That was my understanding of the difference between climate and weather in the context of climate change. But I could be wrong.
The dust bowl covered a rather large region of the SW and lasted a number of years. It caused a great many farmers there to abandon their land and homes and move further west. It was pretty severe, but it eventually subsided.
Thing is, back then there were no climate change fanatics screaming their heads off and seeking to use the dust bowl to secure political ends and enrich themselves. It was, instead, just part (a very difficult and challenging part) of life on planet earth.
2 Likes
The WaPo should’ve written this before the spend a Palooza bill passed
An entire supply chain of rare minerals, semiconductors, batteries and financing has to fall into place before Americans give up their combustion engines. American consumers can only claim the full $7,500 credit for an all-electric engine if their manufacturers displace Chinese batteries by 2024 and minerals from China or other countries lacking free-trade agreements by 2025 — a threshold that automakers are warning could be impossible to meet. And China, furious right now over House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s recent visit to Taiwan, will be watching as the United States openly strives to liberate itself from manufacturing in the People’s Republic.
Nonfinancial barriers — such as local opposition to building wind and solar farms or a lack of transmission lines — must be overcome. And with roughly 40 tax credits in the legislation, some of those aimed at transforming the energy economy from automobiles to wind turbines to heat pumps will inevitably miss the mark. Some portion of those funds will be pocketed when they aren’t entirely needed — many companies have promised to transition to clean energy irrespective of federal policy.
And some money will go to projects that never materialize or fail altogether. The 2009 stimulus bill, the largest investment in clean energy before the new bill, created a clean energy loan program that infamously funded the failed solar start-up Solyndra, which became an embarrassment for the Obama administration. And it poured billions of dollars into a high-speed-rail system in California that has still not come to fruition.c
2 Likes
Performance of some non-green ETFs has been outstanding. Here are two of the big non boondoggle energy ETFs, XLE and VDE. Both have the same expense ratio and follow similar but not identical indexes.
Edit. They may follow the same index. The performance for the last year is virtually identical
1 Like
“Back then” (in the 1930’s) this wasn’t happening yet. Earthquakes, volcano eruptions, and occasional or cyclical droughts are “just part of life on planet Earth” – they’re natural. The changes happening now (disappearing glaciers, rising temperatures, rising sea levels, ocean acidification, record-setting temperatures almost every year, etc) are happening too fast to be natural, are accelerating, and more to the point – affect the entire planet.
This litany Is discussed at length in Steven Koonin’s book Unsettled. (See link below). As the title implies, most of your assertions are untrue or do not have sufficient scientific basis to be used as justification for decimating the world economy.
Luckily for them, large parts of the world including China, India, Russia, Africa, and South America, do not partake of the global warming Kool-Aid consumed by the United States and Western Europe. That’s a sufficient number people that all the destruction wrought by the greens is futile. So we will soon find out whether your claims are true.
3 Likes
Speaking of China, The latest threat is give in on Taiwan or the planet gets it LOL. I wonder what Pelosi says?
1 Like
Just read some of the reviews which mention that many claims in this book are bunk and have been challenged or debunked, including those about sea level rise.
These so-called reviews refer to hatchet jobs in climatista outlets. Despite them, the book has sold over 100,000 copies.
As I mentioned in my post, large swaths of the world do not drink the climatista Kool-Aid. And in the spirit of no atheists in foxholes, the western Europeans are going to be burning coal to keep the lights on and themselves warm this winter.
2 Likes
Only because they don’t have another choice at the moment, not because they think it’s not bad for the environment.
2 Likes
Well, that’s a novel answer.
“I needed the money and they wouldn’t give it to me, so I had to kill them.” “I didn’t want to knock him over the head, but I didn’t have another choice.” “If they didn’t control the banks and industry, I would not have had to gas them”.
2 Likes
Although they had an extended warning, feds and state officials have done what they do best … nothing. This was one occasion when they should have done something. 
1 Like
How about this perspective:
https://www.noaa.gov/news/earth-had-its-6th-hottest-july-and-year-to-date-on-record
Hee Hee
Appears as if the Germans might be burning a lot of coal this winter, and choking on the emissions.
They should have listened to Trump and turned in time to American natural gas, and away from Russia. Instead they went with the liberal “genius” of Merkel.
Funny. You do not hear a lot coming out of Merkel’s mouth now. 
3 Likes
EV credits are a joke for those in the market now: See discussion
1 Like
This press release from a climatista organization is essentially a restatement of your litany and has about as much scientific basis. There are no references to papers in scientific journals. In a scientific paper there would be estimates of the statistical significance of these numbers. The precision of their numbers is unbelievable for an extremely complex set of measurements of data over our whole planet.
In his book, Koonin, discusses the reliability of the climate numbers at length. You dismissed the book without even attempting to read it.
There’s not much for us to discuss.
1 Like
Speaking of press releases, a natural question to ask is how much will be hundreds of billions of dollars to be spent by the Democrats so called Climate bill reduce the global temperature? I’m not aware of any study study about this but here’s a press release about a peer reviewed scientific paper on how much fulfilling all the promises in the Paris climate agreement will reduce the global temperature.
The short answer is: A few tenths of a degree C
https://www.lomborg.com/press-release-research-reveals-negligible-impact-of-paris-climate-promises
A new peer-reviewed paper by Dr. Bjorn Lomborg published in the Global Policy journal measures the actual impact of all significant climate promises made ahead of the Paris climate summit.
Governments have publicly outlined their post-2020 climate commitments in the build-up to the December’s meeting. These promises are known as “Intended Nationally Determined Contributions” (INDCs).
Dr. Lomborg’s research reveals:
- The climate impact of all Paris INDC promises is minuscule: if we measure the impact of every nation fulfilling every promise by 2030, the total temperature reduction will be 0.048°C (0.086°F) by 2100.
- Even if we assume that these promises would be extended for another 70 years , there is still little impact: if every nation fulfills every promise by 2030, and continues to fulfill these promises faithfully until the end of the century, and there is no ‘CO₂ leakage’ to non-committed nations, the entirety of the Paris promises will reduce temperature rises by just 0.17°C (0.306°F) by 2100.
- US climate policies , in the most optimistic circumstances, fully achieved and adhered to throughout the century, will reduce global temperatures by 0.031°C (0.057°F) by 2100.
- EU climate policies , in the most optimistic circumstances, fully achieved and adhered to throughout the century, will reduce global temperatures by 0.053°C (0.096°F) by 2100.
- China climate policies , in the most optimistic circumstances, fully achieved and adhered to throughout the century, will reduce global temperatures by 0.048°C (0.086°F) by 2100.
- The rest of the world’s climate policies , in the most optimistic circumstances, fully achieved and adhered to throughout the century, will reduce global temperatures by 0.036°C (0.064°F) by 2100.
1 Like
The Germans are still waffling about reversing one of Merkel’s most catastrophic decisions: closing their nuclear power plants.
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/germany-says-undecided-nuclear-plants-extension-2022-08-16/
1 Like
The obvious question - is that effect a reduction of today’s temperature? Or is it a reduction of the projected increase over that period of time?
If it’s the reduction from today’s temp, then I guess it’s technically effective, even if horribly inefficient. But I suspect that isn’t the case and it’s shaving a fraction of a degree off the projected increases, which makes the costs mind boggling.
1 Like
It is the impact after many years of the policies