'EcoFascism' and related Acts of Criminality.

[Belligerent Savant]

.
Related to my last post above, this interview here is interesting. This is Gates being interviewed at a NYTimes event, by a NYTimes representative, so clearly an abundance of qualifiers/caveats apply to the framing of most of the questions/answers. I did not listen to this entire clip (nor am I particularly interested in doing so, near-term), but I share it here because Mr. Gates utters an interesting statement/admission, at around the ~6:45 mark:

Gates:
"No temperate country is going to become uninhabitable..... you really want to make your arguments based on what you actually know about how much is the planet itself at risk, for example..."

[DrEvil]

No one serious is saying that countries in the temperate zones will become uninhabitable. You can still live in Germany or the US and be (mostly) fine.

[stickdog99]

[Belligerent Savant]

.

Your car doesn't need to be an EV to be fucked with remotely, that's been going on for years.

Yes, that's right: any car with "OnStar" and/or most modern-day cars can be shut down remotely, though with EV cars it's more readily/broadly available as part of its development. Also, I should have clarified that I was comparing EVs (or any modern day car, as pointed out) with older, traditional gas-powered cars (prior to the ~mid-90s) that didn't/don't have extensive electronics and can be repaired by a capable owner without the need for a computer to access the "system". When I reference "analog" with respect to cars I'm referring to the older, pre-computer chip, pre-GPS equipped cars.

I'd argue the opposite to your last point about the grid. It's easier than ever to completely divorce yourself from it. Solar panels or geothermal, coupled with a battery bank in your garage and an EV that can serve as an emergency battery in a pinch and you're self-sufficient in both home electricity and fuel for your car.

While I fully grant -- and have even explicitly indicated as such in one of my replies in the EcoFascism thread -- that solar/EV/Electricity tech can absolutely be a viable option at the individual/small-scale level, it's not what I had in mind when typing my comments above, as these smaller-scale scenarios would be mostly self-sustaining/self-efficient w/out the need to access the Grid.

Instead, what I was referring to is larger-scale scenarios that would involve home-owners/residents relying on a GRID operated by a large utility corp or govt without any option for gas heat or fuel as an alternative. Particularly if they actually get brazen enough to attempt outlawing gas-fueled generators as indicated in the following:
https://vermontdailychronicle.com/biden ... pert-says/

The federal government under the Biden Administration is seeking to implement prohibitive carbon-monoxide emission limits on gas-powered generators. Early analysis shows the new regulations would make almost all existing models non-compliant.

Critics of the move – included a noted Vermont author and energy expert – say the regulation, if enacted, will put Americans at risk during natural disasters, such as the recent flooding.

The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) put out a document warning the public that these new rules will be under consideration. It states in its summary that they have “preliminarily determined that there is an unreasonable risk of injury and death associated with acute carbon monoxide (CO) poisoning from portable generators. To address this hazard, the Commission proposes a rule under the Consumer Product Safety Act (CPSA) that limits CO emissions from portable generators and requires generators to shut off when specific emissions levels are reached.”

The reality is that gas-based power and heat remains far more accessible and also cheap at that localized level. Many of those that attempt or opt to go fully 'off grid' usually will need to rely on a combo of solar, EV and also gas to sustain their needs.

Related Side-Note: I generally avoid cable TV, in part because I don't have the time for extended TV viewing, but I was visiting a neighbor's house not long ago and they had a TV show on in the background called 'Homestead Rescue'; this particular episode involved a couple that purchased a modest parcel of land that happened to have a deep natural gas well and gas pump. Part of the challenge involved getting the gas pump/motor operational again, which -- if successful -- would allow these 'homesteaders' to draw heat and power from the local well to very cheaply and sustainably provide heat and power for their crops, kitchen, living arrangements, etc.

Now, of course not everyone that buys land will be fortunate enough to have a gas well/pump in their purchased land, but the point is: it's a cheap, efficient, & largely accessible fuel source [and more reliable over time with far less maintenance costs], especially for those of modest means/lower-income brackets.

Here's the episode, starting at around 10 minute mark (if you can get past the obnoxious ads/commercials):

https://go.discovery.com/video/homestea ... e-meltdown

(we're now straying from the OP -- this may be better placed in the EcoFascism thread)

[Grizzly]

https://v.nostr.build/zjQy.mp4
https://mostr.pub/objects/7d3e280c98dea4f0a2c3a294f8a59a8a7cbb0ef7227b2b9a32d3d0294f09e7c9

https://noagendasocial.com/@78e47dfe683faf1869a5378aa4b4a52d768d799bd8eb38099c0b194f56727f35@mostr.pub/111343331737671269

A mere blip on the radar of history

Abby Martin world bank corruption.

Karen should stay away from hot tubs, avoid walking alone in parks and put it out there that she is not depressed and is not considering suicide as a means out of this cruel world.

[Belligerent Savant]

...
...I should have clarified that I was comparing EVs (or any modern day car, as pointed out) with older, traditional gas-powered cars (prior to the ~mid-90s) that didn't/don't have extensive electronics and can be repaired by a capable owner without the need for a computer to access the "system". When I reference "analog" with respect to cars I'm referring to the older, pre-computer chip, pre-GPS equipped cars.

A side-note to the above comment, and I believe it's an important consideration, keeping to the 'old car' example, as it brings up what I believe is an increasingly important point when the topic of 'sustainability' comes up:

An old (pre-computer chip, pre-GPS, etc) car that can be properly maintained by an owner is FAR more sustainable and FAR less wasteful, than offered by current systems, which, as a simplified summary, often involves the manufacture of many cars using significant materials (metals, plastics, etc -- and with EVs, the added need for extensive mining/drilling to obtain the precious metals required to build EV batteries); the cars are then typically leased/financed for a period of ~3yrs and then re-sold. Part of this cycle involves a massive surplus of un-sold cars sitting in lots, or 'unsold car graveyards'. Example here:

https://slate.com/business/2018/04/asto ... ities.html

...True dockless vehicle graveyards, with unused vehicles stretching as far as the eye can see.
A chilling, almost dystopian vision. It’s a testament to our age. An unchecked surplus—speculation gone wild....

This applies not only to cars, of course: many appliances and other consumer manufactured goods follow similar patterns.

MASSIVE WASTE.

It is FAR MORE SUSTAINABLE to implement a (now largely forgotten/discarded, at least in 1st world countries) philosophy of keeping and maintaining equipment, tools, appliances, cars, etc., for longer periods of time. But this requires some individual 'know-how', such as basic or intermediate repair and maintenance skills. How many have these skills today, especially the younger generations? More importantly:

To what extent are such skills incentivized, at all, in current 1st world systems?

From a business perspective, the polar opposite is the M.O.: appliances/cars are made more cheaply, with cheaper materials and less overheard costs, PRECISELY to minimize their shelf-lives and create greater demand for purchasing the next new shiny thing. AKA:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planned_obsolescence

In economics and industrial design, planned obsolescence (also called built-in obsolescence or premature obsolescence) is a policy of planning or designing a product with an artificially limited useful life or a purposely frail design, so that it becomes obsolete after a certain pre-determined period of time upon which it decrementally functions or suddenly ceases to function, or might be perceived as unfashionable.[1] The rationale behind this strategy is to generate long-term sales volume by reducing the time between repeat purchases (referred to as "shortening the replacement cycle").[2] It is the deliberate shortening of a lifespan of a product to force people to purchase functional replacements.[3]

Not sustainable at all.

[stickdog99]

https://notrickszone.com/2023/11/02/a-m ... f-warming/

A ‘Major Surprise’ Nature Study Finds Phasing Out Fossil Fuels Will Lead To Decades Of Warming

“We would expect from a 100% switchover from fossil fuels to zero-emission renewables…net radiative heating would increase drastically.”

Using observational data gleaned from COVID-19 lockdowns in South Asia, scientists publishing in a Nature journal (Nair et al., 2023) have now determined the ongoing switch to zero greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions renewables will subsequently lead to a dramatic reduction in climate-cooling aerosol (pollution) emissions. Because aerosol emissions have a relatively greater climate impact by reflecting shortwave radiation, the net effect of transitioning to renewables will be to “drastically” increase Earth’s temperatures over the coming decades.

“Mitigation strategies focusing on the phase-out of fossil fuels will lead to quick removal of the short-lived aerosols while the longer-lived major greenhouse gases decrease much more slowly, likely resulting in undesired net warming of the climate during a decades-long transition period.”

The curtailment of industrial and transport energy use in South Asia during COVID lockdowns (March-May 2020) not only reduced fossil fuel (GHG) emissions, but also the associated aerosol (pollution) emissions that serve to cool the climate by reflecting shortwave radiation.

Scientists have assessed a ~7% reduction in aerosol emissions during the initial lockdown months induced a ~20 W/m² increase in downwelling solar radiation forcing.

The magnitude of this reduced-aerosol-emissions climate forcing (~20 W/m² within just a few months) is characterized as a “major surprise.”

To put this into perspective using the conclusions found in Feldman et al., 2015, this aerosol forcing is about 100 times larger than the clear-sky surface forcing (0.2 W/m²) associated with 10 years of CO2 increases (22 ppm).

The switch to 100% renewables, or the phasing out of fossil fuel energy sources, has the (unintended) net effect of causing decades of warming. This is the opposite of mitigation policy intentions.

[stickdog99]

[Grizzly]

Camille Paglia
Decadence:
https://noagendasocial.com/@Lqtm/111378448442203177

[Belligerent Savant]

Grasping to provide a (half-baked) reason why ‘climate alarm’ didn’t cause drastic and immediate changes to weather/temps.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/1 ... y-college/

Global warming might not happen quite as fast as we thought – here’s why

Plants will absorb more carbon dioxide than predicted, meaning models could be overestimating the speed which the planet will heat up

“Here’s why” is the standard prompt for when blatant disinfo is peddled to the passive consumer.

[DrEvil]

Good thing no one ever said there would be drastic and immediate changes to weather and temperature then. You seem to be working from the assumption that all the bad things should be happening right now, else they're all lies.

Plus, the article makes it abundantly clear that we need to deal with climate change. From one of the study authors:

“So yes, that would give us a bit more time to reach net zero. But it is important to note that we predict a lot of this drawdown will happen towards the end of the century, while we need to cut emissions now, or possibly yesterday.”

And further down:

However, the authors cautioned that land ecosystems only absorb about a quarter of human emissions, so the extra benefit would take that up to around 30 per cent.

Yay, only 70% more to deal with instead of 75%.

Dr Jürgen Knauer, of Western Sydney University, who headed the research team said: “These kinds of predictions have implications for nature-based solutions to climate change such as reforestation and afforestation and how much carbon such initiatives can take up.

“Our findings suggest these approaches could have a larger impact in mitigating climate change and over a longer time period than we thought.

“However, simply planting trees will not solve all our problems. We absolutely need to cut down emissions from all sectors. Trees alone cannot offer humanity a get out of jail free card.”

It's a sliver of good news, assuming the research is solid, but not nearly the gotcha you think it is.

@Grizzly: what does trans issues have to do with climate change?

[JackRiddler]

What do trans issues have to do with it? I think you know that ideology is a package deal, no matter how the resulting bizarroland combinations may seem illogical or stuck in momentary polarizations. (By the way, apropos of nothing immediately on this thread page but in general, remember that Greta Thunberg=peak evil, no matter what the question. Also, if the WEF-Hitler Beast happens to mention that sun rises in east, obviously we must insist the sun rises in West, etc. etc. Also, anything the corporate media or some "radlib" joker I don't like on Twitter says -- same exact thing, right? -- is always a 180-degree inversion of the truth, and therefore you must always believe the exact opposite of what they say, unless it fits your preconceptions and ideological package and comes from reliable corporate media like the Telegraph.)

*

[Grizzly]

The Reedley Biolab Incident Should Have Everyone Very Concerned
https://rumble.com/v3wttiy-the-reedley-biolab-incident-should-have-everyone-very-concerned.html

[Belligerent Savant]

What do trans issues have to do with it? I think you know that ideology is a package deal, no matter how the resulting bizarroland combinations may seem illogical or stuck in momentary polarizations. (By the way, apropos of nothing immediately on this thread page but in general, remember that Greta Thunberg=peak evil, no matter what the question. Also, if the WEF-Hitler Beast happens to mention that sun rises in east, obviously we must insist the sun rises in West, etc. etc. Also, anything the corporate media or some "radlib" joker I don't like on Twitter says -- same exact thing, right? -- is always a 180-degree inversion of the truth, and therefore you must always believe the exact opposite of what they say, unless it fits your preconceptions and ideological package and comes from reliable corporate media like the Telegraph.)

*

Haven’t yet looked at DrEvil’s reply but the above is riddled with Strawman/conjured presumptions & talking points. While it may well apply in a number of instances to the stereotypical ‘anti-WEF’/‘anti-woke’ Twitter handle, it doesn’t apply to me, and in any event the above is a trivialization of real issues & demonstrable, blatant disinformation being peddled out there by numerous agents representing both/several ‘sides’ of an issue.

All that aside, it should be abundantly clear by now by any sober assessment that ‘climate alarm’ is, indeed, largely bullshit (to put it in simplest terms) and carbon/CO2 levels are not primary drivers of weather fluctuations.

The so-called ‘Highly Educated’ among us may be in the running among some of the most fooled of all, and certainly in the top-tier among the more arrogant/stubborn persons in their refusal to acknowledge just how much they’ve been taken for a ride (along with — on the other end of the spectrum — many of those largely disenfranchised deluded souls that continue to believe that Trump is an ‘outsider’, a ‘Patriot’, or in any way gives a shit about the average American).

(I am surrounded by the highly educated, both at work and in my neighborhood — I am one of them, at least as far as a Bachelors degree can be considered ‘high education’, so I speak from a position of not only direct exposure but also as someone that regularly reads published studies, journals, periodicals, & editorials [etc.] authored by these ‘Highly Educated’ individuals, across a broad range of topics, in addition to the comments/rhetoric expressed by many of them over the last several years -- in meetings, casual or formal conversation, or overheard banter.
Related side-note: It's almost surreal at times, the extent of 'groupthink' in play among certain classes/demographics, and this applies regardless of education level, and across political spectrums: many echo and repeat very similar talking points, almost verbatim, in alignment with their 'tribe')


ESG, ‘carbon credits’, ‘net zero’, ‘green tech’, etc — all egregiously brazen scams and lies, but perhaps more importantly: massive forms of revenue generators, all to the benefit of the Blackrocks/Blackstones (and their hyper-capitalist aspiring counterparts), along with all the corporations/‘progressives’ both small and large shamelessly fellating the Blackrock shaft and clamoring for a small piece of that very lucrative pie (all the while promoting all manner of virtue signals to misdirect their true aims & intentions; quite a grotesque racket).

And yet there remain a large swath of people — self-deluded, proud of their ‘forward thinking’ — that actually & earnestly subscribe to this nonsense. Fools born every minute, eh?

[DrEvil]

it doesn’t apply to me

It's almost surreal at times, the extent of 'groupthink' in play among certain classes/demographics, and this applies regardless of education level, and across political spectrums: many echo and repeat very similar talking points, almost verbatim, in alignment with their 'tribe'

It never applies to you, does it?