That’s the senator on the climate change issue, in tonight’s Wisconsin senatorial candidate debate. For him, it’s “not solvable.”
I’ve never heard him say it, but the logical conclusion must be that he’s awaitin’ for the Rapture, so no need to worry (at least for those who will be moving on).
Ron Johnson on Climate Change: “Can you really do anything about it?”
Yes, Wisconsin workers could have manufactured up to 165,000 electric delivery vehicles for the US Post Office:
https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/politics/2022/02/06/sen-ron-johnson-wont-try-get-oshkosh-corp-jobs-wisconsin/6683226001/
This is off topic, but ltr has to know this is coming.
On Econospeak I reported on a Washington Post story about how apparently China has stopped putting people in reeducation camps in Xinjiang and is in fact shutting lots of them down. I applauded this. “Anonymous” who I think is ltr showed up to criticize me for posting this and this report, effectively denying that there have ever been any reeducation camps and how dare I mention them and then went on about stuff we have seen here a whole bunch about economic improvements there and foreign visitors not seeing anything bad blah blah blah.
I expressed my utter disgust that this would be the reaction to me applauding China for acting to improve its human rights record, but that is what I got, a denunciation. I am totally disgusted, and I have said I shall never say a good thing about the Peoples’ Republic of China afain.
Big mistake, ltr, big mistake. You effed up very big time.
Having written:
Ron Johnson on Climate Change: “Can you really do anything about it?”
Yes, Wisconsin workers could have manufactured up to 165,000 electric delivery vehicles for the US Post Office:
https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/politics/2022/02/06/sen-ron-johnson-wont-try-get-oshkosh-corp-jobs-wisconsin/6683226001/
A response profanely becomes:
“You —— up very big time.”
“You —— up very big time.”
“You —— up very big time.”
Ltr, i for one am glad china is shutting down their concentration camps. I would think such positive actions would be applauded by you. You are always touting positive moves from china. This is one of them.
Perhaps this policy change isn’t permanent. China has a history of abuse toward minorities. The UN finally spoke up about this one, so a show of fixing it is underway. But the political culture in China hasn’t changed, so oppression of minorities will probably continue, just by other means.
Of course, ltr repeated lied about the very existence of of internment camps, so she is now stuck lying about a reduction in occupancy. Old Samuel C. was right, after all, about the effort that goes into lying.
She’ll have to keep lying about China’s practice of slavery, too. Remember, ltr lies every time someone mentions slavery in China. Consistency in lying is a virtue, I suppose.
ltr,
Everyone has your number on this matter. I stand by my non-profanity and what I have posted elsewhere, which has more background. You really have messed up big time with this, very big time
Not a single person here remotely believes you on this or has a shred of respect for your comments, nobody. You should be ashamed of yourself for being so stupid as to think anybody would. This is, of course, morally shameful far beyond you thinking anybody would take your lies on this remotely seriously. The matter itself is morally shameful.
But, as I noted, and you were too stupid to accept, it actually is worth applause that the PRC is improving its conduct in regard to this difficult matter. You should join in the applause rather than somehow pretending there is nothing to applaud and that everybody should instead be standing and applauding increased tourism in Xinjiang. Are you really so stupid as to think that is something anybody respects or takes seriously? Just completely absurd.
i suspect its like a lot of problems that some want to ignore, because they dont want to solve it
Ron Johnson on Climate Change: “Can you really do anything about it?”
[ The point is that Senator Johnson could have been working on making Wisconsin a prime clean-manufacturing employer, which would serve state workers indefinitely. After all, Tesla is now manufacturing about 330,000 cars a quarter in China alone, while that portion of the electric vehicle market could have belonged to General Motors:
https://www.globaltimes.cn/page/202210/1276575.shtml ]
Now here you make a reasonable point, ltr.
We can’t solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them.”
– Albert Einstein”
The thinking in Johnson’s case is that political power is for personal gain, not public good.
Econned will now toss around accusations of lying, I guess. That’s what he does when anyone points out how bad Johnson really is.
Einstein! I guess we can say the problem will never be solved as long as the Senate is dominated by deniers like RonJon.
Macroduck,
You’re lying.
Really? I guess it would be beneath you to tell us what he lied about. Come on dude – we get it. You are a jerk. Move on.
He was pretty accurate with that lying call.
And you are an ecomaniac!!!!
I believe it was Shimon Peres who said, “If a problem has no solution, it may not be a problem, but a fact—not to be solved, but to be coped with over time.” If climate change is already baked into the Earth’s operations—and apparently destined to get worse as China, India, and other countries increase carbon emissions—then the rational response is not to seek “solutions,” but to adapt and ameliorate, as the human inhabitants of the Northern Hemisphere did in the era of advancing ice sheets that were beyond their power to “solve.” From that point of view, the Senator’s comment is sensible and unremarkable. So take a deep breath, calm thyself, and don’t exhale (too much carbon dioxide).
Seriously? It is a problem. There are solutions if we had the political will.
About that “if”…
The effects of past and current emissions of greenhouse gasses are baked in the cake. Same for reflective particulates. The effects of future emissions depend on future emissions. That’s why both a turn away from emission of greenhouse gasses and adaptation to the effects of climate change are necessary. Coordination between the two is also necessary. Pouring concrete is not a great approach to adaptation.
If climate change is already baked into the Earth’s operations—and apparently destined to get worse as China, India, and other countries increase carbon emissions—then the rational response is not to seek “solutions” …
China, in particular, has been and is dramatically and continually working on limiting and lowering carbon emissions, while also working on lessening the impact of climate change. Work on climate change has so far meant bumper crop harvests this year in the midst of severe weather conditions, but nonetheless the Chinese object is to continually domestic lower carbon emissions from here and to assist in such lowering as part of foreign aid and investment.
Water conservancy investment in China in the last decade came to about $966 billion, while water conservancy in 2022 has already reached a new record:
https://english.news.cn/20220913/5a9d5f49e1ee4ed2a6ead0c76795fdd4/c.html
September 13, 2022
Correcting a misplaced word:
Work on climate change has so far meant bumper crop harvests this year in the midst of severe weather conditions, but nonetheless the Chinese object is to continually lower domestic carbon emissions from here and to assist in such lowering as part of foreign aid and investment.
[ Public and private investment emphasis in China, from financing to research and development, is now always on environmental soundness:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-022-32652-y
September 6, 2022
Hydrogen production from the air
By Jining Guo, Yuecheng Zhang, Ali Zavabeti, Kaifei Chen, Yalou Guo, Guoping Hu, Xiaolei Fan & Gang Kevin Li ]
https://english.news.cn/20221002/0515c7f55dc74e26a31f03c2a2c8e59b/c.html
October 2, 2022
Why is a quarter of world’s new forest area coming from China?
BEIJING — China ranks first globally in the area of planted forests and forest coverage growth, contributing a quarter of the world’s new forest area in the past decade.
The secret behind the rapid growth of China’s green landscape lies in its large-scale greening campaign, including conserving existing green ecosystems, adding new forests, grasslands, and wetlands, as well as fighting desertification.
According to the National Forestry and Grassland Administration, the accumulative afforestation area reached 960 million mu (64 million hectares) over the past 10 years, while 165 million mu of grassland was improved, and more than 12 million mu of wetlands were added or restored….
Alex,
This is not a matter of “solve” versus “not solve.” There is a continuous range of possible outcomes in terms of the amount of average temperature increase we shall see. If by “solve” one means “zero average temperature increase” then indeed that is correct. But the fact is that by many nations engaging in actions to reduce carbon and methane emissions, from China to the US and beyond, the amount of that temperature increase can be reduced. Obviously beyond whatever degree of slowing of the temperature increase we are able to manage, there will then have to be adaptation and adjustment to whatever temperature we experience.
But this is not what RonJon said, who seems to have “let us do nothing and throw up our hands” attitude about the whole situation, which is ridiculous.
I think the general opinion of most climate researchers is that the changes are now baked in. The changes in atmospheric composition are real and will not go away for decades to centuries even if we could somehow stop manmade contributions immediately – which clearly cannot happen.
I do not much respect Ron Johnson or anything he says he believes, but, unfortunately….
States like Wisconsin and other upper midwest states should really be doing long-range planning for the day when reality dawns on persons who live in sea level sensitive areas, drought sensitive ares, fire prone areas and areas where power, water and other utilities are becoming untenable.
w,
A lot is “baked in,” which is why we are not going to see a zero temperature increase outcome. But a lot is not baked in. It remains up in the air, so to speak, how large that average temperature increase will be, and that will depend on the future path of CO2 and methane emissions, among other things.
w
Look into climate “tipping points”. There are a handful of systems which, at some temperature, change drastically to increase climate change or climate change effects. A couple of “tips” now seem inevitable, but the remainder are now yet inevitable. Any improvement in the slowing of greenhouse gas emissions from the current trajectory reduces the likelihood of reaching another tipping point. That fact should be foremost in our minds when discussing efforts to curb emissions.
MD, please list those tipping points and the science supporting them. Models and conjecture from them is not science.
Were dinosaurs in the Rapture too?
Did I say that the semiconductor sector is volatile?
A decline in prices in recent months has led the biggest memory players—including Samsung Electronics Co. SSNHZ 0.00%▲ and Micron Technology Inc.— MU -2.93%▼ to issue grim forecasts and undershoot already-lowered profit estimates. Others have pledged to trim production capacity plans fearing a worsening supply glut. Chip executives and industry analysts don’t see price declines bottoming out, or even moderating, until the middle of next year. Memory chips—found inside smartphones, personal computers and data servers—provide a barometer of health for the semiconductor industry, which is reckoning with a sudden shift from pandemic strength to an abrupt drop-off in demand. The average contract prices for the two major types of memory, called DRAM and NAND flash, dropped by 15% and 28%, respectively, from the prior quarter during the July-to-September period, according to TrendForce, a Taiwan-based market researcher. Prices for both types of memory chips are expected to decline on a quarterly basis in the fourth quarter and all of next year, as excess inventory builds up, TrendForce estimates. But the double-digit declines should end by the spring and be flat or minimal by the end of 2023.
The story also notes Hynix. Now our Village Idiot tried to tell us only Intel was seeing stock prices fall and I bet he will use this story to tell us TSMC is immune from this drop on semiconductor demand. Of course JohnH is too lazy to notice that even TSMC has seen its stock price decline.
I mentioned this impending chip glut a couple of months ago, only to be bashed for it by someone who likes to get on my case, sometimes over things that are simply outright incomprehensible. Anyway, looks like it has arrived.
Oh for those efficient market forces. They don’t seem to be any more capable than the good old USSR plan economy. Both completely unable to predict demand and adjust production accordingly. Furthermore, the market forces will deliberately manipulate supply and demand so they can jack up prices. Their goal is profit, so they don’t even try to find a balance between supply and demand.
New York got something big that RonJon told us Wisconsin did not need:
https://www.cnet.com/tech/micron-pledges-100-billion-for-new-chip-factory-in-ny/
Chipmaker Micron Technology said Tuesday that it will spend up to $100 billion over the next two decades to build a semiconductor factory in upstate New York. The project will create nearly 50,000 jobs in New York, including about 9,000 high-paying Micron positions, the company said. Micron plans to make the first investment of $20 billion by the end of the decade. In return, it’ll receive $5.5 billion in incentives from the state of New York over the life of the project, it said.
https://www.newsweek.com/ukraine-mocks-russia-crimean-kerch-bridge-hit-explosion-1750095
The Ukrainian government has mocked Vladimir Putin after a huge explosion tore through the strategically vital Kerch Bridge, which connects Russia with Russian-occupied Crimea over the Kerch Strait. Video from the scene showed a section of the road bridge has partially collapsed into the sea, while a train passing along the parallel rail bridge was turned into an inferno, causing apparent structural damage…Dr Mike Martin, a visiting fellow at King’s College London’s Department of War Studies, told Newsweek that the explosion will hit Russian logistics and intensify infighting in Moscow.
At the danger of having Moses Herzog get all bent out, I shall report on radio reports coming out of Russia right now speculating that this might lead to a “temporary” replacement of Putin, who will be declared to be ill. His closest associate, a figure almost totally unknown outside of Russia, is being rumored to be the “temporary” replacement.
However, there are others making other arguments, with many also claiming that Defense Minister Shoigu has been removed. There is also no agreement about how the explosives were delivered to the bridge. What is clear is that indeed this has triggered a severely chaotic situation in the power elite in Moscow, with the outcome quite up in the air.
Looks like Putin still in, but commander of Russian forces in Ukraine replaced, with new guy, Surovkin, showing off his toughness with this massive attack not only on civilian infrastructure all over Ukraine, but even residential apartments and even playgrounds. The hypocrisy of Putin on this is really beyond belief. Hitting the Kerch bridge is supposedly “terrorism,” but killikng tens of thousands of Russian-speakikng civilians in Mariuopol is not. Super gag.
When we use terms like “climate change” without specific definitions the only result is confusion. Everyone knows that CLIMATE CHANGES. Is climate change a problem without defining what you are talking about? Do you have a solution for STOPPING climate from changing?
Do you know what problem you are trying to solve? If your solution is related to net zero can you answer these 3 questions about your solution?
“3 simple questions of Net Zero/Green Projects
1) How will you do it? (show us the engineering, the resources, the details, the build program and infrastructure)
2) How much will it cost? (then triple it cause governments can’t manage projects!)
3) HOW MUCH WILL IT CHANGE THE GLOBAL TEMPERATURE”
I’ll wait to hear from the climate experts here. You’re up!
Hollywood is making a new version of the three stooges starring CoRev, Econned, and Axel Kassel.
BTW – you have heard from on your questions but of course you choose not to listen.
Ah, there it is! The next denialist trick from CoVid’s bag. No discussion of climate change is allowed without complete definition, complete solutions and academic credentials. None of which CoVid has, but he presumes to demand it of others.
Public discourse requires public participation, which is exactly what CoVid is demanding we abandon. Only credentialed experts, only offer solutions which solve every problem. And when a credentialed expert offers solutions CoVid doesn’t like? Well, the experts’ credentials aren’t enough. Nothing is ever enough, because solving the problem of climate change means cutting into the profits and power of oil, natural gas and coal industries.
CoVid’s goal is not to improve public discourse, but to shut it down.
MD claims: “CoVid’s goal is not to improve public discourse, but to shut it down.” Actually i9t is comments like yours that are designed to shut down commentary.
Earlier you listed two components of climate you wished changed: “…reflective particulates. … emission of greenhouse gasses…”, and Barkley wants to change temperature increases. So far in the comments no other particular areas to target solutions has appeared. The biggest contributor to “reflective particulates” is water in its various atmospheric forms. Do you have a solution for lowering the amount or percentage of H2O resident in the atmosphere?
Net zero is the published solution for emission of greenhouse gasses, however in the EU where this policy has been implemented now for decades we see the economic results. Here in the US 2 states jump to the top of list of implementers of this police are California and Texas. Their recent energy history have resulted in deaths, brown/black outs and high energy prices. President Biden is also following this policy with increased inflation and threats of recession.
It is examples like this that raise the issue of answering those 3 simple questions:
“3 simple questions of Net Zero/Green Projects
1) How will you do it? (show us the engineering, the resources, the details, the build program and infrastructure)
2) How much will it cost? (then triple it cause governments can’t manage projects!)
3) HOW MUCH WILL IT CHANGE THE GLOBAL TEMPERATURE”
Until you can show answers to those questions with definition of specific problems as compared to undefined generic CHANGING CLIMATE. To date your solutions are terribly and needlessly costly.
Refute my FACTS.
md could have related my favorite quote from job
‘who is this that darken the discourse with no knowledge’
md is after all denying your apostasy from the true faith
Anonymous,
Do you consider the climatologists and others involved in producing the IPCC reports not to be scientists but instead to be chanting religious maniacs making stuff up out of thin air?
Uh oh, you are back to making yourself look stupider than Bruce Hall, although no way near CoRev yet.
“Refute my FACTS.”
All I see from you is a parade of LIES. Now if you want to write some babble as if it were a FACT – then provide a reliable source for that assertion. Hint Judith Curry’s blog does not count.
“Net zero is the published solution for emission of greenhouse gasses, however in the EU where this policy has been implemented now for decades we see the economic results”
The premise that the EU has adopted net zero as policy “for decades” sounds like a bold faced lie so I checked.
https://europeanclimate.org/net-zero-2050/
Huh – the new policy that be implemented over the next (as in future) decades.
This is why no one should ever take a single word CoRev says seriously. Everything this troll writes is a lie. Everything.
Ah,another cute trick from CoVid! Water is the biggest reflective component, so CoVid insists that I find a way to deal with water in the atmosphere. He knows he has made a ridiculous demand. I assume he know, inly because I’m being generous, that human-caused particulate pollution is also reflective, and we do have control over that.
And so goes every comment from CoVid. Always a trick, always insisting that others carry the burden of answering facetious questions. Yep, he’s a disease, a sickness which drains the life out of honest discussion.
Dear readers of comments, there are a number of formulaic rhetorical tricks taught by the masters of science-deniers like CoVid. Look back over CoVid’s many challenges to accepted climate science and the repetition of the same old tricks will become apparent.
Meanwhile, note that our Anonymous-with-shift-key has employed one such trick right here. Anytime climate change (or on the bad old days, the health effects of smoking) are taken as generally accepted scientific fact, a howl of “it’s a religion” or “sheeple” or “look at this regression done by some guy with a spread sheet” goes up. Challenging accepted scientific views is a wonderful thing to do, in a rigorous, unbiased way. For Anonymous and anonymous and Brucey and CoVid, the challenge is neither rigorous, nor is it unbiased. It’s a trick, meant to serve the interests of their political masters.
By the way, and I’ve made this point repeatedly, CoVid is only pretending to engage in discussion when he responds to Menzie or to me ot other commenters here. In fact, he’s putting on a performance for casual readers of the comments section. CoVid has no interest in actual discussion. He has an agenda, and he aims to serve that agenda by clouding real discussion of environmental science.
Every point he raises is addressed in the scientific literature. If he actually wants answers, they are available. Every point he raises he has raised before, but pretends his points haven’t been addressed. CoVid is a partisan, who doesn’t care about honest discussion or about science. He pretends to care as part of his effort to cloud honest discussion.
This creepy pretense occurs in our public debate every day. Rich self-interested people spend like crazy to support fake scholars and fake discussions, and not-so-rich people take their money and do their bidding. Sadly, this effort to subvert science and human welfare often works. If it didn’t, CoVid wouldn’t spend so much time spreading lies and pretending to care about science. You, casual readers of these comments, don’t have to fall for this stuff.
MD, iis into the debating tricks but not mine but those he uses. I have pointed out the fault of using fuzzy generic descriptions, example climate change, and even his use of reflective particulates. When challenged to be more specific he goes off by complaining that the challenge is a trick.
Did you note my question/challenge included a specific example for the generic term reflective particulates is water, and he admitted thereafter: “Ah,another cute trick from CoVid! Water is the biggest reflective component, so CoVid insists that I find a way to deal with water in the atmosphere. He knows he has made a ridiculous demand. I assume he know, inly (sic) because I’m being generous, that human-caused particulate pollution is also reflective, and we do have control over that. ” He then is FORCED to better deifne his generic with: “human-caused particulate pollution”
Even human-caused particulate pollution is too generic to be useful. Humans in breathing release water vapor particulates, burning hydrogen releases water vapor, hydro-generation of electricity releases water vapor.
We’re talking about scientific and engineering impacts where precision is a necessity to define the hypothesis and problem solution. Climate change, human-caused particulate pollution and even rising temperatures are examples of faulty logic through fuzzy definition.
Remember, these zealots believe the planet/mankind/ the future are in existential danger due to these flawed definitions. Also consider on an economics blog these ideologues are proposing spending TRILLIONS without a basic costs/benefits study to solve these undefined problems.
Keep asking questions of the ideologues until they can actually define a specific solution to a problem with the appropriate engineering/cost benefit study to support them. Emotions are neither science nor engineering.
CoRev,
Refute your “facts”? You asked a set of utterly worthless and stupid questions, not facts.
How about reminding us again just which medals and awards your received for your alleged service in the US Apollo program? Or maybe your forecasts regarding the soybean market?
CoRev told us he has done some work on the Oregon electricity market. But he refuses to tell us what that “work” was or who paid for it? One has to wonder why he will not tell us this. Maybe it was advocacy work for Big Oil. Someone must be paying him for his incessant intellectual garbage.
Reading over the incessant intellectual garbage it seems the only person he thinks is an authority on this topic is Judith Curry. Check out her bio and decide for yourself whether she should be seen as the expert on climate change. After all – Trump like her. And Trump made Lawrence Kudlow his chief economist.
Bark bark, I was laughing at this comment all most as loudly as your Duck, duck go comment. You really are clueless aren’t you!
Just some of her credentials:”Judith A. Curry (born c. 1953) is an American climatologist and former chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology. Her research interests include hurricanes, remote sensing, atmospheric modeling, polar climates, air-sea interactions, climate model, and the use of unmanned aerial vehicles for atmospheric research. …” https://pantheon.world/profile/person/Judith_Curry/
Some of her negatives is she doesn’t spew the liberal party line of existentialism. Her negatives could have been written by bark, bark, because she questions the validity of some factors: “…she also proposes that the rate of warming is slower than climate models have projected (a fact), emphasizes her evaluation of the uncertainty in the climate prediction models (refer to the previous fact), and questions whether climate change mitigation is affordable.” Clearly, questioning costs on an economics blog is anathema. Now why would I note that?
“Pantheon is project that uses biographical data to expose patterns of human collective memory. Pantheon contains data on more than 70k biographies, which Pantheon distributes through a powerful data visualization engine centered on locations, occupations, and biographies. Pantheon’s biographical data contains information on the age, occupation, place of birth, and place of death, of historical characters with a presence in more than 15 language editions of Wikipedia. Pantheon also uses real-time data from the Wikipedia API to show the dynamics of attention received by historical characters in different Wikipedia language editions.”
Why does this qualify Curry in anything? Why not just give us her Wikipedia page? Oh wait – her Wikipedia page notes the real scientists who have criticized her.
“Some of her negatives is she doesn’t spew the liberal party line of existentialism.”
No – she spews the right wing lies of Trump and Jim Jordan. So do you.
CoRev,
Um, but appaentlly she does accept that there is warming occurring. Yes, there is a range of views across climattologists about the rate of warming. She is one, like my late friend Patrick Michaels, who is on the side of saying it will be slower than the average of the forecasts of the whole set of them as represented in the IPCC reports. But even she accepts that warming is happening.
Barkley, you discovered my point re: Curry. Now, tell that to bark, bark.
CoRev,
Your point? What point? Elsewhere you absolulely and incredibly cast doubt that CO@ emssions “drive” global temperature change, while somehow citing this Judit Curry, who most certainly does not agree with this particular piece of blazingly rank nonsense out of you.
However, I guess you have an ally in the also abysmally stupid “Anonymous,” who now seems to think that the UN IPCC report is some sort of theological document. Wow.
Barkley, one of the key arguments in climate science is “How much does” CO@ (sic) emssions (sic) “drive” global temperature change”. There are many papers on the ECS.
My showing the temperature data data casta doubt on the claim that CO2 is the primary driver of temperature.
If you believe CO2 is the primary driver of temperature, then explain the current pause 8 year while CO2 has continued to rise. Or explain how the temperature peaks appear to coincide with ENSO peaks. Or explain the entry end exit from the Little Ice Age or even more importantly the entries and exits in the glacial periods.
I’ll wait.
covid, co2 is not the primary driver of temperature. it is one of several mechanisms that drive temperature. just because something else can be a driver of temperature does not mean that co2 is not a primary factor. you can have multiple primary, or important, factors.
“then explain the current pause 8 year while CO2 has continued to rise.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_heat_content#/media/File:Earth's_Heat_Accumulation.png
ocean heat content has continued to increase, year after year. covid, apologize for a blatant lie.
“Or explain how the temperature peaks appear to coincide with ENSO peaks.”
as you can see from ocean heat content above, this is not a gotcha issue. heat content continues to increase each year. you also see that in sea level rises, where a good part of the rise is attributed to the expansion of sea water due to temperature increase, as well as ice melt. enso is just a small part of the measurement.
https://www.globalchange.gov/browse/indicators/global-sea-level-rise
covid, you are taking a high school level understanding of science to this problem. and it shows.
Baffled, it’s been years since we had a discussion over ocean heat content (OHC). You exaggerated its importance back then and continue still. OHC is not surface temperature.
BTW, this comment deserves a WTF are you trying to say: ” co2 is not the primary driver of temperature. it is one of several mechanisms that drive temperature. just because something else can be a driver of temperature does not mean that co2 is not a primary factor. you can have multiple primary, or important, factors.” Is it either a primary/important driver/factor or not one? Are they all GHGs? Or does ENSO have any influence in your view of climate?
Please define the importance of those other primary/important driver/factors, and calculate how much their reduction or elimination will lower global average temperature.
Of course, since you and your fellow travelers here believe we need to spend $ trillions to reduce/eliminate them there must be many engineering and cost/benefits studies from which you can draw these numbers.
Ohmigod, “CoRev,” you continue to go further into the toilet you flushed yourself publicly here into going into. So, now, you make it clear you are still going further in on your way to the actual sewer.
Look, boy, there you go again, claiming that somehow there remains some doubt that CO2 is pushing global warming. You are now indeed in the world of claiming that the earth is flat and the sky is green. Really.
That you keep pushing this utterly unrealistic nonsense is why indeed you continue to hold the title of “Stupidest
Barkley, you really are having comprehension problems lately. From your recent level of commenting, your comprehension, maturity, and the depth of your knowledge on this subject is seriously lacking. These are quite common for the elderly. have you had a cognitive test lately?
“You exaggerated its importance back then and continue still. OHC is not surface temperature.”
NO. ocean heat content, and the change thereof, is actually more important than surface temperature. that is basic physics, which I know you lack. it is difficult to discuss important items with somebody as ignorant as you, covid.
“Is it either a primary/important driver/factor or not one? ”
it is A driver, not THE driver. there can be multiple primary drivers. it is not a difficult concept to understand.
Also Johnson’s dodge on abortion calling for a state-wide referendum while his pals in the WIGOP controlled legislature – do a 30 sec gravel in and gravel out on Evers call for a debate on 1849 abortion law. Johnson knows full well not going to happen at state level while he works on a national ban in the Senate. The GOP is not about governance – it is about being in charge.
Another auto-correct victim. Makes ya crazy sometimes, doesn’t it?
The fear about climate change makes people and politics irrational. Europe demonstrates what happens when climate religion meets reality.
The Washington Post ran a relevant article about the situation there:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/norway-is-portrayed-as-both-hero-and-villain-in-europe-e2-80-99s-energy-crisis/ar-AA12Jcr9
Interesting quote: “Europe did not rush to Norway’s aid in 2014, when falling oil prices led to job losses and labor unrest, he said. “Who in Brussels said, ‘What can we do to help Norway?’ ””
It all reminds me of the children’s stores “Henny Penny” and “The Little Red Hen”. Perhaps people and their politicians should re-read them. Unfortunately, it seems that most simply emulate Henny Penny.
“The fear about climate change makes people and politics irrational.”
Fear? Excuse me but you wake up irrational. But my apologies for leaving you off the cast of the new Three Stooges.
Gee Bruce – did you READ your Wash. Post link? I did. It had nothing to do with climate change. I guess this topic is also over your little brain. Of course every topic is over your little brain.
With apologies to Barkley but I am back to noting that Bruce Hall is way dumber than CoRev. He sees a story on how Europeans need natural gas from Norway but hate the high prices and profits – and this utter moron thinks he just read a story on climate change? NOW THAT IS FIRST CLASS STUPID. Hey Bruce – this is what a climate change discussion looks like:
https://www.norway.no/en/missions/eu/values-priorities/climate-env/
pgl,
I agree that Bruce has really fallen flat on his face here pretty hard, goofing up childrens’ stories. Yes, pretty dumb. But I am still not ready to say dumber than CoRev. I mean, have we seen him pull this silly stunt of throwing out questions that have been answered and demanding people answer them? CoRev still Number One dumb here.
However, he may be pushing to be dumber than “Anonymous,” even though that oxymoron cannot even make up a fake name for himself. He can occasionally cite things out of eia reports that are not completely inaccurate. Maybe Bruce Hall is coming in as dumber than him.
Is CoRev stupid? No – I think this troll is a bought and paid for liar. OK one would think the Koch Brothers could have him write things that are not so transparently false. As in his claim just now that the EU adopted a net zero policy decades ago. A policy adopted in the last couple of years that will extend in the future for the next 3 decades is not nearly the same thing.
Ole bark bark has gotten me on language precision. I used the current name, Net Zero, for the historical term, climate change policies. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_climate_change_policy_and_politics
Which, BTW, is decades old.
Gosh, pgl, well, maybe you should answer one of those endless sets of idiotic questions that CoRev keeps posting here and demanding that everybody answer.
CoRev
October 10, 2022 at 5:30 am
Oh gee – CoRev has finally figured out that people a lot smarter than he is were talking about climate change 50 years ago. Congratulations CoRev. But talking about a serious issue (which you routinely dismiss) is NOT the same as the EU adopting the types of policies noted in the 2016 Paris Accords which is what you claimed. So yea CoRev – you LIED. But hey – you lie about everything. So what’s new?
“t all reminds me of the children’s stores “Henny Penny” and “The Little Red Hen”. Perhaps people and their politicians should re-read them. Unfortunately, it seems that most simply emulate Henny Penny.”
Bruce Hall even failed children’s literature as this moron does not know there are many versions of this tale. In the US we all know about Chicken Little and how the sky is falling because an acorn fell. That does not describe people who get climate change at all. It does described Princeton Steve and his ilk – like Bruce Hall. And how do many versions of this children’s tale end. The fox eats everyone which basically describes the Koch Brothers (who pay for Bruce’s BS).
Remember when Ted Cruz read Green Eggs and Ham as if no one wanted Obamacare? The internet blew up telling Cruz to read the end of this Dr. Seuss classic. Cruz is bad at children’s literature but not as pathetic at it as Bruce Hall.
Seriously folks – no one is as dumb as Bruce Hall. No one.
Europe’s problem is relying on natural gas.
It is true that there are alternatives to using natural gas. But note Norway has producing a lot of natural gas for the past 50+ years. But Bruce’s desire to drill baby drill has led this moron not to get how much natural gas it already produces. No – our host has already trashed this idea that a little more drilling now will have large and immediate impacts on market prices. A totally debunked but of economic illogic that Bruce keeps repeating over and over.
As far as children’s stories, I do hope he let his wife read them to their kids as Brucie even gets them wrong.
europe (excluding russia) does not have enough supply of natural gas. therefore it is not a long term solution. as we have seen, natural gas reliance is a HUGE problem for europe. for those arguing europe should double down on natural gas, it only shows there economic ignorance. natural gas reliance in europe is not only an energy risk, as the world now sees, it is also a national security risk.
for those who complain about intermittency issues with renewables, it is interesting how they simply ignore the unreliability of natural gas in europe. those fools think it is better to be out of natural gas for months on end (and thus out of power), than to deal with any inconvenience from renewables which typically is measured in minutes, not weeks or months. reliance on natural gas is simply foolish in the modern world, over the long term.
Baffled, not having natural gas TODAY is the result of Climate change policies many years old, But you knew that but chose to ignore a minor fact. Your president is following that European model.
CoRev,
Gosh. If one does not shift to non-fossil fuel sources of energy and pumps out all of one’s natural gas and uses it up, gosh, one will indeed wake up finding oneself out of natural gas.
Brilliant observation you made there, although not perhaps implying the policy approach you thought you were advocating. But then we have seen you moronically argue that moving off natural gas will make the EU more dependent on Russian natural gas somehow, fantastical as this totally worthless and idiotic argument is.
“not having natural gas TODAY is the result of Climate change policies many years old”
no. the lack of natural gas today in Europe is not the result of climate change policies many years old. what a foolish statement you made covid. once again, it reveals that you have lost grasp of reality.
Baffled, in your zealotry please list t5he EU countries currently fracking. Better still list the EU countries which were actually looking for natural gas. Those are policy issues not geological availability.
You and your fellow travelers inability to accept the obvious is leading the world into this recession and KILLING people
CoRev,
Pllease list all of your underpants you have not had to send to the garbage because of your constant stream of contradictory claims and lies.
“Those are policy issues not geological availability.”
covid, as i pointed out in a previous post, germany has few natural gas resources. their reserves rank about 50th in the world, and are not economical to access. it has nothing to do with policy. it has to do with the distribution of natural resources. you cannot mine what you do not have. the cheapest and easiest natural gas for europe comes from russia. and that is a problem.
you can permit fracking, but if no gas is located there, it does you no good. you keep on living in a fantasy world, rather than dealing with constraints of reality. germany is not sitting on a mountain of natural gas they refuse to access. they simply have limited gas that is expensive to access. and while russia pumped out cheap natural gas, nobody with an economical brain would even try to explore and drill for the natural gas that was remaining in germany. and yet that is exactly what you advocated for.
Baffled, I see that lying is your normal mode. Ho did Europe in your no gas comment shift to just Germany? Talk about shifting goal posts, sheesh!
germany is a large part of Europe. it has little natural gas. whether Germany bans fracking or not is really not that relevant. Germany wants to rely on energy sources within its borders, not external to its borders. Russia has shown how important that is, by switching off the supply of energy overnight. reliance on foreign energy sources is very problematic.
Baffled, you’ve been hilarious. Almost more so than Barkley, although he might have you beat, slightly. Either your fanaticism clouds your thinking or you are as ignorant as your comment indicate.
Covid, the comment is accurate.
BTW – lately EU natural gas prices have come down quite a bit:
https://tradingeconomics.com/commodity/eu-natural-gas
Something else Bruce Hall forgot to be honest about!
Barkley, your hypothetical is far in the future. Current US EIA estimates current discovered NG to be ~500TF with ~6 times that still to be discovered and recovered. Do the math. How many generations do we have before the problem of no more US NG?
Drill baby drill to continue lowering CO2 and providing less expensive energy. Otherwise, continue implementing green/climate policies which do just the opposite.
Failure to try to answer those idiotic cost benefit questions is truly idiotic. The case study is Europe today.
Duuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuh.
Herschell Walker abortion promotion news update:
https://news.yahoo.com/herschel-walker-urged-woman-2nd-142936861.html
A woman who has said Herschel Walker, the Republican Senate nominee in Georgia, paid for her abortion in 2009 told The New York Times that he urged her to terminate a second pregnancy two years later. They ended their relationship after she refused. In a series of interviews, the woman said Walker had barely been involved in their now 10-year-old son’s life, offering little more than court-ordered child support and occasional gifts. The woman disclosed the new details about her relationship with Walker, who has anchored his campaign on an appeal to social conservatives as an unwavering opponent of abortion even in cases of rape and incest, after the former football star publicly denied that he knew her. He called her “some alleged woman” in a radio interview Thursday.
This woman is more than alleged. Now Walker may not remember since he romanced almost anything in a skirt but hey Hershell – the kid is your son.
RonJon has commented on climate change:
https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/561805-ron-johnson-climate-change-is-bullsh/
Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) downplayed the dangers of climate change at a Republican luncheon earlier this summer, according to a new report.
“I don’t know about you guys, but I think climate change is — as Lord Monckton said — bullshit,” Johnson said, according to CNN’s KFILE, which reported the Republican did not utter the expletive but mouthed it instead. “By the way, it is,” Johnson then added, according to a report. Lord Christopher Monckton is a British conservative climate change denier and political pundit.
Monckton and RonJon are CoRev’s heroes.
Interesting news on green energy from Oregon:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets/the-us-s-first-utility-scale-renewable-energy-triple-threat-is-online-in-oregon/ar-AA12IFnE?ocid=msedgdhp&pc=U531&cvid=5204df623df14f568a0821dfc715b0a8
What’s better than one type of clean energy? A triple threat of technologies working together to bring renewables to the grid. Just last week, the first utility-scale energy facility combining solar, wind, and battery storage opened up and started providing power in northern Oregon. Between 300 megawatts of wind, 50 megawatts of solar, and 30 megawatts of battery storage, the triple-powered project can power around 100,000 homes using clean energy. The project, called Wheatridge Renewable Energy Facilities is co-owned by NextEra Energy Resources, LLC, and Portland General Electric (PGE). Solar and wind energy naturally work well together because of their opposite power hours—wind tends to be strongest at night, and the sunniest hours are during the day. Still, a key part here is the battery storage, which provides a little bit of an extra cushion for the intermittency of solar and wind energy. With all that storage, energy can be harnessed on demand, even if the sun and wind are nowhere to be seen.
A promising idea. Of course this story will set off the rapid barking dog CoRev, which may turn out to be a blessing if this insane fool chokes on his own collar!
Ole bark, bark finds even another Babcock Ranch example confirming the intermittency ?myth? of renewables. From his reference:
“Solar and wind energy naturally work well together because of their opposite power hours—wind tends to be strongest at night, and the sunniest hours are during the day. Still, a key part here is the battery storage, which provides a little bit of an extra cushion for the intermittency of solar and wind energy.
This chart shows Oregon’s consumption totals: https://www.eia.gov/global/scripts/jquery/datepicker/images/ui-bg_flat_75_ffffff_40x100.png and this chart shows Oregon’s Electricity Generation sources: https://www.eia.gov/global/scripts/jquery/datepicker/images/ui-bg_flat_75_ffffff_40x100.png
I have done studies in Oregon and its electricit5y prices have for decades lower than the US average due to preponderance of hydro generation. During that study period hydro generation was sufficient to fulfill Oregon’s needs on the then existent grid to which it was connected such that it was selling excess power to surrounding states. From the sources chart that may not today be true.
What this article does show is that Oregon is like every other state where baseload is provided by OTHER THAN RENEWABLES.
This chart provides a counter point to the EIA sources chart: https://findenergy.com/or/ which shows Oregon does provide ~1.5 to 2 Million MWH of electricity via natural gas. If you study this data you can find that wind did not ON AVERAGE exceed generation by gas.
How many more hyperbolic claims need be shown to confirm the same FACTS re: renewable’s ?mythical? intermittency problems?
“I have done studies in Oregon and its electricit5y prices have for decades lower than the US average due to preponderance of hydro generation. During that study period hydro generation was sufficient to fulfill Oregon’s needs on the then existent grid to which it was connected such that it was selling excess power to surrounding states.”
No one would trust any “study” you did without reading it first. So WTF did you publish this alleged “study”? And who paid for it? The Koch Brothers. BTW you babbling about the past sources of energy is beyond the point and it is nothing more than babbling because those alleged links of yours do not work. So no one knows what they allegedly mean – especially you.
Hey CoRev – stick to chasing your own tail. It is all you are good at.
Bark, bark you are correct 2 links don’t work. I didn’t check them, but this is where they are from: https://www.eia.gov/state/?sid=OR In which it says:
“In 2020, hydroelectric power accounted for 50% of Oregon’s electricity generation, and all renewable sources combined produced 68% of total utility-scale generation.”
To get the Oregon’s consumption and sources data go to the chart just below this bullet.
“I didn’t check them”
So you put up links you did not check? Why? Oh – the Koch Brothers told you to do so. CoRev – thanks for proving once again you are a bought and paid for troll.
I love this from Quick Facts:
Oregon produces 32.73% of its electricity from non-renewable sources, giving it a ranking of 39th worst for total electricity production from non-renewable sources.
39th worst in terms of use of non-renewable sources is a record only a moron like CoRev would be proud of.
Bark, bark, I see you have failed to provide a link for Quick Facts. I wonder why? Are you telling us that Oregon’s 67.3% of renewables production has 11 states with higher production percentages? Can you provide that list for us. It must be there on quick facts, right?
Gee CoRev – I am not bought and paid for by the Koch Brothers like you are. So I have no incentive to spew misleading garbage 24/7. That is your game.
CoRev,
Ah, more evidence that you really are stupid, while pgl somehow is thinking you might be smarter than the iikes of Burce Hall and maybe even “Anonymous.” Sorry. “39th worst in terms of non-renewable sources” would mean that there 11 sates that have LOWER production percentages, not higher ones. Gag, you are such an idiot.
BTW, I have not dredged through these links or numbers, which look sort of odd to me. I am just noting the logic of what is being said here, which you completely messed up on, Very Stupid CoRev.
To pgl, I think the Kochs (of whom there is only one now) are too smart to pay this goofball. He is just worthless, incapable of convincing anybody remotely intelligent of anything.
Bark, bark, now after 2 days we still don’t have that link or list of states. Why is it you need to lie?
@ Barkley, what part of not following the logic in the comments is due to age, zealotry, or intended? Are you still teaching?
CoRev,
Are you REALLY claiming that “39th worst in terms of non-renewable resources” means that there are 11 states using MORE of them than Oregon? I get it. You think that non-renwables are BAD, so using more of them means one is WORSE in terms of them.
Sorry, you are the one who needs to go see a doc about your mental capacity. You will not get anywhere trying to pull; a Moses Herzog on me here.
Oh yeah, tomorrow I am hosting John List for a seminar, 7th most influential economist in the world according to RePec and a sure recipient of the Nobel sometime in the future. I invited Menzie to participate as it will be on zoom, but not wasting my time with any of the rest of you.
So, yeah, CoRev, I am barely functional with nobody in econ who has any brains wanting to have anything to do with me.
CoRev is so proud of himself that he has helped past Oregon policy ignore the environment in favor of policies that keep the private cost of providing energy low while having adverse effects on climate change. Oh that’s right – CoRev absolutely refuses to even recognize that the social costs from using fossil fuels. CoRev after all is bought and paid for by the Koch Brothers. Of course others in Oregon have been concerned about the effects from climate change for several years:
https://19january2017snapshot.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-09/documents/climate-change-or.pdf
And of course the Oregon government has finally decided to be responsible in this regard. So I guess CoRev failed in politics too. Poor little incompetent troll.
Bark, bark where’s that list of states?
Who cares, CoREv? You and your worthless questions have really gone way off the deep end.
Is there some kind of connection between this rant and the post it supposedly is responding to?
Now if they wanted to be completely secured against those rare brownout events where all the forces of nature & man conspire to reduce energy production below demand – they should build a small (green) hydrogen power plant. Then they would simply truck in hydrogen from outside when everything else fails. I see that some of the deaths in Florida came from black out of power in homes where a person depended on life sustaining medical equipment run by electricity. Another advantage of living in a home or community that doesn’t suffer from total blackouts – it may save your life.
We need to get rid of above ground power lines in towns and cities – and the way to do that is to use small efficient power production units build close to the places that need the power. Sure have some high voltage inter- and intra-state power lines to transmit when needed. But 90% of the production and consumption of electricity should be within no more than 10 miles of each other.
It’s called resiliency. Some people are afraid of it. Because it shows how renewables can be successful.
Yes and all the big power companies are fighting for their life against it. It would be much better for society, but bad for their profits.
Bret Devereaux wisely notes the common features of ancient Greek states’ loss of their democratic ideals and our current politics. “Stasis”, as used in this context, means factionalism:
Thucydides writes that “one city after the next fell into stasis” as that war progressed and inflicted economic hardships that set citizen against citizen. His description of the results of this infighting could just as easily be applied to modern politics, writing that “reckless audacity was thought to be loyal courage, while careful delay was veiled timidity; reasonableness was a guise for cowardice … the extremist was always to be trusted, the moderate to be suspected.” Norms collapsed in the increasingly violent competition as “men set the example in their retribution against one another of undermining those common laws which all alike can rely on in adversity.”
https://foreignpolicy.com/2021/03/07/ancient-greece-partisan-stasis-civil-conflict/
Climate change denial has become a shibboleth (pardon the shift in historic metaphor) for a particular faction in U.S. politics, the same faction which accuses reasonableness of cowardice and which undermines our common laws.
A voter from Marjorie Taylor Greene states the obvious;
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/she-s-not-bright-and-she-s-a-bully-voters-and-gop-officials-in-marjorie-taylor-greene-s-hometown-have-grown-embarrassed-by-her/ar-AA12K2rr?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=9731222ac54d41599bd004a318a6d099
“I’m embarrassed to be from her district. She’s a national laughingstock. The things that she says, she doesn’t know basic words. She couples off with the worst people in Washington and is very annoying. She’s not bright and she’s a bully. She’s definitely not somebody you want representing where you live,” she lamented.
So why did she win her last election? Oh yea – her district is KKK country. MAGA!
I’m no expert on children’s literature but the way Village Moron Bruce Hall conflated The Little Red Hen with Henny Penny required me to find the children’s story:
https://americanliterature.com/childrens-stories/the-little-red-hen
Read the whole thing if you wish but I will give you the morale of the story, which is simply that this hen did the hard work that no one else on the farm was willing to do and choose to reap the rewards. If one really wanted to tie this to the climate change issue, the Little Red Hen represents people like Al Gore and certainly not lazy idiots like CoRev, Bruce Hall, or even RonJon who say we should not do anything.
Once again Bruce Hall cites something he never bothered to either read or understand.
Herschel Walker cannot run away from this abortion story:
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2022-election/texts-show-family-strife-herschel-walkers-wife-woman-alleged-paid-abor-rcna51279
Herschel Walker, the Republican nominee for Senate in Georgia, claimed he confirmed for the first time Friday the identity of the woman who has claimed he paid for her abortion 13 years ago when she leveled the allegation in a text message to his wife. In a brief interview with NBC News, Walker said this was also the first time the woman, who is the mother of one of his four children, mentioned to him or his wife that she had had an abortion. “Did you know Herschel paid for my abortion the first time? Or that he told me it wasn’t the ‘right time’ to have [her current child]?” the woman wrote in a 9:54 a.m. text message sent Friday to Herschel Walker’s wife, Julie Walker, who initiated the conversation. In response, Julie Walker acknowledged that she had tried to be a mediator between Herschel Walker and the woman, who seldom corresponded directly with her son’s father. “This message makes me incredibly sad. You know I have continually tried to bridge a better relationship between you and Herschel putting [the child] first,” Julie Walker wrote to the woman, who did not return messages to NBC News requesting comment.
Herschel never gave a damn about this child. I guess Julie Walker is a better person than her husband.
i for one am glad —– is shutting down their ————- —– ….
[ This is entirely false and malicious; a definitively racist allusion. There has been no such entity in the country in question; there could be no such entity now in the country in question. ]
ltr: I think you need to document using non-state media if you are to deny the internment of Uighur minorities in the Xinjiang autonomous territory, given the UN and other reports. To just say it’s racist to accuse China of such mass violations of human rights is clearly false.
i for one am glad —– is shutting down their ————- —– ….
i for one am glad —– is shutting down their ————- —– ….
i for one am glad —– is shutting down their ————- —– ….
[ This is the statement; the statement is false and malicious; definitively racist. ]
Not a racist word in that statement. You are an embarrassment ltr. You cry like a five year old who has been reprimanded. I demand an apology from you, again, for falsely calling me racist. You will not silence me with your attempts at bullying.
ltr,
YOU ARE LYING! YOU ARE LYING! YOU ARE LYING!
Get real, the UNITED NATIONS HAS DOCUMENTED IT. You are accusing the UN of lying? Sorry, you have zero credibility on this. You are making yourself look utterly and totally worthless with this horrendous beyond belief.
Do please get real on this so that people can treat you with some respect on this matter, please.
—– has a history of abuse toward minorities.
[ This is false and, of course, malicious; a definitively racist assertion. The evident need being to harm an entire people. ]
LIE LIE LIE LIE LIE!
Stop lying here on this, ltr. It is utterly and totally disgusting. You should be ashamed of yourself. Nobody, not one person here, has the remotest shred of respect for these lies you are spouting. It is beneath contempt, utterly and totally.
So you think we are all complete idiots? Really? Do you think we believe YOU over the UNITED NATIONS???
Xinjiang is readily and thoroughly accessible by advanced transport. Xinjiang is visited monthly by millions of Chinese and international travelers. Xinjiang has been expressly visited by Muslim government officials from country after country with large Muslim populations. The experiences of such travelers in Xinjiang has been continually admiring. An international trade exposition was just held and concluded in Xinjiang with some 3,600 international companies represented leading to the signing of trade contract after contract….
The people of Xinjiang are prospering and will continue to prosper.
Yes, people continued to visit and the citizens continued to prosper in Germany even as Jews were being sent into the concentration camps. Have you not lectured people here about the Jews and German concentration camps? Well, ltr, THESE REEDUCATION CAMPS HAVE BEEN NO BETTEer. In this case, it is the Han Chinese being the Germans while it is the Uyghur minority who have been the Jews.
But, now it is being reported credibly in the Washington Post that China is bringing these camps to an end. I say this is to be applauded. It is like learning that Germany has stopped sending Jews to concentration camps and is in fact closing them down. But rather then celebrate this good news, you incredibly insist against overwhelming international evidence from totally credible sources that none of this ever happened or existed, with your argument being that it could not happen because there are tourists from Muslim countries going to Xinjiang. Not a single person here is remotely mpressed or convinced by this incredibly stupid and rididcoulous argument.
https://english.news.cn/20221008/ab4731c8fc6043f181083251f96002cf/c.html
October 8, 2022
Tibet’s rural residents enjoy improved livelihood over past decade
* Southwest China’s Tibet Autonomous Region has experienced a decade of extraordinary transformations with the support of the central government and the entire country.
* The living environment and quality of life of farmers and herders have significantly improved over the past 10 years.
* With heavy spending on the construction of railway and road facilities, Tibet has fostered rapid development and constant improvements to the lives of the locals.
* Improved transportation network has rendered a further boost to tourism in the region. Rural Tibet attracted more than 12.7 million tourists last year, generating about 1.6 billion yuan in tourism revenue and creating 64,500 jobs for farmers and herders.
By Shen Hongbing, Cao Jian, Zhang Jingpin and Lyu Qiuping
LHASA — Located on the Qinghai-Tibet Plateau, known as the “roof of the world,” southwest China’s Tibet Autonomous Region has experienced a decade of extraordinary transformations with the support of the central government and the entire country.
After years of efforts, rural residents in Tibet have achieved fruitful results and seen improved livelihood, with their per capita disposable income maintaining double-digit growth for 19 consecutive years.
In 2021, the per capita disposable income of rural residents in Tibet reached 16,935 yuan (about 2,385 U.S. dollars), 2.97 times the income recorded in 2012, said Du Jie, director of the regional department of agriculture and rural affairs. The income growth has been the highest nationwide for seven consecutive years.
“The living environment and quality of life of farmers and herders have significantly improved over the past 10 years,” Du said.
NEW ROADS
With heavy spending on the construction of railway and road facilities, Tibet has fostered rapid development and constant improvements to the lives of the locals.
Since 2012, more than 337 billion yuan has been spent as fixed-asset investment in Tibet’s transport sector, according to the region’s transport department.
Over the past decade, three railway lines have formed a “Y” shape on the plateau region, with the latest Lhasa-Nyingchi line, the region’s first electrified railway line, kicking off operation on June 25, 2021. The Lhasa railway station, where the three lines meet, has seen passenger flow up from 2.24 million in 2007 to more than 4 million in 2021.
In Cosibsumgyi Township, Ngari Prefecture, residents of Baka Village have enjoyed development dividends in local infrastructure.
“In the 1990s, local residents started to plant willow trees along the river valley. Considering the weather in Ngari Prefecture, plantations are usually carried out in April and May, when Cosibsumgyi is often snowbound,” said Oizhu Doje, who hails from Baka Village.
Oizhu Doje recounted a time when the mountain was completely blocked for a month due to heavy snowfall, preventing the transportation of nursery stock to the outside….
China has lifted tens of million of people from severe poverty and hundreds of millions from poverty; people of all Chinese ethnicities. China is especially fast friends with peoples of some 170 nationalities, as the Belt and Road show. China is fast friends with predominantly Muslim countries from Kazakhstan through Egypt through Bangladesh… Israel is friends with China, though American diplomats have expressed displeasure, as Chinese infrastructure investment and current work at Israel’s invitation on deepening trade relations show…
China is a human rights model, a guide, for hundreds of millions of people of an array of ethnicities internationally.
China need not cater to historical foreign antipathies ever again. Never again.
ltr,
But Taiwan did a much better job of raising its population from poverty than did the PRC, more quickly, more equally, and without all the suppression of minorities, along with the broader suppression of human rights that goes on the PRC, especially in comparison with what is going on in Taiwan. PRC should imitate Taiwan.
ltr,
Now that we have all cooled down a bit, here is my take on this.
I happen to respect you a lot. You have long been a pretty straight arrow ‘data wonk” going back to your anne days on Thoma’s blog. Your observations on the US economy are generally well-informed and pretty reasonable, even when I do not necessarily agree with them.
Moving to your regular reproductions of things from official Chinese sources, which Menzie has on more than one occasion says he is not keen on you doing, most of them do also contain largely factually correct items, if often with some comments that exaggerate the significance or meaning of what is being reported. You never post any disagreement with official Chinese policy, which has led many here to accuse you of being a paid agent, which I still sort of doubt.
Indeed, I suspect you actually do disagree at least a bit with some things the Chinese government does or supports, although I may be wrong about that. I am not going to point to anything in particular, but it is my guess that if I am right you deal with this by just not posting about such matters.
This is why, aside from you crossing a line you did not know existed on Econospeak, I have been so upset about the line you have taken on this report about China improving its human rights record regarding the reeducation camps in Xinjiang. You could have just said nothing. But instead you jumped in and promoted this clearly blatant falsehood that somehow they never existed, when their existence has been verified by many parties, including ahem, yet again, the United Nationss. You really cannot go against that source, and I do not know why you even tried. It was disappointing to see you do so, a singular lapse of judgment on your part. And, again, telling us about increase tourism in Ximjiang most definitely does not convince anybody there were no reeducation camps.
Again, even if you do not appreciate me doing so, I shall applaud the Chinese leadership for apparently ending what has probably been their worst human rights abuse of recent years. Maybe they want to pretend it never happened. But nobody here is going to be convinced of that lie.
—— have to keep lying about ——- practice of slavery, too. Remember, — lies every time someone mentions slavery in —–….
[ This is false and malicious; definitive racism, meant to harm an entire people. Imagine such antipathy. ]
ltr, when I imagine antipathy, I think of you – your antipathy toward truth, honor, compassion, toward Uighurs, toward Mongols, toward Taiwanese, toward the U.S.
I understand that your regular flooding of comments here is meant to anesthetize us, to make you seem part of the landscape, so that the viler parts of your propaganda have a chance of slipping by unchallenged. By now, you must have noticed you’ve failed. Your lies about China’s human rights record, your justification of China’s expansionist efforts, your praise of bloody autocrats that are China’s clients, it’s all a waste of electrons. You’re not covering up China’s evil; you’re drawing more attention to it.
I’ll offer you a better strategy, one more to China’s advantage. Stop drawing attention to China. Those of us with a stomach for keeping abreast of human rights and international affairs will still know what China is up to – nothing you can do about that. But those who have other things to worry about, who don’t regularly think about China’s bullying of Taiwan or enslavemnt of minorities, won’t have their attention drawn to it. Wouldn’t that be better for you and your masters?
I can’t promise to stop pointing out China’s wretched behavior toward minorities and its growing militarism. Such things cannot be ignore. And I can only speak for myself. However, without your lies to respond to, I will probably not mention China’s vile behavior as often.
I really think your behavior here hurts China’s image. Is that what you want?
I think ltr does not understand what the term racist means. Please do not use terms which you do not understand. And quit linking to ccp websites, unless you want to continue to receive criticism for posting false propaganda.
So the fact denying right has moved from “its not true; it’s a hoax” to “the problem is too big for us to solve” – at light speed. Both of those false postulates are growing in the same soil of “I do not want to make any personal sacrifices to solve or reduce the size of this problem”. Some may think the rapture or death will take them away before they personally suffer the consequences – others that they are on high ground so they will not be the ones drowning. The basic anti-social pathology of the right on display. Y’all take care of yourself, except when I personally need some taken care of/protection.
climate hysteria is religion
faith that broach no question
Anonymous,
Uh oh, there you going confirming that probably you actually are dumber than Bruce Hall, even though pgl thinks he is dumber than both you and CoRev.
“climate hysteria”? There is an international scientific consensus regarding likely trends in global average temperature and how those relate to possible patterns of CO2 and methane emissions. This is science, not religion. What we do about this is a global policy matter that is highly complicated with many people differing on both how much should be done and what that should be done.
Would you like to explain which aspects of this constitute this supposed “faith” of “climate hysteria.” please? Accepting this international scientific consensus about likely future paths? Advocating doing anything about it at all? Or does it become “hyusteria” only if people believe that the trends will be much worse than what the international scientific consensus says or if people push certain specific policies that you consider to be radical or exceissive or extreme, and if so, just which of these policies are signs that one is engaging in “climate hysteria” based on “faith” if they are advocated?
Or is it the climare skeptics, people denying science, who are perhaps the actualy “climate hysterics” who are exhibiting a baseless “faith” for some sort of political ideology, sort of like all those idiots who believe that Trump only lost the presidential election in 2020 due to systematic fraud. Full blown “climate change denial” amounts to being about about that stupid and ridiculous, and we have seen quite a bit of that nonsense out of several of you here.
Barkley poivide even another example of faulty logic with faulty language: ” Full blown “climate change denial” …” Show us anyone who denies that the CLIMATE CHANGES.
You also claimed that: ” There is an international scientific consensus regarding likely trends in global average temperature and how those relate to possible patterns of CO2 and methane emissions.” Please using those terms explain this graph: https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1957/plot/esrl-co2/normalise/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1997.75/to:2013/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1957/to:1978/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2014/trend
Your statement makes several false assumptions.
1) Co2 and methane drive temperature
2) Temperature is the same as climate change
3) Scientific consensus is meaningful science. Scientific history shows just the opposite.
CoRev,
Ah, you reveal yourself to be a “climate hysteric” with a pile of total nonsense. For starters, did you even look at that link you provided that is supposed to impress us with something? It shows a steady upward trend of average global temperature, which is the problem, despite year to year fluctuations, those reflecting that “weather” you like to go on and on about. Your link completely disproves your utterly stupide and false arguments along those lines.
As for your claim that I have made false statements. Wrong wrong wrong. Gag, you are not only stupid, but massively ignorant.
1) Yes, CO2 and methane massively influanece global temperature. This is a firmly established scientifici fact, accepted even by authorities you like to quote such as this Judith Curry, not to mention my old friend and famous “climate skeptic,” the late Patrick Michaels. Certainly other things are involved in what determines average global temperatrure, but both of these are important, and, bottom line, nobody but nobody has identified anything other than the ongling increase in ambient levels of CO2 in the atmosphere to exlain that increase in avereage global temperature the link you so stupidly provided supports.
2) Frankly, I have never been a fan of the term “climate change” and generally avoid it, precisely because it is so vague and general. It is perhaps worth remembering at this point why it was so unfortunately adopted. It was in response to the “climate skeptics” in the W. Bush administration who did not want to do anything and criticized the term “global warming,” which had been previously used. So in a vain effort to get the W. Bush people on board, this term “climate change” got adopted, but it is just silly. The problem is indeed global warming, a long term increase in average global temperatur that is going on and looks to be almost certainly due mostly to human causes.
Oh, and of course it i snot “temperature” that is “climate change.” It is “ong tern increase in average global temperature,” as opposed to year to year fluctuations in that average, as again one can see in that link you provided. One can see both, the “weather” of the year to year changes and the “climate change” of the sready increasin the long term avwerage of the global temperature, which is the problem.
3) It is true that sometimes “scientific consensus” is wrong, but there is no evidence in this case that this one is weong. You certainly have failed to provide such evidence. just as you did here, you provide a link that you think does so while it confirms the consensus.
Wow, you really are just massively stupid to the point of supremely embarrassingly so, although somehow you are too stupid even to figure out how stupid you look.
CoRev 1) Co2 and methane drive temperature
In today’s world CO2 and methane are the main drivers in temperature change. But fifty years ago that wasn’t entirely true because there was also a lot of SO2 getting pumped into the atmosphere, which tended to cool the planet. And that’s why you see a transient dip in temperatures at the beginning of your woodfortrees graph. We’ve been over this before, so you’re either a wilfull troll or you’re an old man with the memory of a goldfish.
2) Temperature is the same as climate change
No one said that. Again, we’ve covered this umpteen times in the past. Just another of your feeble attempts to change the subject.
3) Scientific consensus is meaningful science. Scientific history shows just the opposite.
Written like a true Trumpian who praises ignorance. Science isn’t perfect, but when it goes off the rails it’s usually because people fall back on intuition, which is almost always wrong. And when you can’t do formal analysis, you fall back on intuition and say silly things like how such a small amount of CO2 in atmosphere could have such a large effect on temperature. That’s an intuition-based comment, not an analytical comment. If you disagree with the scientific consensus, then the burden of proof is on you to show why that consensus is wrong. You’ve never been able to do that. Why? Well, because you don’t have the education or intellectual tools that would be needed. Hell, you don’t even understand the difference between stochastic and deterministic trends despite Menzie’s heroic efforts to enlighten you.
You’ve been claiming that we’re about the enter a cooling phase for at least 25 years that I know of. We’re always just on the cusp of global cooling. How many decades have to pass before you show enough intellectual honesty to admit that you were wrong then and you’re still wrong today?
Barkley and 2slugs, evidence instead of OPINION move debates. Neither of you have provided any evidence at all that the recent temperature increases were due to man made causes.
2slugs, you have exaggerated the impacts of GHGs from the beginning. If they are so important explain how/why temperature doesn’t rise with increasing CO2 in the WFT graph. If the short period in the graph was unique, you might make a case for GHG. It isn’t. “Global mean temperature has fluctuated over the last 170 years (Figure 1, [6] ): falling by 0.6˚C 1878-1910, rising by 0.6˚C 1910-1945, falling by 0.3˚C 1945-1975, rising by 0.6˚C 1975-2003 and falling by 0.05˚C 2003-2018. IPCC and its proponents only consider the 1970-2000 period of temperature rise because only this period has some similarity with the rise in CO2. ” https://www.scirp.org/journal/PaperInformation.aspx?paperID=87829
If you can explain why the Little Ice Age occurred and why it ended using GHG that also may add weight. While you are doing that you might explain why recent history shows temperature peaks coincident with ENSO peaks.
I’ll wait for those simple explanations. Please include the total impact on Global Temperature Chan. It is your position that we need to spend $Trillion to solve this Climate Change/Temperature/Tipping point problem.
CoRev More clueless nonsense.
If they are so important explain how/why temperature doesn’t rise with increasing CO2 in the WFT graph.
I already did. Reread my first post. Like I said, the memory of a goldfish.
If you can explain why the Little Ice Age occurred and why it ended
The natural climate change forces that gave us the Little Ice Age are still present. If it weren’t for GHG gases we would be seeing a continuation of that natural colder phase. It’s precisely because of GHGs that we’re seeing warming rather than cooling. The natural forces that created the Little Ice Age are still with us. That’s pretty strong evidence that the observed global warming is due to manmade causes rather than natural variation.
explain why recent history shows temperature peaks coincident with ENSO peaks.
This is probably beyond your skill set, but if you regress temperature anomalies for la nina years, el nino years and neutral years, you will find that all three share the same slope. The differences are in the intercepts. Or you could search NOAA’s research on this since they’ve already done that analysis. Do you know how to interpret that result?
is your position that we need to spend $Trillion to solve this Climate Change/Temperature/Tipping point problem.
I suspect it will cost a lot more than $1T. OTOH, it’s a dead certainty that we’ll be spending a lot more if we don’t combat climate change now. For example, at least two major insurance companies are unwinding their interests in property insurance not because of high risk (which is quantifiable and for which you can set premiums), but because the risks are unquantifiable. And how much value do you put on saving the lives of innocent people in the Asian subcontinent? Do you expect people in Bangladesh and Pakistan to just passively roll over and die because CoRev wants more warm days so he can play golf year round? The reason you don’t want to invest in climate change mitigation is because you’re a selfish old man who will be long dead and forgotten when the chickens come home to roost.
2slugs more opinion versus evidence. When did you become the expert overall others? At least I include the data or references, and still get called names.
We’ve discussed the reasoning of the insurance companies. Their profit goals drive their operations.
i vote goldfish.
It’s a familiar pattern. First, do something bad for the public (the nation, the world), then deny it, then say the results are so bad that …fill in the lank with a self-serving conclusion.
In the case of climate change, “It’s too late” or “It’s beyond solution”. In the case of election fraud, it’s “the public believes [the lies MAGA types have spread] so now we must investigate to satisfy the public [and reinforce our lies].
It’s textbook stuff, I’m tellin’ ya.
Ivan. “the problem is too big for us to solve” define the “problem” for us. MacroDuck thinks it is ?reflective particles? (I think he means aerosols), and green house gases. While Barkley thinks the problem is increasing temperatures.
Did you notice neither defined them as Climate Change? Fuzzy language leads to fuzzy definitions of problems and their solutions. To some that means I’m a climate denier instead of a questioner of dubious logic.
Again, a comment that is mostly gibberish And complaint.
Climate Change is fuzzy? No troll – your incessant intellectual garbage is what fuzzy refers to. Could someone tell the Koch Brothers that they need a better bought and paid for troll as CoRev’s act has gone very pathetic.
Bark, bark define climate change for us.
CoVid, what are you going on about? Reflective particles are not part of the problem! They temporarily ameliorate the problem. Yes, they are called aerosols in the literature, but most of the people I’ve spoken to about this problem think “aerosol” means ozone-depleting propellant, so I descibe what they do, to avoid confusion. It is the reflectivity of those particles which is relevant to climate change.
Dear readers of comments, notice how CoRev attempts to drive discussion away from the important issues, and toward trivial nomenclature. Again, this is a trick practiced by the “fake science” crowd. You see it again and again from CoVid: “Who gives a crap about the planet, the future?? Watch me talk trash about people who take the future seriously.” That’s who he is.
MD says: ” They temporarily ameliorate the problem. Yes, they are called aerosols in the literature, but most of the people I’ve spoken to about this problem think “aerosol” means ozone-depleting propellant, so I descibe what they do, to avoid confusion. ” So you are talking to climate ignorants about complex and some what controversial subjects by dumbing down the terms.
You don’t even realize you reinforced my case for using precise language.
CoRev,
Sorry, but yes, the problem is INCREASING TEMPERATURES. And we know that these look to be largely being driven by increasing ambient levels of CO2 in the atmosphere, with rising methane emissions further aggravating this GLOBAL WARMING PROBLEM, to use the old term that should never have been dropped to try to please the worthless clowns in the W. Bush administration.
Barkley you can make me laugh! “…, to use the old term that should never have been dropped to try to please the worthless clowns in the W. Bush administration.” so it was Bush’s fault that climate scientists changed the term. Please show us the Bus policy.BTW, what I remember was the term change during the Global Warming PAUSE during his administration.
Also we are in an 8 year pause today. Wonder what the next name shift will be?
CoRev,
No, we are not in an “8 year pause” right now. Why do you keep lying and making utterly false and stupid statements. When did you lose your mind?
Do you want tor repeat the utterly incorrect claim you made above about how CO2 and methane are NOT drivers of global temperature? Again, even this Judith Curry you so proudly cited disagrees with you. You are utterly foolish.
CoRev Also we are in an 8 year pause today.
Where do you get this crapola? Just look at NOAA’s global land and ocean temperature anomaly data:
https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/monitoring/monthly-report/global/202013#:~:text=The%20global%20annual%20temperature%20has,2.30%C2%B0F)%20above%20average.
Where do you see an “8 year pause”?
Gee CoRev – our host has a neat little graph exposing your latest lie. Keep it up troll!
2slugs, Barkley and even Menzie can not see a pause in the temperature data, even after showing the NOAA annual graph. Here is the source of that analysis: https://i0.wp.com/wattsupwiththat.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/pause.webp?w=601&ssl=1 The article explains the calculation process:
“The New Pause, having paused a month ago, has now lengthened again: this time to exactly eight years. As always, the Pause is calculated as the longest period for which the least-squares linear-regression trend up to the most recent month for which the UAH global mean surface temperature anomaly is available is zero.”
And concludes with:
“The New Pause has grown to fully eight years in length at a most embarrassing point for true-believers: for the cost to the West of the economically suicidal policies that they have long advocated is now becoming all too painfully apparent, just as it is also ever more evident that the warming since 1990 is well below half the midrange prediction made by IPCC that year.” https://wattsupwiththat.com/2022/10/05/the-new-pause-lengthens-to-8-years/
You are citing Christopher Monckton as your expert on climate change? That may be the dumbest thing you have ever said. Seriously? Christopher Monckton?
i don’t think covid understands what scientific analysis entails.
Bark, bark can you refute his math/arithmetic? You didn’t refute the pause at the end of the NOAA graph.
CoRev Do you not understand the mistake in this supposed “New Pause” calculation? Think it through. He made a pretty elementary math error.
“To some that means I’m a climate denier instead of a questioner of dubious logic.”
Fuzzy writing. To be precise, CoRev should have written.
I am a climate CHANGE denier as well as a proponent of dubious logic.
See CoRev – that is how to write clearly.
pgl,
Yes, he really does not even know how to write, e.g. claiming that “temperature is climate change.” This goes along with him calling a set of undefined “projects” “it.” Gag.
Barkley thank you again for the laugh. Weaker and weaker become your arguments.
Anyone who relies on the misinformation from Christopher Monckton shouldn’t be lecturing others on the strength or weakness of their arguments. CoRev – everyone knows you are a fraud. But keep it up as your BS is amusing.
Bark,bark I see you’re lying again. Use of terms like misinformation, weak/strong arguments without evidence/examples and scientific backup is as you say amusing BS.
“Ltr, i for one am glad china is shutting down their concentration camps.”
ltr, if you are going to call me racist, at least put the full quote down. now show me what is racist in this quote. or apologize for being a bully and disrespectful on this blog.
As a Christian, I do find it troubling/disconcerting how often the worst actors in society appeal to other people identifying themselves as “Christian” or evangelical. Including Taylor-Greene recently comparing herself to Jesus Christ.
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/concerns-grow-over-the-increasing-ties-between-christianity-and-right-wing-nationalism
Of course if one reads the Bible thoroughly and carefully they will see there are multiple warnings (prophesies??) about this:
Matthew 7:15-20
King James Version
15 Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.
16 Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?
17 Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.
18 A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.
19 Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.
20 Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.
It’s my personal belief that we can make fun of some Christians’ continual obsession that the Rapture “must” be around the corner, to sell a book, sell some scam, sell some product, or sell fear to voters in a Democracy. Because that is the wrong underlying reason. (Think TBN, Mike Huckabee, Billy Graham playing apologetics for Richard Nixon’s Watergate lies and racism, etc here)
But some Christians are sincere, and genuine and feel we must perceive it and expect the Rapture as “near” because of the fact we do not know WHEN it will come, and therefor the proper mindset is that it could happen in the very next moment. These people are not to be poked fun of, neither the Rapture itself.
The last portion of Matthew 24:
36 But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only.
37 But as the days of Noah were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.
38 For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark,
39 And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.
40 Then shall two be in the field; the one shall be taken, and the other left.
41 Two women shall be grinding at the mill; the one shall be taken, and the other left.
42 Watch therefore: for ye know not what hour your Lord doth come.
43 But know this, that if the goodman of the house had known in what watch the thief would come, he would have watched, and would not have suffered his house to be broken up.
44 Therefore be ye also ready: for in such an hour as ye think not the Son of man cometh.
45 Who then is a faithful and wise servant, whom his lord hath made ruler over his household, to give them meat in due season?
46 Blessed is that servant, whom his lord when he cometh shall find so doing.
47 Verily I say unto you, That he shall make him ruler over all his goods.
48 But and if that evil servant shall say in his heart, My lord delayeth his coming;
49 And shall begin to smite his fellowservants, and to eat and drink with the drunken;
50 The lord of that servant shall come in a day when he looketh not for him, and in an hour that he is not aware of,
51 And shall cut him asunder, and appoint him his portion with the hypocrites: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.
Verse 38 should read “Noah”, not “Noe”. My apologies. That’s what I get for copy/pasting the Bible, of all things to copy/paste..
I heard one minister word this in modern terms. Two workmates in an office cubicle right next to one another. One goes, the other is left behind. I just thought it’s another interesting way of looking at it or perceiving it.