Does your position on this subject justify destroying America?”…..

    What do I care? I live in Sweden!

    ( I’m only joking! So calm down everyone…. )

    However, it is important to understand that the world does not end at your east and west coasts. America is part of the problem, not the problem itself. So is the rest of the world.

    I actually put.my money where my mouth is, and buy my electricity from a provider that supplies only wind, solar and hydroelectric produced electricity. It costs a few crowns more each month, and I realize that my contribution is very small, but if everyone was at least given the chance to do the same ( I realize you USAians very often don’t have the option) , it would help.

    As “Civilized” countries, we have the obligation to lead by example. China is committed to cutting out carbon production, mostly by moving to nuclear, India has ways to go, but given incentives and help, I’m sure they could get there. It’s the incentives and help that WE should provide. We built our first world no economies on “dirty” power, ( in more ways than one… ), And I believe we owe a debt on our power and success to poorer countries to help them join us in the first world.

    Helping them convert to cleaner power generation is a genuine “win win” situation. And no destroying of America, ( or more correct, the USA) needed.

  • Lee Stevenson

    Right, my children are arriving at mine in around an hour, I don’t know if I have ever mentioned, but I am a 50% single father… I have joint custody of them, so I have cleaning to do, and washing to collect from the communal laundry.
    My boy has autumn break next week, so he’s coming to work with me for a week, it’s good that he gets chance to earn some money during his break, and he likes the cash… Little capitalist that he is.
    I get my ( roughly ) 25 bucks single parent rent rebate, and 100 bucks child allowance tomorrow, ( 1st of the month), which is nice, and a help. Someone here once expressed disgust that I claim benefits when working. I never got around to explaining that the whole point of paying 33% tax is that it trickles back. I took more than I gave while my kids were in state funded daycare, although said daycare meant I could work. Now I pay more than I receive directly, although the streets are clean, the roads, and the parks are well maintained, my kids have education which will not leave them with crippling debt, and the trains mostly run on time. Public transport here in Stockholm is awesome, I pay about $140 a month and can get anywhere in the city in less than an hour. Oh, and the whole system runs on clean energy. Biogas for the busses, and clean electricity for the tubes and trains.
    All in all, I have a pretty bloody good life. With a low carbon footprint. It’s actually not rocket science. If you really try hard USA, you could too!
    ( Love and lit!)

  • wayne

    Lee–

    The Life of Julia (2012)
    (The life of a slave in modern America)
    https://youtu.be/iZ5RLwu9-eM
    21:46

  • Cotour

    Lee:

    My only issue with your position is that what is proposed as a World Wide Governing system by those on the Left is a “In the future you will own nothing, and you will be happy” model. And they clearly state that intent to run every life on the planet.

    The agenda that you are by default support strives to literally own you. I am just not on board with that, as wonderful as that sounds to some.

  • Trent Castanaveras

    Lee:
    Thank you for sharing a bit about your life :)

    I too agree that fossil fuels are a dead end technology. The math is easy-

    finite resources = resources running out

    I live in Wisconsin (for the moment). The Knapp, Stout and Co. company was formed in 1846 to log off the state’s ubiquitous forests. They clear-cut vast swaths, enormous teams harvesting enormous trees, running lumber mills full bore… right up until they ran out of trees in 1901 and closed up shop, abruptly laying off the entire workforce. Although the company helped a significant number of their workers set up farms in the now cleared areas, many were left without employment or home.

    The lesson: What we do as a civilization must be sustainable. Political idiocies and power moves based on bad/corrupt science aside, individually we all should still be doing the right things.

    My next vehicle will be a Tesla Model Y. The upfront investment is excessive, but cost of ownership beats any ICE vehicle over just 4 years. My next house will have solar with battery storage. Again, expensive initially, but break even with traditional utility cost in less than 30 years.

    Energy independence! For as long as the sun shines. So, basically forever.

    Solving the climate power grab dilemma is a far worse issue. Religions are a hard nut to crack.

  • Questioner

    Why not produce synthetic fuel from waste heat from power plants? it is possible.

    Solar and wind power are not reliably available and have to be “harvested” with great technical effort and expense. That is why I propose to rely heavily on new forms of nuclear energy (electricity production costs of 1-2 euro cents / kWh), such as the thorium reactors, which rule out a so-called MCA (maximum credible accident) and whose nuclear waste only needs decades to decay.

  • James Street

    Nothing says “man-made” global warming is real like taking 800 staffers in an 85 limousine motorcade to a “man-made” global warming summit.

    Biden tours Rome with 85-vehicle motorcade ahead of ‘climate’ summit
    https://nypost.com/2021/10/29/joe-biden-sees-rome-with-85-car-motorcade-before-climate-summit/

  • Lee Stevenson

    @ Cotour, I have absolutely no idea what the point you are trying to make in your last post is??? I have never proposed a world government or not owning things…. A worldwide agreement to reduce CO2 emissions would be a fantastic thing, but what you say in your last post bares no resemblance to anything I have ever thought or said. Go drink a glass of water and rest your head a while.

  • Cotour

    “A worldwide agreement to reduce CO2 emissions would be a fantastic thing,”

    Its what is being arranged by the Leftists you live with and amongst and those in America who are all on board with it and that comes along with your good Swedish type life style that is what I am referring to.

    Everyone will have to surrender their autonomy and freedom to comply and realize all of these agendas.

    Now do you understand?

    (I like a nice lemon water, I drink 2 liters of it a day :)

  • Cotour

    Lee:

    If you disagree with my assessment then feel free to explain why.

    “G20 Members Commit to Carbon Neutrality ‘by or Around Mid-Century’”

    If however you are totally unaware of my point and in addition you can not refute my point then you make my point.

    And THAT is the problem.

  • Lee Stevenson

    @Trent. Welcome and thank you. I have no idea, or indeed interest in your political affiliation, but you are sure to be called out as a lefty because of your realistic and balanced viewpoint on this issue.

    ( I am genuinely trolling here…. Sorry folks, but shooting fish in a barrel is fun )

    It’s not hard to do the math tho… You can’t pump oil for ever, and there is a genuine chance, that is not zero, that continuing to burn fossil fuels will break the climate to the point where mankind suffers. One of the arguments presented here are that atmospheric CO2 levels have been higher in the past. This is true, but not during the age of Homosapien.
    It could all end up swimmingly, with greater crop yealds, and millions of square miles of currently frozen land becoming fertile.

    It could also go horribly wrong, there is a distinctly non-zero chance of a run away greenhouse effect, the frozen permafrost releasing massive amounts of methane as it thaws, and climate change causing mass migration of people towards the ever shrinking habitable areas of the globe. Water wars are already on the map…. I can, unfortunately, imagine a world where fresh, drinkable water is a luxury. If we ever reach this point, mankind is in trouble.

    It is so much easier to blame “the left” for causing panic, believe that the idea of climate change is.a leftist plot to bankrupt big oil, and sit back with the air conditioning on, than it is to own a tiny bit of responsibility, accept there is a clear and present danger to future generations, and perhaps do a little bit to help.

    It’s not always easy to know HOW to help… But it’s important to try… Take communal travel, of available. Buy carbon neutral power if you have the opportunity, recycle, don’t drive the V8 as your daily drive. Fly as little as possible, vote for politicians who are pushing for change….

    Or accept the status quo, and wait and see who was correct…. And hope and pray to which ever god you believe in that you were right. Because if you were wrong, you and yours have condemned our offspring to a hellish future.

  • Lee Stevenson

    @Cotour, no, I still do not understand your point, an I really don’t understand how you keep refering to wanting to address the rather urgent issue of climate change as “left”.

    I will grant you that there are all sorts of “left” points that deserve a conversation, but the possible, ( no matter how low the odds in your view… If they are more than zero it’s a possible ) chance of us messing up the climate to a point it becomes dangerous to mankind, is surely bi-partisan?

    I see no “surrendering of autonomy”, no one is trying to take your guns away… Just as the banning of CFC’S in the 80s stopped the growth of the hole in the ozone layer, a massive reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, by multinational consent, could prevent all sorts of pain for your and my children.

    It could all be smoke and mirrors, I could be completely wrong, you could be correct, Bob could be correct, it could all be a false panic. But when the stakes are so high, and the genuine cost of moving away from fossil fuels ( which we will have to do anyway at some point ) is so low….. The answer regarding what to do is a no brainer…..

  • Cotour

    ” a massive reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, by multinational consent, could prevent all sorts of pain for your and my children.”

    The term “Multi national consent” is my point. Its interesting that you use the word “Consent”. You appear to subliminally use their own terms of ownership over you in your argument.

    In trade for that “Consent” you, your children, their children and everyone else will be trading away their freedom and sovereignty. That is what you are unable to understand. When the Left, the World Economic Forum says that you will own nothing, and you will be happy. They mean it, believe them.

    You equate that surrender with the promoted “perceived” befits. And I think you would have to agree that by well know and understood facts everything that the Left promotes and pushes as being essential is always demonstrated to be at the minimum a half truth, or at the max just a plain outright lie and a manipulation. You do see that, right?

    So given that we agree with that assessment now calculate what in the end will be the actual result of their, and your, efforts.

    The issue “Climate Change” / “Global warming” is in the end but a tool of manipulation and control. Clean up the environment, dial down the use of dirty technologies, etc, etc. , 100 percent, that is reasonable.

    To have to get “Consent” from a bunch of control freak Leftists is but an exercise in insanity and self delusion. You need to understand this essential point Lee.

  • Edward

    Trent Castanaveras,
    You wrote: “My next vehicle will be a Tesla Model Y. The upfront investment is excessive, but cost of ownership beats any ICE vehicle over just 4 years. My next house will have solar with battery storage. Again, expensive initially, but break even with traditional utility cost in less than 30 years.

    Unfortunately, that only means that your next car will be coal powered. The electricity must be generated somehow, and since solar, wind, and hydroelectric power sources produce at their maximums, the additional power for the electricity for your next car will still have to come from fossil fuels. Thus, you only move the fossil fuel usage from your engine to a far away power plant.

    Questioner asked: “Why not produce synthetic fuel from waste heat from power plants? it is possible.

    Possible, yes, but not practical. If it were practical then the same power plants would already be generating additional power from that waste heat.

    Solar and wind power are not reliably available and have to be ‘harvested’ with great technical effort and expense.

    Solar power plants set in Earth orbit, in the style that Gerard K. O’Neill desired, are still possible, and made from space materials they could possibly be practical. One day in the future we will work on it to find out.

  • pzatchok

    “Just as the banning of CFC’S in the 80s stopped the growth of the hole in the ozone layer,”

    This is an absolute lie.

    The ozone hole NEVER went away and in the 30 years since they have tracked it and found its a natural cycle connected to the sun. In fact this year as with a few past years the hole was actually larger than the continent its over.

  • pzatchok

    If your worried about melting glaciers read this.

    https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/2000-artifacts-pulled-edge-norways-melting-glaciers-180967949/

    Absolute proof glaciers were smaller 4,000 years ago. LONG before the industrial age.

  • pzatchok

    As for China’s promise to move to nuclear power production in 50 years it is because they do not have any oil wells and not enough coal to keep the lights on past that point.
    Their coal mines are already so deep that some miners have to go through decompression when leaving the mine.
    They are also the largest builders of coal fired power plants in the world.
    Until they actually run out of coal they plan on pumping out C)2 and heavy sulfur.
    But the eco fans are willing to let them off. They must not really care about the climate but really care about shutting down western society.

  • pzatchok

    As for peak oil.

    Its been estimated by CERA that peak oil will not be reached until 2075. Then we will have another 100 years of oil production as it declines to 0 on the backside of the bell curve.

    And none of this includes reductions in need by increasing tech advances.

    For me this means we have about 150 years to develop and put into production Fusion reactors. Longer if we embrace fission reactors first and start building them now. We need about 1 per million people in the USA.

    Get the eco fans to back off and start promoting nuclear power and we could push out our need for fusion by a few hundred years, and clean things up at the same time.

  • Trent Castanaveras

    Edward:

    Nope.

    https://mn.my.xcelenergy.com/s/energy-portfolio/power-generation

    As much as I despise Xcel’s money grubbing from their consumers, they lead the sustainable energy transition in my area. Like a responsible corporation should.

    Besides that, Tesla Solar Roof installations easily power a modest house and electric vehicle, with power to sell back to the grid. You neglected to read that part, maybe.

  • Trent Castanaveras

    Edward:
    “Solar power plants set in Earth orbit, in the style that Gerard K. O’Neill desired, are still possible, and made from space materials they could possibly be practical. ”

    Try out the math on that sometime. The business case doesn’t come anywhere near closing. Best case efficiency losses require truly enormous installations. Translate: ridiculously expensive. Why not just use solar panels on earth? Cover every roof; it’s wasted space anyway, and it’d be overkill for our projected power needs for the foreseeable future.

    That won’t happen, of course, not that specifically. Future energy will continue being a mix of solutions for a long while to come.

    On the same hand, powering orbital O’Neill style habitats, smelters, and heavy industry with solar power generation in space is totally doable. Even more so using space resources like asteroids and such.

  • Trent Castanaveras

    And none of my comments are to say that I am supportive of the global politicized “climate change” agenda.. These are my choices. I’ve done the research; for me personally these solutions make sense, economically and morally.

    Besides, Teslas are wicked cool. What’s not to like?

  • Lee, thanks for the volcano link.

    If climate change is THE issue, the argument for nuking China and India back to the stone age is compelling. Not only will we prevent all the CO2 from being released, the “nuclear winter” will cool the planet. Think of all the lives SAVED!

    If climate change is THE issue, then why are the people pushing it the ones flying the most? It’s the age of Zoom, after all.

    I’ll believe it is an existential threat when the people telling me so act like it. Flying in circles on private jets screaming, “OMG! The sky is falling!” is not acting like it.

    BTW: It is too soon for economic arguments – pro or con – about space-based solar. It’s far enough away that major technological change is likely – particularly in automated construction. If we have to build square kilometers of solar arrays with people, it will be expensive. If we can have a swarm of robots do it from robotically extracted lunar materials, it _may_ not be. We’ll have to wait and see.

  • BLSinSC

    If the hypocritical libers REALLY cared about “global warming”, they would not have multiple houses, big cars, private jets, yachts, and all the other exorbitant possessions! It’s NOT about “saving the planet” – it’s about money, graft, and CONTROL! If the “world” really wants to be serious about reducing “greenhouse gases” and pollution, then the “world” should remove all production of products from China! Move your businesses to a CLEAN country and viola, you’ve SOLVED the main issue!! We in SC are going to experience our own “climate change”!! It’s called FALL into WINTER! Our days of mid/upper 70’s are turning into mid 50’s for the next week! ICE AGE IS A COMING!! People should know that carbon DIoxide is an IMPORTANT part of plants and subsequently, LIVING! Without out CO2, plants cannot survive. If plants don’t survive then animals don’t survive. If animals don’t survive then PEOPLE don’t survive! (don’t throw in the vegetarians since they’ll all go with the death of plants)! I have a theory on why CA has become such a wildfire hellhole! It’s partly due to mismanaged forests but also mismanaged water usage! Rather than have green, lush valleys with needed agriculture, CA greatly restricted water supply and those areas dried up! Now those nice green plants are not growing and returning moisture to the air. The ground once covered by those plants just keeps getting hotter and dryer! The air is less moisture saturated so less rainfall! It’s a vicious cycle! Throw in the lack of CA leadership to ADD water storage to handle their massive influx of illegals and it’s all MULTIPLIED! You want to “save the planet”? Then stop electing destructive democrats!

  • Edward

    Trent Castanaveras,
    You wrote: “Why not just use solar panels on earth? Cover every roof; it’s wasted space anyway, and it’d be overkill for our projected power needs for the foreseeable future.

    Now it is time for you to “Try out the math on that sometime.” The solar cells themselves eventually recoup the energy needed to make them, but the energy that goes into building the structures that hold them is still more than the energy that the cells generate.

    BLSinSC is correct when he says: “It’s NOT about ‘saving the planet’ – it’s about money, graft, and CONTROL!” A tremendous amount to energy is used and CO2 generated making wind turbines and solar panels and the structures for both. What is seen is the energy they develop; what is not seen is the energy and CO2 emissions to make them.

  • Star Bird

    All the Private Jets arriving in Glasgow let us measure their Carbon Footprints lets use Football Fields

  • Michael S. Kelly

    I recall that right after 9/11, when air traffic was not only reduced, but halted completely, “scientists” studied the effect on global temperatures. They found a “definite” signature of some kind. What it was, I can’t recall, but suffice it to say that it “supported” the entire CAGW narrative. It might be worth someone going back to the literature in the 2002+ time frame to see what they wrote. I have no interest in doing so, since science has become nothing but leftist propaganda over the past 30 years.

  • Trent Castanaveras

    Edward:

    I do love math.

    https://academy.dualsun.com/hc/en-us/articles/360005303359-What-is-the-environmental-cost-of-solar-panels-

    So, you seem to be parroting the anti-eco arguments without fact checking the real life results. I agree, manufacturing solar panels is dirty, lots of toxic aftermath. When Starship comes online, and the following reusable efforts, we should move that manufacturing offworld. But the bulk of your statement concerning return on energy and CO2 footprint is wrong.

  • Trent Castanaveras

    Edward:
    Wait…
    You’re saying that a roof is too carbon/energy intensive to recoup with solar cells? A ROOF?

    I honestly don’t know how to respond to that. So, I’ll guide you to the installation page.

    https://www.tesla.com/solarroof

  • Trent Castanaveras

    And to show the bits under the solar glass by someone not affiliated with Tesla:

    https://youtu.be/BrGnJkZXBPI

    It’s a roof.

  • Chris

    I left this thread a few days ago. My has it grown.
    I see a lot of assumption that we know what is going on with the climate. Really?
    Tell me how you know:
    – the temperature of the planet – now and in the past (10, 50, 100 years) If you don’t know this you know very little.
    – the heat/energy sources that feed the climate of the planet and how they have varied over time and how that variance affected the climate – global and local climate.

    If you can’t answer these questions – with deep undeniable data – AND you can’t, well you can’t show a problem.
    Therefore, there is no reason to argue where to bring new energy from. Bring it from the most efficient source that does not cause pollution (CO2 in not pollution). These are probably oil and natural gas with a well controlled nuclear industry as well.

  • Edward

    Trent Castanaveras,
    Despite the math you love but didn’t do, you have confused roofs with the structure required to hold the solar panels to the roof. You have confused a sales brochure for real world results, parroting the anti-anti-eco arguments. (Are people with realistic views of the ecosystem really “anti-eco?”) All you have shown me is the “what is seen” part but not the “what is not seen” part. I wasn’t even talking about the environmental damage part, so maybe that could be added into the equation before you crank the handle on the math, in order to consider the eco-unfriendly parts of the green technology industry.

    So far, most Earth based solar energy helps develop more efficient methods or is used for virtue signaling. The virtue signalers do not work very hard on the first one, because they are not as interested in the actual ecological factors as they say that they are.

    Engineering is the discipline of turning fantasy into reality. You are still in the fantasy world, but the things you dream of continue to get closer to the actual break even point. We may eventually get there.

  • Trent Castanaveras

    Edward:
    You’re going to have to provide references. Just saying things doesn’t make them fact.

    And in the meantime, when the lights go out you can head over to my place and watch movies with me when that “fantasy” is installed on my roof. :)

  • Trent Castanaveras

    Edward:
    Here, I’ll get that started for you:

    https://cleantechnica.com/2019/08/08/an-inside-look-at-the-components-that-go-into-a-tesla-solar-roof-installation/

    The unseen is now seen. That’s how you back up words with demonstrable data.

    You’ve moved the goalposts three times that I showed your statements unfounded in data, and now ended on a vague hand wave. At this point I am honestly curious to see if there is a hidden aspect to this whole solar thing that I’ve missed in months of research. Whatcha got?

  • Trent Castanaveras

    Chris:
    Absolutely agree on all points. Bad and corrupted science drives the political climate agenda; it clearly has nothing to do with actual climate, just power, control and money mongering.

    A few years ago we had a cold winter. As the temperature plunged coming into December, the local energy co-op declared that they had “run out” of propane; filling my tank would cost me beyond 8x the baseline, then raised prices beyond that. We broke our record for consecutive days below 0 F that winter, and I learned a valuable lesson.

    When you rely on others for essential aspects of life, they have control over you. Because of things like this, energy independence became particularly attractive to me.

    I am no treehugger. I love my chainsaw. I don’t ascribe to the environmental movement’s goals, either from the actual ecologists or the political power/control/money grab folks. In fact, Edward, I wholeheartedly agree with the intent behind your statements. But that doesn’t mean I throw the baby out with the bathwater. I do the things that make sense for me and mine. Especially when they’re high in the cool factor like Tesla products.

    I choose to cut the cord. Others will do what works for them.

  • Edward

    Trent Castanaveras,
    You wrote: “You’re going to have to provide references. Just saying things doesn’t make them fact.

    Except when you say them, of course, because your “references” failed to back up what you said. Meanwhile, I was just sayin’. I have no illusions that I can persuade you at all, or that you would believe any reference that I provided (it would be an effort of futility), so if you really want to know, it is always better when you do your own research. But you have to research what I said, not what you want to believe, which you believe without anyone having provided you references. They, too were just sayin’, and you just ate it up.

    And in the meantime, when the lights go out you can head over to my place and watch movies with me when that “fantasy” is installed on my roof. :)

    I didn’t say that solar does not work. It seems that you forget what the discussion is, so it is no wonder that you’re having trouble with your references. Your latest link was yet another brochure that failed to provide information on either the energy used in the production or the ecological cost due to the eco-unfriendly parts of the green technology they use. That which is unseen remains a mystery.

    You’ve moved the goalposts three times that I showed your statements unfounded in data, and now ended on a vague hand wave.

    My goalpost has always been and remains the energy used to make the support hardware. The only change in goalpost was at your own suggestion: “I agree, manufacturing solar panels is dirty, lots of toxic aftermath.

    I have no idea where you imagine the goalposts to be, which could be another reason why you are having such a difficult time making your point. It had seemed that you are wondering aimlessly all over the field, but perhaps it is just that you have a different goal in mind. The cheerleaders do seem to be a distraction.

    I do the things that make sense for me and mine. Especially when they’re high in the cool factor like Tesla products.

    Unlike America’s Big Three auto makers, Tesla does seem to be attempting to improve efficiency and to push forward the technology rather than just be a virtue signal or just to comply with mandatory requirements on electrical fleets. But this yet another different goalpost.

  • Max

    “Over the past 250 years, humans have added just one part of CO2 in 10,000 to the atmosphere. One volcanic cough can do this in a day”.
    https://www.abc.net.au/news/2009-08-13/29320

Readers: the rules for commenting!

 

No registration is required. I welcome all opinions, even those that strongly criticize my commentary.

 

However, name-calling and obscenities will not be tolerated. First time offenders who are new to the site will be warned. Second time offenders or first time offenders who have been here awhile will be suspended for a week. After that, I will ban you. Period.

 

Note also that first time commenters as well as any comment with more than one link will be placed in moderation for my approval. Be patient, I will get to it.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *