Elite End Game for the USA: what the destruction of our energy sector can mean

In your opinion.

As for Svensmark

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henrik_Svensmark#Debate_and_controversy

Svensmark debunked:

https://skepticalscience.com/a-detailed-look-at-galactic-cosmic-rays.html

Are you going to accuse me of attacking him, too? It seems that you view any disagreement with your choice in experts as a personal attack on that expert. All I'm doing is providing you with links to articles debunking your choices, questioning their validity, which is what my links do, and how debates work.

 

There is a far better reason than this AGW consensus to expedite a change resulting in independence of our vast dependence upon coal, gas and oil: but predominantly it is the oil and gas that will runout first. There is a pretty good book about the magnitude of the issue and it's irrespective of the AGW angle but wholly damaging to the role of the US in its role in the matter: completely aside from concerns among those on team Al Gore about it, the simple fact is that the US consumes vastly more than its fair share of oil simply to sit an hour in the morning and an hour in the evening to commute in personally owned vehicles to-and-from work or to-and-from school.

https://www.amazon.com/Cubic-Mile-Oil-Realities-Averting/dp/0195325540

 

And Shucker

Don't worry though; When Trump is swept back into office in 2024 all the gender challenged and welfare recipients will be harnessed to squirrel cages to run yer Hummer. Winds from the Hurricanes will waft you to work at a leisurely 175mph while work proceeds apace on Paving the Earth

 

“You Will Own Nothing and Be Happy,” -Klaus Schwab, Founder and Executive Chairman of the World Economic Forum.

 

Professor Shaviv:

My experience at the German Bundestag's Environment Committee in a pre-COP24 discussion


"This is the contribution to the radiative forcing from different components, as summarized in the IPCC AR5. As you can see, it is claimed that the solar contribution is minute (tiny gray bar). In reality, we can use the oceans to quantify the solar forcing, and see that it was probably larger than the CO2 contribution (large light brown bar). Any attempt to explain the 20th century warming should therefore include this large forcing. When doing so, one finds that the sun contributed more than half of the warming, and climate has to be relatively insensitive. How much? Only 1 to 1.5°C per CO2 doubling, as opposed to the IPCC range of 1.5 to 4.5. This implies that without doing anything special, future warming will be around another 1 degree over the 21st century, meeting the Copenhagen and Paris goals.The fact that the temperature over the past 20 years has risen significantly less than IPCC models, should raise a red flag that something is wrong with the standard picture. . . .

[FONT=&quot]Having said that, it is possible to actually model the climate system while including the heat capacity, namely diffusion of heat into and out of the oceans, and include the solar and anthropogenic forcings and find out that by introducing the the solar forcing, one can get a much better fit to the 20th century warming, in which the climate sensitivity is much smaller. (Typically 1°C per CO2 doubling compared with the IPCC's canonical range of 1.5 to 4.5°C per CO2 doubling). You can read about it here: Ziskin, S. & Shaviv, N. J., Quantifying the role of solar radiative forcing over the 20th century, Advances in Space Research 50 (2012) 762–776. The low climate sensitivity one obtains this way is actually consistent with other empirical determinations, for example, the lack of any correlation between CO2 variations over the past half billion years and temperature variations."

 

I'm quite confident I'm already familiar with any links you might provide. As for threads, I already have many here. I invite you to participate.
As for Epstein,
He attended Duke University, where for two years he was editor and publisher of The Duke Review. He studied philosophy and computer science, graduating with a Bachelor of Arts.[13][15]

 

Your link is obsolete by many years. The landmark paper came in 2017.

Increased ionization supports growth of aerosols into cloud condensation nuclei
Svensmark, H., Enghoff, M. B., Shaviv, N. J. & Svensmark, J., 2017, In: Nature Communications. 8, 1, 9 p., 2199.

 

They can temporarily hinder our energy sector but their ability to do so is waning and likely ends in two years. First, our energy reserves are buried, they cannot destroy them, they can only hinder extraction and production. Support for energy austerity is a mile wide and an inch deep. Had Biden not promptly dumped half the SPR Dems would have met overwhelming destruction, they can only repeat that move one more time. Americans are all for energy austerity, but only as an abstract concept, when it requires that they do with less, support evaporates. I saw some fascinating polling a few years ago about how "dedicated" young people were to various causes, until it required amounts of negligible as like $10/yr and then support flat-lined. At a cost of just a $100/yr, support was gone.

Solar and Wind are other larks proving that they cannot be relied on as an "on-demand" source, that is, it's there when you need it or want it, like coal, gas, diesel, fuel oil, hydro electric, and nuclear. I think Wind and Solar end as soon as we require a bond to pay for it's disposal at the end of it's 20 year life, at the time of the original permitting. Windmill blades aren't recyclable and in a decade we are going to have hundreds of millions of tons of 100 foot blades to dispose of. Batteries and solar panels are similar problems. It's a con, a fad, and a passing rip off.

A hundred years from now we'll be bringing water projects from the Snake river to Las Vegas through a series hydro-electric projects that provide water to thirsty new farmland, water, power and recreation to thriving growing new communities throughout the West, as well as projects from the Columbia River down to Mt Shasta and from there through the prime farmland of the Central Valley to thirsty Southern California.

What we don't accomplish our children and grandchildren will.

 

This. Even if you are worried about CO2 causing global warming and rising seas that will submerge whole nations by the year 2000 (and given that elites like Obama have multi million dollar estates on water fronts doesn't seem they really are) y'know what you are supposed to do about that? Plant stuff. MIT is working on ways to use salt water to farm. Israelis have been doing this for some time. Recover our deserts in California, Arizona, Nevada, New Mexico and Texas. Work internationally. The Sahara alone is about the size of CONUS. Image how much CO2 would be converted there were it covered in Kudzu. But this is about fixing problems, which eats into what the Left has to run upon.

EDIT: I would add solar panels don't seem like a totally bad idea. How about all new construction requires panels on a % of roof space, no matter what. Even rich people have to have them on their mansions.

 

I'm not. CO^2 is the basis of life. I'm pro warmth and carbon.

The oceans have been rising for 20,000 years. The current rate is about 1/2 the 20,000 year rate. I expect it to continue until the next glacial advance and that I do fear.

I'd bring water to the South West from the Snake and Columbia Rivers, through hydro electric water projects, that provide water and recreation for the growing farmland communities that will be fed by the water.

It's about power and control, not climate or CO^2.

I'm fine with solar and wind, but, with a bond for their safe disposal at the point of the initial permit. Same with all these batteries that we are planning to use in order to use these periodic sources in place of on demand sources. Solar, wind, battery disposal at the end of life are environmental nightmares. I welcome CO^2, it uses earth's natural processes to convert carbon to life in the presence of adequate water and warmth, but, heavy metal poisoning from all these used up solar panels and batteries, those are capable of real world harm.

 

Yeah ... you and I have already reached the end of that road, if I recall correctly. I debunked your experts then too, on more than one thread.

You can lead a horse to water, but he won't drink if he's been convinced he's not thirsty.

 

Eyes wide shut! The DNC don't even worry anymore that their base see's or has the curiosity to notice things like this. I personally would be insulted if I were considered that void of the obvious

 

All articles on the topic of increased ionization causing global warming are from Svensmark, et al. Do you never read any contrary or debunking reports? Or articles by other scientists? Sorry, but Svensmark is simply wrong on this.

https://skepticalscience.com/search.php?t=c&Search=Nir+Shaviv

"Really short version: they assumed continuous warming due to the "indirect solar effect" when they built the model, and therefore their "conclusion" is not a conclusion, it is their original assumption."

 

On this date 51 years ago, climate scientists predicted a new ice age was coming | Washington Examiner
by Christopher Tremoglie, Commentary Writer
March 21, 2022 01:40 PM

LMFAO As P.T. Barnum says, "There's a sucker born every minute" and for the biblical type
"Proverbs 21:20 tells us how both a wise person and a foolish person handle finances. It inspired a popular proverb that says: “a fool and his money are soon parted.” Let’s take a look at the valuable lessons we can learn from this verse. This proverb compares the acts of a wise person and a foolish one."

 

Your recollection includes a large fantasy component.

 

That isn't even a good cop-out.

 

As I said, you're posting fantasy.

 

I'm posting science from a wide variety of sources. You keep pointing to one guy, and his hypothesis that has been debunked. No one else but Svensmark and his friends are trying to push cosmic rays into the forefront of global warming. It is you who keeps posting fantasy.

 

Sorry, but your claim is not borne out by my posting history or yours.

 

Yes, it is. Svensmark and those few who agree with him are tye only people you're linking or quoting here. I can't debate a one trick pony.

I've provided links to established, tested, proven science. Your lack of interest in anything that doesn't agree with Svensmark's hypothesis is your problem, not mine. As I've said often, ignorance in the age of information is a choice. I've duly read all of your links. If you can't or won't afford me the same courtesy, and argue specific points that you think are wrong, that's on you.

 

That is obviously a false claim. Your posts suggest you are unfamiliar with much of what is in these threads.

The Test and Failure of the AGW Paradigm
The Sun-Climate Effect

 

Those of us with a science background who have taken the time to study the falsification data, i.e. the scientific and observational data that disproves the "scary scenario" narratives used as propaganda by the radical, anti-humanity left - have known for decades that the "consensus" was a lie.

The narrative was a lie, and the consensus was a lie.

Like everything being pushed by the left, their goal is always to impose government force on the people.

Only a fool would go along with their agenda; but alas, there is no shortage of fools amongst the masses.

 

I BLAME CLIMATE CHANGE AND PLASTIC STRAWS: Volcanic activity increases worldwide.

'On Tuesday, Hawaii deployed the National Guard, as Mauna Loa's lava flow moved closer to the Daniel K. Inouye Highway two weeks after it started erupting.'

'"Lava diversion is a tricky thing to do, especially on flat ground," said Hawaii County Civil Defense Administrator Talmadge Magnoe. "It really comes down to a volume problem. What we're seeing now is -- take 10 of the biggest dump trucks you can think of, we're getting that many dump trucks of lava every second delivered by this lava flow."'

How do you divert Lava? It blows right through a concrete barrier.

https://www.usgs.gov/observatories/...at-does-it-take-successfully-divert-lava-flow

We need to continue to work to stop the illegitimate obstructions that some authoritarians are putting in the way of OUR utilization of OUR natural resources.

 

You can't fool all the people all the time.
Oil Execs Rip Biden's Lies on Energy Production

 

Here comes the sun.


U.S. scientists to report fusion ‘breakthrough’ in quest to create abundant zero-carbon power
By Evan Halper and Pranshu Verma