Climate Change? Nahhh ...

Two lines from these piece that are just...

But translated from the scientific, it’s the rough equivalent of “South Pole to Planet Earth: Drop Dead.”

The crime that history will remember Trump for is almost certainly withdrawing from the Paris climate accord.

 

Yeah, those 3 and a half years changed everything.

 

But what about the farmers?

Oh.

 

Really? Because you are always on here telling us exactly what they are thinking and doing.

 

That's a nifty little partial quote tweet.

I was asking what Az was talking about. I can never quite tell.

 

Like Peterson, you overstate the imminent threat of a Great Reset and New World Order - while the old-time politicians and petrostate conglomerates just keep pumping and pumping and pumping more oil.

 

If we want to talk real world we certainly can, and I think I’ve been consistent - the climate change movement had made significant gains, some people have made a lot of money, but we non-monkish folks better be a little more thoughtful with the “world could end in x years” and “every severe weather event is a result of (waves hands wildly) this stuff” coverage because, if we’re not, you’re going to have generations of people (in the West anyway) thinking the earth’s gonna fall off a cliff.

 

Maybe it will. Maybe it won't.

Certainly the collapse of these ocean currents - to take the most recent example - will have some sort of planetwide impact.

You often post about the costs of all this to that family in Kansas.

OK. If you want to talk about the cost of change, fine. Let's do so.

What's the cost of doing nothing?

 

old nuclear

 

That's a theoretical question because "doing nothing" fits no current definition of American policy. We're doing lots of things.

So it comes down to how "doing nothing" is framed - and for what purposes. What we're doing isn't enough for Greta or people whose lives are centered on, you know, getting the world to do as much as possible for a variety of reasons. But I'm not sure we need to be doing that much, and I'm skeptical of apocalyptic claims being used as moral leverage. I'm skeptical of tying every weather event to some thing we didn't do in 2006, too.

For me, that's the starting point, in a sense. Is it a discussion? Or is it a "here's 300 studies proving my theory of everything climate is correct, so agree with me." Because I think we're going to see people increasingly checking out of that conversation.

 

What's worse than doing nothing? Actively making anti-environmental policies.

The Texas Legislature Is Considering Some Absurdly Evil Environmental Bills

 

“HB 743 preemptively prohibits municipalities or counties from outlawing gas hookups in buildings”

Absurdly evil! According to Gizmodo!

This is what I mean. This tone of journalism. If this is the tone, what’s the point? Who wants to engage in a battle of good and evil…over that?