When do the Americans start figuring it out?

Today, I’m taking you back to the year 1896. A Swedish man by the name of Svante Arrhenius asks himself: “What could be the cause of the cycle of ice ages?” He came up with a new theory: Maybe it’s caused by a lack of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

And then he began to think to himself: “Well, we’re burning a lot of coal right now, for the industrial revolution. If we keep doing this, we’ll end up killing ourselves off thousands of years from now, because we’ll warm up the planet too much.”

He was not very worried however. In fact, he  thought the warming would be pretty nice initially, it would gradually green the Earth, expanding the regions that humans can use for agriculture. He was mostly right in this assumption. During the 20th century, human food production increased massively. In part, this is because we increased the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, which made plants lose less water to moisture and gave us warmer weather, particularly at night and during winter.

But as with any nutrition, too much of a good thing eventually stops being good. Imagine you suffer starvation. Consuming more calories initially makes you feel better. But as you steadily increase your calorie budget, eventually it becomes detrimental to your health again.

What Arrhenius did not anticipate, is how much the human population would grow and how much coal and other fossil fuels those people would end up using:

Most people forgot about Arrhenius theory again. CO2 hadn’t varied a lot in the atmosphere during their lifetimes and there were various other theories circulating too. However, something began to change rapidly around 1950. That’s when people began to figure out that all the carbon wasn’t ending up in the ocean: Most of it was ending up in the atmosphere.

But still, there was not a lot of worry. After all, there was another issue to consider too: Burning all these fossil fuels produces massive amounts of dust. This dust blocks the sun and so the warming effect was largely offset by the decrease in sunlight, an effect called global dimming. That’s why a number of people thought the blockade of sunlight would exceed the warming from carbon dioxide, leading to global cooling.

However, global dimming is largely coming to an end, because human beings don’t like to die from air pollution. In 1952, air pollution in London was so bad that anywhere around 10,000 people died, over a period of four days. Even today, 8 million deaths every year are thought to be due to air pollution. In other words, air pollution is not about to bail us out.

And so as time went on and we dealt with the air pollution, we ran into a new problem. Long before any of your politicians had any clue what was going on, the American oil companies were worried. From the 1970’s onwards, Exxon was busy studying how its business would affect our climate. They rapidly figured out that the carbon dioxide they were producing would have long term effects and would make our planet warmer.

And by 1982, they were pretty massively worried. They released a memo to upper management, that was “not to be distributed externally”. I’m going to cite to you here, from the internal report of Exxon Mobil:

“It is postulated that part of the Sahara Desert in Africa was quite- wet 2,000 to 8,000 years ago. The American Midwest, on the other band. was much drier, and it is projected that the midwest would again become drier should there be a temperature increase of the magnitude postulated for a
doubling of atmospheric CO2, (see Flgure 7).”

“CO2 induced warming is predicted to be much greater at the polar regions. There could also be positive feedback mechanisms as deposits of peat, containing large reservoirs of organic carbon, are exposed to oxidation. Similarly, thawing might also release large quantities of carbon currently sequestered as methane hydrates. Quantitative estimates of these possible effects are needed.”

“There is a need to be sure that “lifetime” exposure to elevated CO2, poses no risks to the health of humans or animals. Health effects associated with changes in the climate sensitive parameters or stress associated with climate related famine or migration could be significant, and deserve study.”

But they had a glass-half full kind of conclusion: It’s not as a bad as nuclear war and we’ll have to deal with it somehow:

“In terms of the societal and institutional responses to an increase in CO2, the AAAS-DOE workshop participants felt that society can adapt to the increase in CO2 and that this problem is not as significant to mankind as a nuclear holocaust. or world famine.”

I think this should become Exxon-Mobil’s new slogan: “hey at least it’s not a nuclear holocaust!”.

But amazingly, they also made a scenario, where they look at what could happen. Here you find their “high scenario”:

Pretty impressive, don’t you think? They figured out what the CO2 concentration in 2015 would be and they’re pretty accurate with the temperature increase too. Take a look at this: The baseline scenario is 1979, at 0 degree. Then in 2015, you’re 0.84 degree Celsius above that, with 409 parts of CO2 in the atmosphere per million:

So here you have what happened to global temperatures. In 1979 they were at -0.2 below the 1961-1990 average. Then by 2015, they’re at around 0.6. So that’s a 0.8 degree Celsius increase. For CO2, the concentration was accurate too. In other words, Exxon in 1979, had figured out what Joe Sixpack in the United States who comments on my blog, is still denying today! Pretty amazing don’t you think?

But here’s the real question to ask yourself: Do you think it’s coincidence that Exxon had figured out in 1979, what you are in denial about today? Of course it isn’t, rather, what the fossil fuel companies began to do, is that they began to sow doubt and resentment among working class conservative Americans. They’re the ideal fertile ground: They are skeptical of the society they live in, particularly of their government. These people know this, so they abuse you like a puppet on a string.

Take a look for example, at what Americans For Prosperity does, to get you very angry about the idea of doing something about this problem:

Behind much of this state-level pressure is money from Charles and David Koch, petroleum magnates who are increasingly notorious for funding far-right ventures such as FreedomWorks, a tea party organizer, and think tanks that traffic in climate-change denial. One of their organizations, Americans for Prosperity, is running a Regulation Reality Tour, which is trying to whip up outrage about the “EPA’s power grab.” Part of this Astroturf campaign involves political theater: fake “carbon cops” in little green Smart cars with flashing lights pull out badges and issue citations for carbon “crimes” like mowing a lawn.

So we can imagine how this goes: Joe Sixpack is barbecuing on his lawn and has a couple of Budweisers circulating in his bloodstream, and then up shows a guy dressed like a “carbon cop”, who starts handing out fake fines to Joe. And Mr. Sixpack doesn’t like this of course, but he is relieved to learn it’s just a joke.

But the seed has been planted: You now don’t think of climate change as a bunch of wealthy old billionaires poisoning your atmosphere to make themselves richer. No, you now think of it as “big government” trying to “impose tyranny”. This is not coincidence: These people know what makes you tick.

And when we look at how well all of this has worked out, to convince the average angry American white male that we should continue using the atmosphere as a waste dump, my recommendation to other American billionaires eager to make the average working class guy do their dirty work for them is as following:

-Hey Purdue pharma, go ahead and send a bunch of opioid cops into Joe Sixpack’s home. Tell him that he is getting fines for taking too many opioids for his back problems! Before you know it, every angry white male will demand that government stops intervening in his kids’ pill popping habit.

-Big government want to take away your job as a prison warden, by legalizing cannabis! The prison industry is vital to our economy, but the UN wants to get men out of jail for non-violent drug offenses because of some woke racial justice issue or something like that!

-The UN tyrants want to stop you from drinking microplastics! It’s my God given right to dump plastic bottles into the local river and if that stuff eventually ends up eaten by the fish I eat and starts clogging my blood vessels, then government has no business intervening!

And I know what you’re thinking now: “Alright Rintrah Radagast, you have made your point. But surely you see that the governments and Klaus Schwab and Bill Gates and all the other elites want to use this climate change issue to turn us all into neofeudal serfs?”

And that brings me to an important point: Climate change activists always knew it was going to be difficult to get everyone to agree to do something about it. And so James Hansen, who was the first to warn the US congress about what was going on, is adamant in the following solution: A revenue neutral carbon dividend.

This would look as following: Every fossil fuel company in the US has to pay a certain price per ton of CO2 they produce. This money then gets distributed equally to every citizen of the country. It’s very similar to what Henry George proposed with a tax on land. It also seems like the solution most compatible with the libertarian and conservative principle of a small government.

But let’s say for a moment, that you’re still not convinced. You still think this is some sort of giant UN global government WEF Klaus Schwab Bill Gates plot to make you live in a pod and eat bugs and pay your taxes directly to the Rothschild family.

Well I have a very simple challenge for you, you will love this one:

  1. Find a previous period in geological history, when concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere doubled in a period of less than 200 years.
  2. You get bonus points, if you can show that there was no global chaos back then: No mass extinctions, no sudden massive droughts, or any other sort of misery that involves mass death.

Because I have looked at this and let me tell you: I can’t find it. Whenever something remotely similar to what we’re doing now happened, the world went to shit. What we’re doing right now, is very unusual. Take a look at what our shellfish have to deal with:


We can’t really think of a period, when the ocean was acidifying as rapidly as it is today. This is very problematic for many lifeforms in the ocean, that have to deal with changes happening much more rapidly than they have ever experienced before:

“About 56 million years ago, a mysterious surge of carbon into the atmosphere warmed the planet and turned the oceans corrosive.

In about 5,000 years, atmospheric carbon doubled to 1,800 parts per million (ppm), and average global temperatures rose by about 6 degrees Celsius.

The carbonate plankton shells littering the seafloor dissolved, leaving the brown clay layer that scientists see in sediment cores today.

As many as half of all species of benthic foraminifera, a group of one-celled organisms that live at the ocean bottom, went extinct, suggesting that deep-sea organisms higher on the food chain may have also disappeared”

So the previous time this stuff happened, lifeforms in the ocean began dying out.

And keep in mind, this was an episode, where carbon dioxide doubled over a period of around 5000 years. We’re about to accomplish at least a doubling, in about 200 years!

So let me put it this way: Maybe you believe that you know something about the Earth’s climate and how it responds to carbon that basically nobody else has figured out. Maybe you are convinced that something is about to happen to the sun, that will cause a next little ice age to happen any moment now.

But do you really think you also have some sort of unique insight into ocean acidification, recognizing yet another hoax, where everyone else who looks at the problem thinks we’re doing something very dangerous and stupid?

My recommendation is really to just figure out that you have been duped by a bunch of billionaires, who have known about this problem now for at least forty years.

And what happens, when Americans don’t figure it out?

Well then you get to suffer megadroughts. Whenever you bring up that the droughts in the Western United States right now are not normal, Americans will show up, who will insist that California was just unusually wet in the 20th century and now it’s just going back to its dry normal. Apparently they seem to think that turns it into a non-issue. But here’s the thing: The drought you’re dealing with now, is unprecedented in 1200 years:

You would still have had a drought without climate change, but it wouldn’t have been as catastrophic as it is today. Unfortunately, most right-wing American men have been trained to respond like Pavlovian dogs by the fossil fuel industry, to throw a hissy fit whenever you bring up that unprecedented changes to our atmosphere will have unprecedented consequences.

Part of the problem with all these droughts we face is as following: A forest works like a sponge. Whenever a lot of rain falls, the forest will absorb it and then release it when there’s a drought, so that the plants can survive.

On the other hand, human beings don’t produce food through forests: We produce food by taking one crop and planting it everywhere. When there’s a downpour of rain, these plants struggle to absorb the water. Then when there’s a drought, they’re screwed as well, because their roots don’t dig deeply and they can’t release much stored moisture.

As our planet warms, what we’re going to see is that the overall amount of rain doesn’t change much. Rather: When it rains, it pours. We’re going to see that in the future, we will have much longer dry periods, along with short periods during which we have massive amounts of rain, which can then cause massive flooding.

And so you might say “well who cares if a couple of hundred people somewhere die in flooding because of unprecedented rainfall”. But here’s the thing: Our own crops will now have to deal with these conditions as well. This is not good for agriculture, it will cause our food production to go down massively. And whenever it rains massively like that, fertile topsoil is washed into the ocean.

You can’t see what’s happening now around the world, with skyrocketing food prices, as separately from the simple fact that we’re facing unprecedented droughts in many places. The Western United States are dealing with their worst drought in at least 1200 years.

Morocco today is dealing with the worst drought in four decades. The Horn of Africa, is also dealing with the worst drought in decades. Afghanistan, is also dealing with the worst drought in decades. In Iraq, the drought reduced harvests by 40% compared to last year. And Chili right now, is having to cut off water to people living in Santiago, because they also face their worst drought in history.

So tell me: Is this normal? We know that the war in Ukraine is devastating food production. We know that the lockdowns of 2020 caused massive deficit spending, that is now leading to mass inflation. But do you really think it’s far fetched, to suggest that countries around the world dealing with massive droughts and being forced to import food elsewhere, could play a role in the escalating food prices we’re observing everywhere?

And while we’re at it, do you think this is going to get any better, anytime soon? The warming we face is going to continue to get worse, as long as we’re burning fossil fuels. If every country on the planet somehow reduced its fossil fuel use by 50% today, that wouldn’t mean the warming stops. Rather, the warming will still continue to get worse, but the speed at which it gets worse goes down.

I think we’re going to reduce our fossil fuel use in the years ahead, but not voluntarily. Rather, we’re going to reduce our fossil fuel use, because all of the problems we face are just going to escalate further. War, disease, famines, these are not going to go away. This is now the new normal.

But with that said, it’s time to look at the opposite arguments. What do those look like?


Alright cool you got me, congratulations, have fun with the global famines.


Yes, China burns coal too. I’m not a big fan of communist dictatorships in general. But hey, I just heard my neighbor beating his wife. Should I beat my wife too?

“My country is just 1.6% of global emissions so if we did everything right we would only reduce temperatures by 0.00000000001 degree”

Hey, your great-grandfather was just 0.0001% of the allied army. If he would have just stayed home with his thumb up his arse, Hitler would still have been defeated. In other words, everyone should just have ignored the problem.


“It hasn’t warmed since 1998”

Sorry this argument is dead. Same with the volcano one. You need to keep up to date with the programming, go back to Exxon-Mobil and ask them to update your brain-chip.

“It’s not going to be a catastrophe, you’re exaggerating”

Really? Well at 1.5 degree Celsius, we will have basically lost all of our coral reefs around the world. About a billion people worldwide depend on the coral reefs for nutrition.

Oh and there’s a 40% chance that India will see heatwaves that are too hot for humans to survive in the shade. By the 2030’s. In other words, that’s what we could already be facing ten year from now. How do you see Pakistan and India getting along with each other when the water becomes scarce as the snow in the Himalayas melts? Want to know what a nuclear exchange would look like?

Hey, if we’re acidifying the ocean faster than at any previous time in the past 300 million years, is it strange that I think the consequences of that would be catastrophic?

“Bill Gates has a big gut from his plant-based fake meat!”

Yeah. And Al Gore has a big house. Oh and Prince Charles flies around the world. Oh and Greta Thunberg uses a plastic straw. That’s it, nevermind, you’ve got me, I’ll wrap this thing up. Hey before you leave, be sure to buy some bitcoins, burning coal to produce fake money is good for the environment too.


  1. I honestly think only a world government would be able to solve the issues we are facing. Nuclear weapons are a very big problem as well as organisations like Global Zero show impressively.

    I think such a government is necessary, at least for a while, to solve some major problems.

    • Global government my a…

      A) If you haven’t noticed, we’re in the middle of a new Cold war, with a hot proxy conflict happening right now in Europe. These two blocks can’t even agree to keep the International Space station going, how they gonna form a global goverment or at least agree to slash emissions?

      B) ‘Cause the last global response to the coronavirus went so well, lockdowns and masks and forced vaccination worked perfectly, coronavirus is basically eliminated and non-existent.

      C) You sure this global goverment, even if it managed to solve the climate problem, would stop at that and just dissolve itself? Oh yeah, let’s go back to capitalistic nation states, that worked so well in the past for the environment.

      Truth is, ain’t nothing gonna save us. It will all go to shit slowly at first, crises will multiply until a hot nuclear conflict really get’s the ball going and then the end is thankfully near.

      So enjoy the ride and prepare yourselves, your kids for the fun times ahead.

      P.s. Rintrah’s wife-beater argument (BUT CHINA) is flawed. Actually, both us and China are beating our wives at the moment. And yeah, if China can beat his wive, that makes it easier for us to at least smack her from time to time.

  2. “It is postulated that part of the Sahara Desert in Africa was quite- wet 2,000 to 8,000 years ago.”

    Before Rome destroyed Carthage and salted the earth. Wasn’t climate change. Read a history book. Anyone who believes in climate change is a stupid ape not human.

    • The salting of the earth in Carthage actually probably never happened. You won’t find any references to it from before the 19th century.

      • The other point to notice is that the Sahara as a whole is much larger than the area around Carthage, salting the earth around one city wouldn’t change the entire biome.

        • Hahaha the idea that Rome salting Carthage would give birth to the Sahara is so hilariously stupid that I didn’t even realize that’s what he was arguing.

  3. A warm planet is preferable to a cold one. What is a greenhouse like? Lush and green and full of life. What is the artic like? Cold and icy and baren.

    Global warming is great for life on earth. It is not so great for humans. A greenhouse effect might also be a tropical ulcer eating through your leg. Or even an ocean reclaiming a coastal mega-city.

    There are so many humans, causing so much damage. And damage not just from emitting greenhouse gasses, but from all kinds of environmental devastation like chemical pollution and deforestation.

    The real reason people are all upset about climate change is self interest. They don’t care about life, they care about themselves. They care about their coastal real estate and stock market investments. But they pretend that it’s not about their self interest at all. It’s all about virtue signaling. Look at me. I’m saying the right things. Making the right noises. While they continue to make their living shuffling paper in Babylon.

    And the very least you need to be consistent.

  4. Yeah ok, actually back in the day there was a lot of global cooling propaganda, and everybody was fearmongering for a new ice age. Now it’s global warming. It sure is interesting to find that one report that presumably foretold the CO2 and temperature increase. On the other hand, how many of them were wildly wrong? It’s a confirmation bias type of problem.

    It’s funny that you speak of “denial” or “denialists” with this topic, but with other topics you’re a “denier” yourself. For example, you deny that the science is settled on the COVID vaccines, you claim they are unhealthy and you saw the issues coming because you knew we didn’t understand the consequences well enough. Well, you probably won’t like to admit it, but the climate issue is very similar, in that there is actually a lot of disagreement and only the “panic” narrative reaches the mainstream. And there are obviously reasons for that. Not the least of which is the fact that the energy companies are making a killing with the green new deal. The narrative actually shifted towards CO2 avoidance a while ago, how could you have missed that? Being morally pure and perfect is “in” nowadays (probably always was).

    You say we “deniers” are the victims of propaganda, yet you yourself believe the artificial narrative of the supposed “consensus” on climate change. Way to pull the wool in front of your own eyes, friend. Scientists are actually funded according to government and media interests, and climate change is hot right now.

    Do yourself a favor and visit the Wikipedia page on greenhouse gases. You will find that number one by a long shot is water, as water vapor. And now go and find out whether clouds actually cool or warm the planet. Then tell me whether a forest is a net sink or source of greenhouse gases (methane). Then tell me if a forest has a cooling or warming effect on sunlight. I tried to find a definite answer myself, and failed. And I have extensive experience in researching stuff and compiling evidence, on a professional level.

    Good luck!!

    • Water vapour concentration depends on temperature. It increases with temperature. If temperature falls, water vapour condenses and the concentration drops. Water vapour concentration is a dependent variable: it is caused by something else.

      CO2 concentration traps heat. It causes temperature changes, but does not depend on them. It will not decrease when temperature drops. CO2 concentration is an independent variable. It causes other things, like the concentration of water vapour. That is why we measure CO2 concentration to predict climate change, but not water vapour concentration.

      And yes, you are a victim of propaganda and underfunded schools.

  5. CO2 is 0.04% of the atmosphere. Humans contribute 3.9% of that. In 5 days, a single volcano nullifies years worth of human carbon savings. Once I found this out, I have a lot of trouble believing humans are responsible for climate change. We fo a lot of other environmental damage and this needs to be addressed, but climate change not caused by human emissions.

    • Ah…what? It could very well be that an additional 4% of activity is enough to push a complex system (like the fucking weather…) into unpredictable and chaotic territory…you know, in comparison to the world in which we have some major carbon capture technology or have de-industrialized sufficiently to have brought it down to maybe 2%? 1%? Who knows is the point.

      Small percentage change in a complex, dynamic, nonlinear system is not so easy to interpret…

      • And yet your side is 100% certain that a small percentage change in a complex, dynamic, nonlinear system is easy to interpret.

        The only solution to this problem if you are correct is a massive, immediate reduction in human births all around the world and an immediate end of immigration into developed nations which are high resource demand civilizations. These nations were already seeing a nice decline in birthrates that would have led to the needed reductions in populations, but then powers that be started flooding these nations with people who wanted the high resource lifestyle. You will not solve this problem with solar power and EVs made from minerals sourced from China and Russia.

    • >CO2 is 0.04% of the atmosphere. Humans contribute 3.9% of that.

      Here’s the thing: It now accumulates faster than the natural cycle can remove it. Natural emissions are in balance, but when we burn fossil fuels, it disrupts this natural cycle. That’s how the concentration could jump from 280 ppm to more than 400 in less than 200 years.

      > In 5 days, a single volcano nullifies years worth of human carbon savings

      Oh no, not the volcano oneliner again. Here you go:


      >Human activities emit 60 or more times the amount of carbon dioxide released by volcanoes each year. Large, violent eruptions may match the rate of human emissions for the few hours that they last, but they are too rare and fleeting to rival humanity’s annual emissions. In fact, several individual U.S. states emit more carbon dioxide in a year than all the volcanoes on the planet combined do.

      Let me ask you: If this were the case, if volcanoes really did emit more carbon than us, don’t you think some group of climatologists in some country somewhere would jump on the opportunity and say: “Hey this whole global warming thing is nonsense!”

  6. Global warming is caused by government weather manipilation programs. Then government blames food and transportation. And the stupidest among us fall for it.

  7. “Find a previous period in geological history, when concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere doubled in a period of less than 200 years.”

    Find a period before 2000 when anyone had technology to even attempt to track this. You have to be retarded to even believe they can track it now.

    Join me in bringing pollution down to zero by protesting government weather manipulation programs rather than shielding them by magnifying their lies and excuses blaming everything else for the problem.

    • >Find a period before 2000 when anyone had technology to even attempt to track this. You have to be retarded to even believe they can track it now.

      What issue do you have with the greenland ice core data?

  8. Massive droughts and deaths actually sound good to me. How else will we be able to live sustainably? I want my beef organic, and not “engineered” by Bill Gates so we can pretend that feeding 10 billion people is sustainable.

  9. Stupid Americans. They can’t tell me what the ideal temperature of the Earth should be. Than can’t tell me what the ideal PPM CO2 should be.

    These are simple answers, even a hydrocephalic clown should be able to tell me. You all know, don’t you?

    They are so stupid, they can’t explain the medieval warm period either. I am so done with stupid Americans, I would let them steam and drown themselves to death, if I could survive with out them. Instead I shall fight global warming by taking fewer showers and living on millet porridge, like my ancestors!

    • >Stupid Americans. They can’t tell me what the ideal temperature of the Earth should be. Than can’t tell me what the ideal PPM CO2 should be.

      Anything above 350 parts per million seems to risk gradually sliding the world towards a hothouse Earth, but at 420 it happens faster of course than at 360.

      In that sense, the “ideal” concentration in the atmosphere seems to lay somewhere between 280 and 350 parts per million. Because of melting icecaps, you could argues something between 280-300 is better than 300-350, but it’s a technical discussion.

      The “ideal temperature” would then be what we see in response to 280-350 PPM. That is, something less than 0.5 degree above pre-Industrial. I don’t know the exact number, but this is the sort of climatic condition that allows our civilization to function.

      If sea levels rise by two meter or more every century, if tsunamis hit us due to rising sea levels causing giant landslides, if methane explosions plague Siberia, if unprecedented droughts cause forest fires large enough to give rise to their own tornadoes, if coral reefs are dying, then it’s hard for our civilization to function.

  10. If you look at ice core data, then you’ll see that CO2 generally lags temperatures. Also, temperatures declined when CO2 was at a peak.

    Regarding the temperature anomaly, you haven’t been watching the adjustments to the historical record have you? Bear a striking resemblance to the CO2 levels…Maybe you should compare the modelled data with the actual thermometer data (if you can still get the latter, I haven’t tried recently). Maybe read through the East Anglia leaked data yourself. Not very confidence inspiring. The one diary file from a student is quite sad (was also a student at the time I read it, had a lot of sympathy for the person).

    Sorry, like with covid, the official agencies have lied too much. Even if they were to start telling the truth, I wouldn’t be able to believe them based on their past dodgery. Most of it also based on models. Covid showed how accurate those are.

    Maybe look at graphs showing natural disaster from a bit further back and not just starting at a conveniently located natural trough.

    Besides, we won’t do anything. We’ll either adapt to warmer (if such is the case) temperatures or die. The token efforts are simply pandering to voters and exploitation of naïve, well meaning idiots.

    • “ Besides, we won’t do anything. We’ll either adapt to warmer (if such is the case) temperatures or die. The token efforts are simply pandering to voters and exploitation of naïve, well meaning idiots.”

      Precisely. One wonders at Radagast’s tilting at windmills.

  11. There’s simply no way to ignore the spike in CO2 and methane in the last 100 years. I don’t understand what people are arguing about… other than maybe saying that every data point is forged which is kind of a stretch and very improbable.

    More probable is that some ppl are arguing about it, because if the problem is real, which is the case, then their own worldview and vision for the future need some adaptations.

  12. Yawn. Stupid swedes – just like Greta Thunberg who was a Russian asset all along.

    Learn about the Nordic tree-ring-width studies.

    The late-twentieth century is not exceptionally warm in the new Torneträsk record: On decadal-to-century timescales, periods around AD 750, 1000, 1400, and 1750 were all equally warm, or warmer. The warmest summers in this new reconstruction occur in a 200-year period centred on AD 1000. A “Medieval Warm Period” is supported by other paleoclimate evidence from northern Fennoscandia, although the new tree-ring evidence from Torneträsk suggests that this period was much warmer than previously recognised.


  13. As a matter of civil engineering, is it possible to increase reservoir capacity sufficiently to mitigate some of the effects of drought/torrent rainfall patterns, deforestation, and deglaciation? For instance, in South Asia below the Himalayas, and in California?

    (Of course, all that additional concrete production would also boost CO2 emission further and hasten the exhaustion of the global sand supply.)

    I’m aware of all the problems a massive reservoir project would not solve, but maybe it could keep enough of the land currently used for habitation and agriculture useable long enough for us to complete the acidification of the oceans before we’re turn things over to the jellyfish.

  14. Radagast, why do you bring race into this? All the stuff about angry white men. What is the point of blaming a race or sex, when it’s an issue faced by all and has to be solved or borne by all? Especially when it’s intellectually lazy to think all white men think the same (and by extension, to all other groups of humans). How does the race-based things you write contribute to a solution? Somehow in your thinking a Swedish (presumably white male) person pointed up the problem, a bunch of XOM execs (some of whom presumably were white males) wrote it up, now all the other white males are angry at the previous white males, oh, and Bill Gates, another white male, etc. Why not just do the science? We can get all that other crap from lesser MSM outlets.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.


This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.