Climate Change 2022: Mitigation of Climate Change

So, people should believe YOU and consider these 400 or so climate science organizations as all being total liars??? Or, what???

You think YOU are that good??

https://www.opr.ca.gov/facts/list-of-scientific-organizations.html

 

In the words of Henry George, "In nothing trust to me." I hope that people will do their best to figure out for themselves who is telling the truth, based on what they know for certain to be true.

I think people should think for themselves, and reach their judgements based on fact and logic, as I do.

 

"Meet the new boss. Same as the old boss."

Colonialism Reappears in Africa with a Woke New Spin
Guest Blogger
Climate colonialism threatens to usher in a period of sustained poverty, wiping out decades of economic progress in just a few years.

Many people read history to understand colonialism — how it looked and felt. However, for those in the Third World colonialism is a living experience, courtesy restrictive energy policies forced upon them by Western political leaders.

This modern form of enslavement — to the West’s so-called green agenda — is variously known as climate colonialism, carbon imperialism and other monikers. Whatever the nomenclature, the reality is suppression of access to fossil fuel energy sources in the name of saving the planet from a made-up climate emergency.

The effect of this imposed energy crisis on developing countries is lethal and quick. What climate-woke politicians decide in their temperature-regulated offices in Europe and North America has disastrous consequences for the world’s poor who live — and die — without reliable electricity, running water, washing machines, refrigerators, ovens and hospitals connected to a power grid.

Societal objectives supposedly cherished in the West — from improving one’s livelihood to empowering women — are sacrificed by anti-fossil fuel activism of the colonialists. . . .

 

Stupid is as stupid does.

Biden's 'Woke' Green Energy a Dangerous Joke

Michael Shellenberger, New York Post

 

What this is headed for -- millions of deaths of poor people caused by hysterical anti-fossil-fuel nonscience -- was always in the cards. Appalling, despicable, disgraceful.

 

That doesn't address issues related to why Somalia has serious problems today - problems serious enough that YOU called for revolution.

So, you must have just searched for something bad to say about the USA?? Or, what?

I can understand someone in Somalia HATING Kerry's visit to Mogadishu, with the purpose of reopening diplomatic relations in 2015. That was little more than 20 years after the US invaded with the objective of capturing their leader, Aidid, who had ambushed a Pakistani peace keeping mission, and the battle of Mogadishu in which they believed they were finally rid of foreign invasion by colonialist powers.

>>>But, your blogger failed to point out that Kerry pitched Somalia's natural gas as cleaner than coal and oil, forming a sound longer term transition to clean energy alternatives that could become available.

You need to look farther than bloggers showing up on Anthony's blog site.

 

Natural gas is cleaner. Some people think that's important.
I did not call for revolution; I called for separation. Think of it as triage.

 

Exactly. You agree with Kerry on this point.

You can't suggest that overthrowing the government isn't revolution.

 

Not overthrowing, merely departing.

 

???

I've never heard of a country peacefully allowing itself to have its land and government be divided by a force internal or external.

For example, "departing" was not accepted by England when the colonies wanted to "depart".

 

"Somalia" is merely a merger of former Italian Somalia and British Somaliland. Separation would be simply restoring the status quo ante. Somaliland has effectively ruled itself for some time already.

 

Show me something serious analysts say.

 

Ha! My professional responsibilities included activities in Somaliland, and of course I've been there.

Somaliland Wants To Make One Thing Clear: It Is NOT Somalia
https://www.npr.org › goatsandsoda › 2017/05/30 › soma...

May 30, 2017 — "You know by lumping Somalia and Somaliland together, it is slowing down the delivery of assistance." Map showing Somalia vs. Somaliland.

 

Where you go isn't particularly interesting.

And, the questions have pertained to Somalia. Division between Somalia and Somaliland is an issue, but the question here has to do with the situation in Somalia.

 

Somaliland at present is part of Somalia. That is the problem. Did you not understand that?

 

Sure it is.

Each human needs around 6 acres of farmland to support them. So figure around 50 billion acres, or a bit over 78 million square miles under cultivation.

So great, we can go to greenhouses, what a solution. Even if they are twice as productive, can you see almost 40 million square miles of greenhouses popping up? Not to mention the sheer raw materials to build them, and all of the infrastructure to support them.

There is a reason such farming is small scale, and normally for high value crops. I don't think that the 90 million acres of corn produced in the US every year will do very well in greenhouses.

You are right, it is not difficult to calculate. And the raw data from those calculations shows it is impossible.

Now granted, that figure above is based on just people living off of farmable products. Not aquaculture at all, which makes up around 20% of the human diet globally. But I wish you a lot of luck with those greenhouse wheat fields.

 

Which is why they are in a civil war.

Oh, and do you know exactly how many nations recognize Somaliland?

None.

This is not a "question", this is outright rejection on the International stage. So as far as the world is concerned, there is no question at all.

 

Another? On top of the one that has been going on for 3 decades?

 

Only if the farmland is not very productive. Have you read The Martian? The author calculates how much area one has to plant in potatoes to survive, and it is surprisingly little. With intensive cultivation of high-yielding crops like potatoes, bananas, yams, etc., in a tropical area where year-round farming is possible, one acre is ample for a family of four, even with open-field agriculture. For greenhouse agriculture, multiply that by five.

It is. Greenhouses feed millions of people already. I remember many years ago taking the train from Pusan to Seoul, and passing through a plain where hundreds of square kilometers had been converted to greenhouse agriculture. It was like an ocean of greenhouses.

They are 5-10x as productive per unit area.

I suggest you do a little research on how much greenhouse area is needed to support a human being. A million mi^2 is ample for the world's current population.

If they are mass-produced, they can be quite cheap. There are places in the world, now, where vast areas -- and I am talking about thousands of square kilometers -- have been converted to greenhouse agriculture that supports many millions of people.

In the USA, where there is lots of good land for open-field agriculture. More crowded countries use a lot of greenhouses.

It would do fine. It's just cheaper, now, to grow it in open fields. In greenhouses, root crops would produce far more nutrients per unit area.

Wrong. See above.

True: aquaculture could be orders of magnitude more productive than current fisheries.

An acre planted in wheat can yield over 50 bushels, which equates to over a ton of flour. That's enough bread to feed a dozen people for a year. Root crops in greenhouses are an order of magnitude more productive than that.

 

I know that is what you think.

But, I haven't seen those who study this problem saying that.

And, I doubt that a change of the type you propose would be carried out without violence or that it would be good for both sides.

 

It would certainly be good for Somaliland, and has existed de facto for a long time.

 

That quote does not suggest that we should reject whatever it is that scientists agree on, or that we should look for ideas that scientists refuse to agree with.

It is totally ridiculous to have increasing doubts as scientists come to closer agreement.

Also, let's remember that methods of modern science don't include proof other than proof of falsity. So, rejecting consensus is ridiculous. That's what science provides.


We see scoundrels today. There is the whole world of homeopathy. But, we don't oppose that through charging them with having consensus. We instead look to insist on evidence, testing standards, etc. so that people are better informed about the decisions they make.

 

I think you meant to post that to Hays.

 

I think you meant to post that to Hays.