While I do not doubt for a second the existence of climate change due to greenhouse gases (The effect of carbon dioxide can be replicated in the lab), what makes me raise an eyebrow of skepticism of whether or not it is an existential threat is the fact that essentially every nation that claims to be addressing the "existential threat" is putting its eggs primarily into the wind/solar basket.

Start with the fact that never in history there been an energy transition from sources of greater reliability and greater power and energy density TO sources which are less reliable and offer less power and energy density. Solar and wind fail miserably to fossil fuels on each of these standards. Then when you compare wind/solar to nuclear energy, the comparison becomes laughable.

All the storage plans for wind/solar struggle as well. You start with an inherently low power and energy dense source. Then you have to deal with whatever inefficiencies of storage that exist-and inefficiencies exist for all of them. These inefficiencies only serve to amplify the problems associated with lack of density.

More human intervention and more land use to capture less energy is regression. This is the base of the environmental problems associated with solar and wind. Their footprint is huge. They do not represent progress, and their problems cannot be fixed.

People like President Obama's Energy Sec Moniz and Deputy Secretary Koonin recognize this and try to warn, but for their trouble they get branded as heretics.

Just me, but if climate threat were truly an existential threat to humanity, some nation by now would have embarked upon a crash program to convert as much of its electrical generation as possible to nuclear by now.

This falls under "adaption."

Coastal American cities like NYC probably should look at some of this stuff.

Note the technologies involved are not new. They just haven't been deployed at such scale before.

My favorite is this guy from "National Renewable Energy Laboratory" saying, more than once, "We never expected land to be a constraint."

Looks like we're going to be (mostly) missing another methane sink season. Usually methane levels drop in the summer and go up in wintertime, but 2020 and 2021 had quite flat summers and then increase afterwards. (This data is until end of June, so it has one possible sink month left before the increase. Source: https://twitter.com/ZLabe/status/1447315175518789634 . But what I've been seeing in methane concentration maps from the end of summer, I think a great sink month or not getting the increase seem unlikely.)

Reasons could be saturated sinks, sinks not working as well in warmer climate, Siberian rock formation methane ( https://www.pnas.org/content/118/32/e2107632118 ), methane from the warming oceans.. But whatever it is, if the trend continues or even starts rising in the summers, with our knowledge from past decade making methane more powerful GHG than was expected on average, I don't think this is a good sign at all.

And most people obviously haven't even noticed, didn't even know about this possibility that in my mind might be what the beginning of worst case scenario looks like, and public and political discussion about climate change is still at lol zero action kindergarten knowledge level. What a ridiculous parody of "civilized society"

Are we talking about Kentucky?

About how incredible gross Rand Paul is?


Kentucky is a friggin mess.




I am sure some good news, ala the Texas disaster and certain corporations claiming record profits as a result will come down the pipe soon to soothe the deniers.

Meanwhile the real cost of it will again be put on the average tax payers to clean up.




And is there anyone more gross and hypocritical than Rand Paul. What a disgusting human being. Here he is railing against the socialism of providing aide to other States dealing with natural disasters and then as soon as his State is hit... POTUS SEND US MONEY ASAP!