Mainstream Environmentalists are far worse on the climate than any climate change skeptic

[SouthernDude]

Every mainstream environmental group has told me that they knew about climate change and what caused it since the 60s. The risk of other emissions was pretty well known at the time too. Yet every single mainstream environmental group was opposed to all forms of nuclear energy when, at the time, it was the only viable form of non-emitting energy source. (When I say all forms of nuclear, I mean they wanted and still want a complete blanket ban on nuclear energy or they call for regulations that would never allow for nuclear to be viable.)

This leads me to three conclusions:

1. These groups are lying about the claim of knowing about climate change or how bad it would be during the 60s-80s. This is because it is clear that the risk of climate change is far greater than whatever assumed risk is attributable to nuclear. I guess this is in order to manipulate young people like me to do what they want.

2. They are terrible at evaluating risk because they assumed that the risk of nuclear energy is far greater than climate change and the other emissions from fossil fuels, when the evidence shows that this clearly isn't the case.

3. The mainstream environmentalists understood the actual risk of climate change and understood how extremely low the risk of using nuclear energy is, but still opposed the use of nuclear energy for purely ideological reasons.

All of these conclusions demonstrate that the actions mainstream environmentalists clearly resulted in the drastic increase of cumulative emissions in the US because coal was used instead of nuclear and it demonstrates that they are either deceptive about what they claim to have known in the past, utterly incompetent at evaluating risk, or they are outright misanthropes.

Why should I trust these people and why should I not push back at whatever they want for the energy system? I don't trust them

 

[R P]

Over the years, not hard to become skeptical of climate alarmists. Really funny that back in the 70's and early 80's biggest fear was global cooling.
https://www.creators.com/read/walter-williams/05/08/environmentalists-wild-predictions
https://cei.org/blog/wrong-again-50-years-of-failed-eco-pocalyptic-predictions/

And the latest is that the world was supposed to end in 12 years if we don't stop using fossil fuels by then. That's what prompted the New Green Deal by the Dems. The time left now is actually only about 9 years.
https://thehill.com/policy/energy-e...world-will-end-in-12-years-if-we-dont-address

 

[bwilson4web]

Sea level change will solve the problem. Raise it 1 meter and there will be a great awaking. After 2 meters, Mar-a-Lago will be underwater and the 'King Canute' problems will be solved.

Bob Wilson

 

[SouthernDude]

Over the years, not hard to become skeptical of climate alarmists. Really funny that back in the 70's and early 80's biggest fear was global cooling.
https://www.creators.com/read/walter-williams/05/08/environmentalists-wild-predictions
https://cei.org/blog/wrong-again-50-years-of-failed-eco-pocalyptic-predictions/

What's crazy to me about this is how mainstream environmentalists deny this even occurred. The mainstream media has never done a good job representing any science, so why was this said now about the media claimed then? Instead, the mainstream environmentalists just lie and deny that there were articles about global cooling.

They behave like they want to cover something up then get surprised that people believe that they are. Goes back to why I don't trust them.

And the latest is that the world was supposed to end in 12 years if we don't stop using fossil fuels by then. That's what prompted the New Green Deal by the Dems. The time left now is actually only about 9 years.

Well, science 'denial' (utterly manipulative word for this, but I didn't come up with it) goes both ways. I would argue that people who greatly exaggerate the risk of climate change have caused more people to be climate skeptics than any supposed 'big oil' propaganda. Of course you can't expect any honest engagement from the left there.

I have tons of friends that are climate skeptics and when you boil down to why it almost always stems from the claims of exaggerators never coming true, the observation that mainstream environmentalists don't support nuclear or any other sensible measures, the extreme hypocrisy of the people saying that something needs to be done (eg carbon intensive travel to climate conferences instead of doing online video chats), concern that the stated goals won't actually work (eg 100% wind water and solar), and concern that climate change is just an excuse to impose tyranny (not wrong really). All of these reasons are completely due to the insanity that comes from mainstream environmentalists and the people who never criticize them.

 

[SouthernDude]

Sea level change will solve the problem. Raise it 1 meter and there will be a great awaking. After 2 meters, Mar-a-Lago will be underwater and the 'King Canute' problems will be solved.

Bob Wilson

Yeah, like maybe next century will a 3 foot rise in global sea levels happen, but it certainly isn't happening during the rest of your miserable lifespan.

 

[R P]

I have tons of friends that are climate skeptics and when you boil down to why it almost always stems from the claims of exaggerators never coming true, the observation that mainstream environmentalists don't support nuclear or any other sensible measures, the extreme hypocrisy of the people saying that something needs to be done (eg carbon intensive travel to climate conferences instead of doing online video chats), concern that the stated goals won't actually work (eg 100% wind water and solar), and concern that climate change is just an excuse to impose tyranny (not wrong really). All of these reasons are completely due to the insanity that comes from mainstream environmentalists and the people who never criticize them.

This is so true. I was young back then and they had me scared. Esp living in Canada, global cooling and risk of another ice age was not a good thing. I was so glad when we finally started to hear about global warming in the 90s...

So now, I just don't believe anything the media says anymore. I just do my own research and look at the real science and past history of the earth. From what I understand we are far from when the earth was in its warm periods, with higher ocean levels. I think it is much easier to adapt to global warming, or put another way, the recovery from the last ice age, than going back deeper into another ice age.

 

[SouthernDude]

This is so true. I was young back then and they had me scared. Esp living in Canada, global cooling and risk of another ice age was not a good thing. I was so glad when we finally started to hear about global warming in the 90s...

So now, I just don't believe anything the media says anymore. I just do my own research and look at the real science and past history of the earth. From what I understand we are far from when the earth was in its warm periods, with higher ocean levels. I think it is much easier to adapt to global warming, or put another way, the recovery from the last ice age, than going back deeper into another ice age.

I remember watching An Inconvenient Truth in one of my science classes in highschool. Al Gore presented data in such an emotionally manipulative way that I decided that people pushing for immediate action were all probably liars who were exaggerating the risk of climate change. Turns out it wasn't a bad call.

Realistically, there are multiple reasons for wanting to move away from fossil fuels - especially coal - that aren't climate related. The certainly would not have ended up with as much coal as it did if mainstream environmentalists didn't do everything they could to kill the nuclear industry. Large container ships and cruise ships could already be powered by nuclear energy, like the nuclear subs and air craft carriers are, but environmentalists will ban this over neo-con levels of fabricated terrorism risks. Not to mention how much industrial heating could be performed by nuclear too. Emissions could dramatically drop if environmentalists got out of the way.

 

[bwilson4web]

miserable

1. There are three effective vaccines available from pre-teens through seniors.
2. Monoclonal antibody infusion works if applied early enough.
3. Covid testing kits available over the counter with rapid results.
4. Stores have masked staff and most customers.
5. Moving away from others in public is readily accepted.
6. Trump, DeSantis, and Ron Paul have promoted bogus meds and bad public health practices.
7. Russia followed their own false advice which the conservatives have swallowed.
8. Schadefreude at COVID patients following your advice.

The only thing more miserable is finding the COVID-19 facts and data are readily available. Apparently this 'owns' the lying (or deluded) conservatives and FOX.

Bob Wilson

 

[SouthernDude]

1. There are three effective vaccines available from pre-teens through seniors.
2. Monoclonal antibody infusion works if applied early enough.
3. Covid testing kits available over the counter with rapid results.
4. Stores have masked staff and most customers.
5. Moving away from others in public is readily accepted.
6. Trump, DeSantis, and Ron Paul have promoted bogus meds and bad public health practices.
7. Russia followed their own false advice which the conservatives have swallowed.
8. Schadefreude at COVID patients following your advice.

The only thing more miserable is finding the COVID-19 facts and data are readily available. Apparently this 'owns' the lying (or deluded) conservatives and FOX.

Bob Wilson

oh please, all you have done with the covid stuff is present misleading data then accuse me of doing the same. You are trying to change the topic because you know I am right about mainstream environmentalists.

 

[bwilson4web]

For current, accurate environmental data, with citations to original sources, I recommend:

https://skepticalscience.com

No only do they collect credible reports of leading climate change research, they also study skeptics like @SouthernDude , another climate symptom.

At one time there was a user "Mojo" over at PriusChat who shared @SouthernDude views. I was confused why empirical research had no effect. But SkepticalScience resolved the confusion along with Proverbs citations about 'fool.' I soon realized trying to give @SouthernDude a clue is a waste of time ... and I'm not posting for him.

I'm posting facts and data so anyone who sees @SouthernDude posting has another path to observational, empirical, peer reviewed data. If they choose to follow @SoutherDude propaganda, shame on them and you. But at least they have had a chance to deal with reality.

Bob Wilson

 

[SouthernDude]

For current, accurate environmental data, with citations to original sources, I recommend:

https://skepticalscience.com

No only do they collect credible reports of leading climate change research, they also study skeptics like @SouthernDude , another climate symptom.

I just listed reasons why there are people who are skeptical about human caused climate change. I am not a climate skeptic (or denier according to your manipulative language). I just recognize that climate change as an issue isn't really going to bear itself out until late this century or early next century. This isn't misleading in any way. Geez.

I was confused why empirical research had no effect.

Says the guy who literally cannot engage with a single fact that doesn't comport with his materialistic, political religion.

I'm posting facts and data so anyone who sees @SouthernDude posting has another path to observational, empirical, peer reviewed data. If they choose to follow @SoutherDude propaganda, shame on them and you. But at least they have had a chance to deal with reality.

All you do is slander me and provide zero substance to as of why I am wrong. You are the only propagandist here.

Based on this response here, I take it that you have no argument against my observations on mainstream environmentalists.

 

[SouthernDude]

For current, accurate environmental data, with citations to original sources, I recommend:

https://skepticalscience.com

No only do they collect credible reports of leading climate change research, they also study skeptics like @SouthernDude , another climate symptom.

At one time there was a user "Mojo" over at PriusChat who shared @SouthernDude views. I was confused why empirical research had no effect. But SkepticalScience resolved the confusion along with Proverbs citations about 'fool.' I soon realized trying to give @SouthernDude a clue is a waste of time ... and I'm not posting for him.

I'm posting facts and data so anyone who sees @SouthernDude posting has another path to observational, empirical, peer reviewed data. If they choose to follow @SoutherDude propaganda, shame on them and you. But at least they have had a chance to deal with reality.

Bob Wilson

https://skepticalscience.com/sea-level-rise-predictions-basic.htm

"Sea levels are rising faster now than in the previous century, and could rise between 50cm to 1.5 metres by 2100"

Even your precious little website agrees with my earlier claim about sea level rise. This just proves that you either have no clue what you are talking about or you are knowingly slandering me because you can't allow anyone to disagree with you.

Keep trying Bob. Maybe you'll actually say something correct before you die.

 

[R P]

Yes, no secret sea levels have been rising and earth is warming, unlike what the climate scientists were telling us back in the 70s. We are recovering from the last "little ice age", and still have a ways to go. But the long term trend is still cooling. So let us not fool ourselves by thinking we can bring back another ice age by stopping the use of all fossil fuels. Instead of just trying to stop nature (futile), we should be putting our energy into adapting. Eg, don't build houses and cities at or below sea level. We have enough higher ground available to avoid that.

 

[bwilson4web]

Some of my favorite sources:

• https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2021/us/covid-cases.html (paywall) - fairly complete set of COVID maps and metrics. Agrees with the Johns Hopkins maps.
  
• https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/map.html (open) - another set of maps that provide more geographic than disease metrics.
  
• https://www.cdc.gov (open) - although searching can seem obscure, it has answers to our current understanding.

As for Internet postings, we know:

Be skeptical as we know enemies of our country and people post nonsense and propaganda.

Bob Wilson

 

[SouthernDude]

what the climate scientists were telling us back in the 70s.

In my mind, I always separate what the media says from actual good science. I haven't read any climate studies from the 60s or 70s, so I have no clue what was being said then. I know that the media almost always gets the reporting on science wrong, so I find it very surprising that the approach to the media articles in the past is to deny that it ever happened. This type of deception makes people skeptical about the claims of climate change. It would be far more accurate to say that the media at the time didn't know what they are doing and encourage people to read primary sources (i.e. the studies themselves) rather than rely on the media to interpret it for them. But this doesn't happen. Very odd.

But the long term trend is still cooling.

I am curious about this claim. I haven't read enough studies to really understand historical trends. Biggest issue I have with those graphs is the lack of error bars - especially when the methods to put all that data together may be different. I would like to know more about the warming periods that happened during human history. That seems like it would be interesting to look at. I've mostly just looked at how an energy transition would work because I found that more interesting.

putting our energy into adapting

This makes more sense in general. There is no guarantee that a bunch of volcanoes won't start erupting in the future to offset any reductions in emissions. That is a threat that is 10k years out though, but still something to think about.

don't build houses and cities at or below sea level.

In the US, FEMA pretty much guarantees that people will not stop doing that. it would be just as effective to build flood resistant homes too. Stuff like this is why I'm against national building standards. Different regions of the country have different conditions to adapt for.

 

[SouthernDude]

Some of my favorite sources:

• https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2021/us/covid-cases.html (paywall) - fairly complete set of COVID maps and metrics. Agrees with the Johns Hopkins maps.
  
• https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/map.html (open) - another set of maps that provide more geographic than disease metrics.
  
• https://www.cdc.gov (open) - although searching can seem obscure, answers to our current understanding.

As for Internet postings, we know:

Be skeptical as we know enemies of our country and people post nonsense and propaganda.

Bob Wilson

Ok. It's clear now that you have nothing to say against my observations of mainstream environmentalists.

 

[bwilson4web]

A funny thing is trying to link Global Warming or being 'green' with owning an EV or Prius. I prefer to advocate saving money (i.e., 'greenback Yankee dollar'.)

My Model 3 is about 1/3d the cost per mile, ~$0.025/mile, compared to our former Prius, ~$0.075 per mile. The Prius was easily 1/2 the cost per mile of a typical ICE vehicle. This pays immediate dividends but there are more savings in avoiding maintenance costs.

We no longer do an oil change and air filter twice per year. The brakes don't wear out, no PVC valve, and no spark plug replacements. We don't have to clean the throttle body or worry about the catalytic converter. There is no transmission oil to monitor or clutch wear. With just under two orders of magnitude fewer moving parts, there is less that can break. Then there is the pure luxury of EV driving.

It is quiet so even at highway speeds, no increase in speaking volume. There is no vibration, especially noticed stopped at a light. Floor the accelerator and takeoff is instant and strong. All of luxury features are built-in to our EV.

So I'm not really motivated by Global Warming to own an EV. EV car technology stands by itself.

Bob Wilson

 

[R P]

I am curious about this claim. I haven't read enough studies to really understand historical trends. Biggest issue I have with those graphs is the lack of error bars - especially when the methods to put all that data together may be different. I would like to know more about the warming periods that happened during human history. That seems like it would be interesting to look at. I've mostly just looked at how an energy transition would work because I found that more interesting.

Look at the graphs from my previous posting. It depends what you call long term. I was thinking millions of years, but even the 10,000 year graph still shows we are in a cooling trend. But of course since the last "Little Ice Age", just a few hundred years ago we are warming. Still a long ways from reaching the last warm peak (Medieval Warming) less than a 1000 years ago. And yes, volcanoes can have a very major effect. And of course, asteroids even greater.

Not sure what exactly happened during the Medieval Warming period, but it was quite a spike. I very much doubt it was man made.

It is hard to find this stuff with just googling, as big tech tries to hide those facts and keeps sticking current junk science in your face. They are complicit with the media to support the climate alarmists.

 

[R P]

A funny thing is trying to link Global Warming or being 'green' with owning an EV or Prius. I prefer to advocate saving money (i.e., 'greenback Yankee dollar'.)

My Model 3 is about 1/3d the cost per mile, ~$0.025/mile, compared to our former Prius, ~$0.075 per mile. The Prius was easily 1/2 the cost per mile of a typical ICE vehicle. This pays immediate dividends but there are more savings in avoiding maintenance costs.

We no longer do an oil change and air filter twice per year. The brakes don't wear out, no PVC valve, and no spark plug replacements. We don't have to clean the throttle body or worry about the catalytic converter. There is no transmission oil to monitor or clutch wear. With just under two orders of magnitude fewer moving parts, there is less that can break. Then there is the pure luxury of EV driving.

It is quiet so even at highway speeds, no increase in speaking volume. There is no vibration, especially noticed stopped at a light. Floor the accelerator and takeoff is instant and strong. All of luxury features are built-in to our EV.

So I'm not really motivated by Global Warming to own an EV. EV car technology stands by itself.

Bob Wilson

Yes, I very much support the move to EVs, because I like clean air and less noise, plus I agree it can save money, too, for some.

 

[SouthernDude]

Look at the graphs from my previous posting. It depends what you call long term. I was thinking millions of years, but even the 10,000 year graph still shows we are in a cooling trend. But of course since the last "Little Ice Age", just a few hundred years ago we are warming. Still a long ways from reaching the last warm peak (Medieval Warming) less than a 1000 years ago. And yes, volcanoes can have a very major effect. And of course, asteroids even greater.

Long term to me means 10k years to millions of years. I am just curious to what things were like during warming periods in human history if it was warmer then than it is now. Not sure how much I believe that though. I am always skeptical of graphs with no error bars - especially when the methods of obtaining the data are all different.

Not sure what exactly happened during the Medieval Warming period, but it was quite a spike. I very much doubt it was man made.

lol. yep. If it is true, that spike would certainly be caused by some other set of factors.

It is hard to find this stuff with just googling, as big tech tries to hide those facts and keeps sticking current junk science in your face. They are complicit with the media to support the climate alarmists.

Use the search engine Duck Duck Go https://duckduckgo.com/. They generally do not manipulate and censor like google does. I think it is based on Bing's indexing, but I'm not entirely too sure.

It is a shame that no civil discourse on this topic is really allowed to happen on mainstream platforms.