Climate Change

Furious Activists Walk Out of U.N. Climate Change Conference in Glasgow

The policies and technologies they reject as "false solutions" would actually work to mitigate climate change.

|

Glasgow - The 26th United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP26), like its predecessors, is dramatically rushing toward its usual inconclusive conclusion. And just as usual, climate activists are furiously furious about that. Some 200 activists staged a walkout of the conference venue earlier today while simultaneously issuing "The People's COP26 Decision for Climate Justice." And just what are the "people" demanding?

Of course, the first priority is money. Specifically, they are demanding that the rich developed countries annually supply the $100 billion in climate aid promised to poor countries in the 2009 Copenhagen Accord. Additionally, they demand that rich countries "rapidly scale up finance for adaptation based on the needs of those most impacted."

More man-made warming is already baked into the climate system, so individuals, governments, and companies will all have to make investments that enable them to handle future changes. However, the best way to strengthen resilience is not ineffective foreign aid to corrupt oligarchies in poor countries, but policies that encourage free markets and economic growth. As the United Kingdom's Royal Geographical Society has noted, "The vast majority of lives both lost and affected by natural disasters come from developing countries, underlining the link between poverty and vulnerability to disaster." Dozens may die as a result of hurricanes in the richer and more resilient countries, whereas a similarly ferocious tropical storm will kill thousands in poor countries. The difference is that greater wealth affords stronger infrastructure, better early warning systems, and a quicker ability to escape danger.

The activists also call upon governments to "reject false solutions." These include "offsetting, carbon markets, carbon capture technologies, nature based solutions, geoengineering, climate smart agriculture, and others that are inherently ineffective, unjust, and destructive." Offsetting is a way for a company to compensate for its hard-to-reduce emissions by funding equivalent carbon dioxide saving elsewhere. Carbon markets, like the European Union Emissions Trading System, aim to reduce emissions cost-effectively by setting limits on the amounts companies are allowed to emit and enabling the trading of emission units that account for emission reductions. The activists are not wrong that the carbon capture technologies are not yet viable.

On the other hand, nature-based solutions such as planting billions of trees could significantly reduce atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations and help keep global average temperatures from rising by more than 2°C by 2100. Climate-smart agriculture would involve, among other things, reducing the amount of nitrogen fertilizers applied to crops, which in turn would reduce the amounts of the highly potent greenhouse gas nitrous oxide released into the atmosphere.

In addition, farmers could improve their soils and sequester more carbon dioxide by plowing under burnt crop residues (biochar), planting cover crops, and using conservation tillage. Given that the activists say they want to reduce carbon dioxide emissions in order to keep the global average temperature from rising by more than 2°C, why in the world would they be against any of these processes and technologies?

They are also against geoengineering the climate. While measures like cutting solar radiation by injecting sulfur dioxide particles into the stratosphere to cool the planet do have risks, it seems reasonable to conduct some limited experiments to see if such approaches could serve as an emergency backup to prevent unexpectedly rapid warming of the climate.

In fact, none of the processes and technologies that the activists seem to reject are "false solutions," with perhaps the exception of carbon capture. In any case, what do they want instead? They evidently demand a "just transition" that "must result in collaborating to rapidly share technology and finance to implement real, proven, and people-centered solutions at scale."

As noted above, they are, of course, very interested in "finance" for adaptation, but what exactly "real, proven, and people-centered solutions" are goes entirely unsaid. The activists further demand that "countries must guarantee full engagement of workers and their unions through social dialogue processes in raising climate ambition and the creation of decent work, quality jobs, social protection and universal public services."

These things may be good, but any necessary logical relationship to the goal of cutting greenhouse gases as a way to address the risks of man-made climate is opaque at best.

Instead, the activists seem to be channeling author Naomi Klein's assertion from her 2014 book, This Changes Everything: Capitalism vs. the Climate, that climate change has given progressives "the most powerful argument against unfettered capitalism" ever.

NEXT: Biden Administration, School Board Association Colluded To Direct FBI Scrutiny at Parents Who Were Critical of School Boards

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. That's why agreeing with them an perpetually trying to make friends with them is so vitally important.

    1. Seriously paycheck of $19632 and all i was doing is to copy and paste work online. this home work makes me able to generate more cash daily easily. simple to do work and regular income from this are just superb. Here what i am doing.

      Try now……………… Visit Here

      1. Seriously I don’t know why more people haven’t tried this, I work two shifts, 2 hours in the day and 2 in the evening…Fxh And i get surly a check of $12600 what’s awesome is I m working from home so I get more time with my kids.

        Try it, you won’t regret it........CASHAPP NOW

      2. This year do not worry about money you can start a new Business and do an online job I have started a new Business and I am making over $84, 8254 per month I was started with 25 persons company JDf now I have make a company of 200 peoples you can start a Business with a company of 10 to 50 peoples or join an online job.

        For more info Open on this web Site............E-CASH

      3. I am taking in substantial income 2000$ drj online from my PC. A month ago EI GOT check of almost $31k, this online work is basic and direct, don’t need to go Hax OFFICE, Its home online activity.
        For More Information Visit This Site………… Visit Here

    2. They need to bring back the Green Party (a la Ralph Nader) then if the Democrats aren't serious about saving the planet. Maybe they can break 5% in 2024 to show the Dems they mean business.

      1. These are 2 pay checks $78367 and $87367. that i received in last 2 months. I am very happy that i can make thousands in my part time and now i am enjoying my life. Everybody can do this and earn lots of dollars from home in very short time period.GNm Your Success is one step away Click Below Webpage…..

        Just visit this website now.............PAYBUZZ

      2. Start earning today from $600 to $754 easily by working online from home. Last month i have generate and received $19663 from this job by giving this only maximum 2 hours a day of my life. Easiest job in the world and earning from this job are just awesome.QCb Everybody can now get this job and start earning cash online right now by just follow instructions click on this site and visit tabs( Home, Media, Tech )

        For more details..............Pays24

    3. After 30-40 years, I am simply dumbfounded that the premise is still granted.

      1. Why? Screaming Climate Catastrophe! still gets media attention, money, votes, and power.

        1. The first three are just means to the forth. Power is the real goal of everything that the establishment now does.

          1. Get rid of the democrats amd this all goes away. Would anyone really miss them?

      2. What Frosty said.

        When Bailey writes something as laughably unprovable as,

        The policies and technologies they reject as "false solutions" would actually work to mitigate climate change.

        it really kills the desire to subject myself to reading the article. Talk about stealing a rhetorical base; dude's acting like Ricky Henderson.

        1. reveals a blatant pro-reason bias that should cause any even lightly indoctrinated reader to recognize clear signs of ideological disloyalty.

      3. meaning after 30-40 years of greenhouse warming on schedule, as projected by applied understanding of thermodynamics and radiative transfer, plus mounting impact as projected by globally authored IPCC reports?

    4. Activists are not rational - why do we care what they think?

    5. On the bright side, when we all die because of global climate change warming, we'll never have to listen to, or read about these people again. For that simple reason, I hope they are correct, and my grandkid's grandchildren are saved from activists by the end of civilisation. I know I do my bit every day to make it happen, and save future generations.

  2. Instead, the activists seem to be channeling author Naomi Klein's assertion from her 2014 book, This Changes Everything: Capitalism vs. the Climate, that climate change has given progressives "the most powerful argument against unfettered capitalism" ever.

    I'm not sure they're 'channeling it'. Naomi Klein admitted in that book why Climate Change politics is so important. It's a tailor-made crisis for forcing Marxism on the civilized world.

    1. Quiet part loud and all that. They're so emboldened that they're not even trying to hide it anymore.

      1. Seriously I don’t know why more people haven’t tried this, I work two shifts, 2 hours in the day and 2 in the evening…FWO And i get surly a check of $12600 what’s awesome is I m working from home so I get more time with my kids.

        Try it, you won’t regret it........CASHAPP NOW

      2. Why should they when they have hacks like Ronald Bailey to run cover for them?

        1. Not to mention all of the world's national academies of science, physical science associations and national science agencies.

    2. That's why those technologies are "false solutions", because the problem they're actually trying to "solve" is freedom. And possibly human existence.

      1. "...the problem they're actually trying to "solve" is freedom. And possibly human existence."

        Eventually. They still need some of us to keep making stuff right now. That will change.

      2. Ah the precious "freedom to pollute".

        The kind of *real* freedom worth fighting for.

        Not that 4th-8th, 14th, 15th, 19th type amendment crap the woke mob keeps shoving down our throats, century after century.

    3. Except that nations with a higher degree of free market capitalism are much wealthier and much better stewards of the environment. See North/South Korea, Dominican Republic/Haiti, East/West Germany, etc.

      1. That's true of e.g. sulfate pollution, where the costs of pollution are born more locally and generate political will to fix the problem (via regulation as the only practical approach, like the Clean Air Act). When the costs are disproportionately dumped on others this is less true, as with greenhouse pollution, e.g. with the U.S. being a greenhouse pollution leader for decades.

    4. Just get rid of the marxists.

  3. Do what I want for the climate or I'm getting on my Gulfstream G5 and going home!!!

  4. The activists also call upon governments to "reject false solutions." These include "offsetting, carbon markets, carbon capture technologies, nature based solutions, geoengineering, climate smart agriculture, and others that are inherently ineffective, unjust, and destructive."

    In fairness:

    Offsetting: scam
    Carbon markets: scam
    Carbon Capture Technologies: some not bad ideas here and there, but also a lot of hubris (and in the end, a scam)
    Nature Based Solutions: I guess this means trees? And yeah - the socialists aren't into this one
    Geoengineering: Hubris at an almost-certainly dangerous level
    Climate Smart Agriculture: maybe there's something here, but probably not much, really - NO2 is pretty far down the list of 'problem gases' - in fact more in the atmosphere might be good for us, if you know what I mean ; ).

    So . . . yeah - these aren't solutions, but luckily this probably isn't even really a problem.

    1. Offsetting is the best scam. It allows rich people to make 0 adjustments to their lives while throwing a greenwashing scheme some easily afforded $.

      1. "I don't personally live a Stone-Age lifestyle, of course - I pay a guy in Africa to do that for me."

        1. You pay your guy? I just have my orphans handle it.

      2. Offsetting - indulgences for the 21st century...

      3. There are some crazy schemes being run. There are some wood burning power plants in the EU that are powered with wood shipped from the US using fossil fuels. That somehow is classified as renewable and carbon neutral. It's bullshit.

        1. Bingo, too.

          It’s the same crazy scheme that uses “renewable tech” like wind and solar to be built from parts shipped from China by fossil fuels, manufactured by fossil fuels, and from parts mined by fossil fuels, then returned back to China for “recycling” by fossil fuels, so we can get more.

          Same scheme as running electric cars dependent on increasing demand on the electric grid, which requires more fossil-fueled generation of power and adding copper wires to a grid that must be mined with more fossil fuels.

          Granted, we could just return mining and manufacturing to the US, but the globalist arrangement means moving the pollution to the Oriental side of the world, which suits the environmentalists just fine.

    2. "isn't even really a problem"

      Whoa now... next you're going to be suggesting that we don't really need politicians and 'experts' telling us how to live our lives. You must be one of those right wing domestic terrorists I've been hearing about on the news.

      1. "You must be one of those right wing domestic terrorists I've been hearing about on the news."

        Damn right.
        According to everyone on the web, I am also racist and sexist (or is it genderist now?).
        I have heard that bullshit so long I have decided it must be true.
        Men are men.
        Women are women.
        School boards should listen to parents.
        If you vote for fascists, you will get fascism.

      2. so amusingly close to stumbling onto the old Hayek adage, but reversing the causality...

        "The most objectionable feature of the conservative attitude is its propensity to reject well-substantiated new knowledge because it dislikes some of the consequences which seem to follow from it" – free market economist and libertarian Friedrich Hayek, 1960

    3. +1, bravo Square.

    4. "this probably isn't even really a problem"

      Because raising the temperature of your planet a few degrees is probably cool. Why wouldn't it be?

      Some hippie diver types will probably have a cry about coral reefs, but seriously. If it's a concern about future Finding Nemo movies there are pictures of what they used to look like artists will be able to use.

  5. Upon entering they should have been shot in the face

    1. Future impoverished generations struggling under totalitarian boots are probably rooting for that.

    2. There is now precedent for that.

    3. An insurrection against the UN!

  6. Poor people exhale carbon dioxide too. So more intense hurricanes may help reduce non-point source carbon emissions.
    Hurricanes should be named after climate activists.

    1. Not a science guy, I take it.

  7. Stupid, spoiled, useless children. And like children, they naturally believe in magic on demand and in socialism.

    I would like to recommend that instead of professional activism, they instead get degrees in chemical engineering, agronomy, computer science, etc., and actually create new technology that could make a difference. But I suspect that they don't have the intellectual capacity.

    1. I would like to recommend that instead of professional activism, they instead get degrees in chemical engineering, agronomy, computer science, etc., and actually create new technology that could make a difference

      Much, much easier to demand that someone else do that.

      1. We see that in the comments here. Folks demanding others pay for something that another group of others do.

        1. Hitting the irony meter hard here.

          I'm pretty sure you don't actually mean the obvious, expecting others to pay for the costs of pollution that another group emitted...

    2. They could also volunteer to kill themselves and reduce thier future emissions to 0. Once we use the fuel to cremate them that is.

      1. Toss them into a compost pile and use the heat of their rotting flesh to make electricity for my tablet to play cat videos.

        I don’t just want them to die.

        I want their death to provide me with a chuckle.

  8. What needs to happen is that 1.5c has to be buried. It's already dead. All of the panic is about imagining that it can be revived if only Dr Frankenstein takes over the world and figures out how to revive it. And of course every bureaucrat and pol is pretending that they are exactly the solution in need of only money.

    Some country that is on board with the goal of reducing emissions - and is currently doing so - needs to be the one informing the world of Emperors that they got no clothes and we are gonna hit 3.0c. And depending on what 3.0c looks like, turn the activists on those countries that are gonna resist even the 3.0c. There are gonna be revolutions in this transition. Why not admit that?

    For everyone else, at least 3.0c is a starting point to quit with the damn panic.

    1. 1.5 was delusional. 3 is a fucking farce.

      1. Depends on the timeframe, but one of the things that dropped out of the discussion a good decade ago now is that there has never been any concern over absolute warming - it has always been too-much-warming-too-fast that has been the cause for concern. And the empirical evidence has shown little cause for concern.

        1. The reason there is no real cause for concern is precisely because "limiting global warming to 1.5 °C compared with 2 °C would reduce challenging impacts on ecosystems, human health and well-being". That's their words. So they are creating a panic over a number that is designed to basically maintain the status quo. It makes no real sense at all to panic over keeping things the same - when you can just deny it all and it will stay the same as well.

          I can see why Greta Thunberg and much of her generation are simply pissed off. The entire discussion by the adults is either a money/power scam or complete denial (which is basically the same as saying 'we've already got the power and we ain't giving you no money'). Meanwhile NO ONE is actually projecting - ok what do things actually look like at 3.0c? Is that something we can live with or adapt to or is that too much and a point where we want to avoid that?

          1. 1.) No concrete proposal (as opposed to a 'goal') has been offered which will do anything to mitigate the changes.
            2) No one is offering anything like cost/benefit on any of the (admittedly ineffective) proposals.
            3) No one is talking about nukes.
            4) Not one of the catastrophist's predictions has turned out to be true.
            These people are not serious and the G.T. generation has been sold a bill of goods by watermelons.

          2. "I can see why Greta Thunberg and much of her generation are simply pissed off."

            Of course you can. Because she is a little entitled, spoiled indoctrinated shit, with mush for brains because her activist parents filled her semi-autistic brain with garbage from when she was born. And now this has turned her into the natural conclusion of such a pathway...the modern entitled prog.

            Its no surprise you can relate to her. Grow the fuck up.

            1. Greta had bananas on the table. The food miles from bananaland to Denmark is considerable.

              1. Exactly. She should stick to her native foods, fish and mud.

            2. The chairs at Greta's mom's house cost $9000 apiece, used.

          3. Meanwhile NO ONE is actually projecting - ok what do things actually look like at 3.0c?

            That's not true. At least, it didn't used to be - as a matter of fact 3.0c/100 years was the originally-identified threshold at which scientists, back before this whole thing got so hopelessly politicized (and capitalized), said 'yes - at that rate of change, we may see some catastrophic weather.'

            Of course we empirically are no ways near that rate, but just as the COVID thing went from 'two weeks to flatten the curve' to 'there can be no cases of COVID on the planet,' concerns about warming went from 'if things warm too fast there could be disasters' to 'things can't warm' (and trillions need to be spent in corrupt developing nations to combat it).

            1. Of course we empirically are no ways near that rate

              Idk what the studies/research says. But the people who make money betting on climate are betting that we are hitting that rate of change.

        2. And rising sea levels (easily adapted to) and increasingly common and severe storms (the USA is already able to withstand most hurricanes, much better than when Andrew or Camille or Katrina hit, incidentally before the last several decades of "climate change") and drought and fires (cyclical and can be managed better).

        3. "there has never been any concern over absolute warming - it has always been too-much-warming-too-fast that has been the cause for concern"

          "Too fast" here is on geologic timescales. So in human/ecosystem terms you can consider it as various types of impact that scale with warming and an escalating ladder of different kinds of 'tipping point' risks, e.g. like the one we are passing on coral.

          "And the empirical evidence has shown little cause for concern."

          Except for the empirical evidence.

          1. Coral has beeln with us for millions of years, many of those millions hotter and with more Co2 than today, so spare us the panic, huh?

            1. Ah, the argument from incredulity. "The earth has been around and getting along just fine for millions of years without any species digging up stored carbon and spiking the concentration in the atmosphere, what could cause that to change now?"

              Gee I don't know Jima. How could anything like that happen?

              Do you think you could give a factual answer – about what % of the coral in the Great Barrier Reef died 2016-17? What was the cause?

              "But even if we lose current reefs, in the future if temps stabilize new coral reefs could grow over millions of years so it will be fine" doesn't *really* seem like a particularly lucid opinion, does it?

    2. Beats the shit out of getting colder.

      1. There's a book or two out on how 536 AD was the worst year in human history, mostly because a giant volcano blew and cooled the Earth by a couple of degrees. Crops failed, famines followed, empires fell, plagues went unchecked. Warmer weather is better for life, human and otherwise.

        1. https://www.science.org/content/article/why-536-was-worst-year-be-alive

          A mysterious fog plunged Europe, the Middle East, and parts of Asia into darkness, day and night—for 18 months. "For the sun gave forth its light without brightness, like the moon, during the whole year," wrote Byzantine historian Procopius. Temperatures in the summer of 536 fell 1.5°C to 2.5°C, initiating the coldest decade in the past 2300 years. Snow fell that summer in China; crops failed; people starved. The Irish chronicles record "a failure of bread from the years 536–539." Then, in 541, bubonic plague struck the Roman port of Pelusium, in Egypt. What came to be called the Plague of Justinian spread rapidly, wiping out one-third to one-half of the population of the eastern Roman Empire and hastening its collapse...

        2. Also possibly the year before King Arthur died, at the Battle of Camlann, in 537 AD.

        3. A bit of research showed how the period around WWI had cold, wet weather that made casualties so much worse than had the war occurred a decade before or after.

          The same climatology study also showed how that aberrant period of cold wet weather made conditions ripe for the 1918 flu.

          Warmer weather is better for humans, which is why activists hate it. They hate humanity.

          1. https://doi.org/10.1029/2020GH000277

            “ The Impact of a Six-Year Climate Anomaly on the “Spanish Flu” Pandemic and WWI”

    3. Fuck off.
      Warmth = life, activity
      Cold = death, stasis

      1. They’ve done their focus groups and decided that hot is scarier.

        1. Also there's physics (inside reference for the rationalist nerds.)

  9. I would like to recommend that instead of professional activism, they instead get degrees in chemical engineering, agronomy, computer science, etc., and actually create new technology that could make a difference.

    I would like to recommend that they be thrown in to a volcano to appease the nature gods. Surely the sacrifice of thousands of white leftists will stave off the catastrophe of the corn mothers' wrath.

    1. If you haven't read Joseph Campbell's Faces of God series (4 books: Primitive, Occidental, Oriental, Modern) I highly recommend it.
      Primitive Mythology goes deep into the two veins of religion, hunter-gatherer and agrarian/vegetative, which basically correspond to nomadic vs early civilization development. The latter is far more brutal, and where the notion of human sacrifice comes in.

  10. If these idiots actually succeed in destroying civilization with their phony nature cult, I hope that they pay for what they've done.

    1. They will, but unfortunately the rest of us will, too.

    2. A nature cult completely divorced from nature. Eco-warriors who think bugs are gross and dinner comes from the supermarket. It blows my mind.

      1. Over compensation and collective psychosis

  11. I always get a kick out of the shock people have when they find out activists rarely actually want to solve the problems about which they protest.

    1. Nothing shocks econazis like a link to realclimatescience.com
      It's the "How many fingers, Winston?" moment self-deluding altruists abhor...

  12. Geoengineering flavor #1: Remove carbon dioxide from the air. Plants do this all the time. Geological processes regularly also "deep six" (sequester long-term) the resulting carbon in the plants. Think about how oil and coal and peat bogs are formed. So this is now EVIL and DANGEROUS?!?! Momma nature has been forming coal etc. for a LONG time! Momma nature is EVIL, 'cause WHY? Momma Nature = Gaia, who is to be WORSHIPPED, per the proggies, I had thought!
    Ditto with sulfur dioxide spewed into the air... Momma Nature been doin' the same, via volcanoes... This is flavor #2, of course...
    In both cases, there can be too much of a good thing, yes. WHO is smarter at hewing close to the proper limits, Momma Nature or intelligent humans? THAT is the central question! Momma Nature cooked us up, perhaps inadvertently, yes... But, "she" cooked us up to be the intelligent guardians of the planet! Time for us to grow up, set the nuke-weapons aside, and do our job! Geoengineer away, and also fend off the next asteroid impact!
    "Man is not capable of destroying the earth."
    Not capable of destroying the planet, true dat. We can, however, send LIFE on the planet (including ourselves) to oblivion! Set off all our nukes, that one is obvious (wipe out maybe half of advanced lifeforms?). Less well known, and worse, is grind up our total supply of plutonium into a finely ground-up dust or powder, and spread it across the whole planet. That would probably set life back to the bacteria stage, planet-wide.
    I have now noticed something about the proggie brain, which I hadn't noticed before. It works the same on totally different topics! See if you can spot the similarities below:
    Proggie brain, concerning free market v/s Government Almighty: Under the free market, people's (buyers and sellers) use their free will or volition, un-coerced, to move goods, services, and money around, intelligently, in order to help themselves, and that is EVIL! But when Government Almighty (as assemblage of voters and politicians that are endlessly fighting each other and erecting near-brainless bureaucracies run amok) moves the same goods, services, and money around, using coercion, then that is GOOD!
    Proggie brain, concerning Geoengineering v/s Gaia (Momma Nature): Geoengineering proposes carbon sequestration or reflecting more sunlight, via human action, to help ourselves intelligently. EVIL!!!
    But when Gaia does the exact same things, and over-does them from time to time, and wallops us with ginormous volcanoes or asteroids, in a totally un-intelligent way, then that is GOOD!
    Gaia-lovers think that humans catastrophes from Gaia are GOOD, 'cause they wipe out humans, who are nasty parasites to Gaia; I kid you not!

    To prove my last point about the humans-haters, I give you this:
    Bill McKibben is an un-reformed, 200-proof, human-hating asshole!
    “At its extreme, green ideology expresses itself in utter contempt for humanity. Reviewing Bill McKibben’s The End of Nature in the Los Angeles Times, National Park Service research biologist David M. Graber concluded with this stunning passage: ‘Human happiness, and certainly human fecundity, are not as important as a wild and healthy planet. I know social scientists who remind me that people are part of nature, but it isn’t true. Somewhere along the lineat about a billion years ago, maybe half thatwe quit the contract and became a cancer. We have become a plague upon ourselves and upon the Earth. It is cosmically unlikely that the developed world will choose to end its orgy of fossil-energy consumption, and the Third World its suicidal consumption of landscape. Until such time as Homo sapiens should decide to rejoin nature, some of us can only hope for the right virus to come along.’
    “It is hard to take such notions seriously without sounding like a bit of a kook yourself. But there they arecalmly expressed in the pages of a major, mainstream, Establishment newspaper by an employee of the federal government. When it is acceptable to say such things in polite intellectual company, when feel-good environmentalists tolerate the totalitarians in their midst, when sophisticates greet the likes of Graber with indulgent nods and smiles rather than arguments and outrage, we are one step further down another bloody road to someone’s imagined Eden. All the greens need is an opportunity and a Lenin.”
    From “Free Minds & Free Markets”, Pacific Research Institute for Public Policy, 1993, which is a compilation of 25 years of articles from Reason magazine, this one being “The Green Road to Serfdom”, April 1990, by Virginia I. Postrel.

    Proggie brain is generally addicted to self-righteous and smug coercion of others. It is also self-destructive of humans generally, as noted above. Then it's also hypocritical, in that, if they REALLY believed that human life is a blight upon the planet, they'd just go off and commit suicide. But no, THEY personally aren't part of the blight; those people over THERE are the blight! So proggie brain is pretty stupid AND evil...

    Contard brain, in SOME flavors (hyper-nationalism, militarism, self-righteous religion, xenophobia, gayophobia, etc.) can be just as bad, I will admit that. Contards don't have as much "traction" (especially in media and academia) right now, THAT is the big difference!

    1. No one will read that.

      1. Their loss, not mine... "You can lead a horse to water", and all that!

        1. "You can lead a horse to water"

          The horse is also going to scroll past it.

          1. Or just flag it.
            Imagine the ego and or idiocy it takes to post something like that (with the spastic's rep) and then hoping someone will wade through 10' deep bullshit to perhaps find a nugget or tow.
            Fuck off and die, TDS-addled spastic asshole.

            1. Or just mute it. 😉

              1. Only muted one so far (some truly whacko commie, claiming 'the end is neigh for capitalism!!!!!); not happy with the 'bubble' resulting from that habit.

                1. Grey squirrels are a common sight.

                  1. DelMarVa Fox Squirrels are ROUS though

        2. two flags, asshole.

          1. Hey Smegmalung!

            Don’t you have more important things to do, instead of thread-shitting here? As San Fran’s foremost homeless hobo, couldn’t you be doing your “squeegee” racket, fighting with the other bums, pooping in the streets, and yelling insane, deluded insults at passers-by?

            Smegmalung’s next gig in Gay Ol’ San Fran: Burglary, which San Fran’s media suggests should now be tolerated!
            https://www.foxnews.com/media/san-francisco-chronicle-ripped-for-asking-if-residents-should-tolerate-burglaries
            San Francisco Chronicle ripped for asking if residents should 'tolerate burglaries'

            1. One more flag TDS-addled spastic asshole

      2. Correct.

      3. JFree read it (at least part of it). Is JFree now "no one", or does your tinfoil hat need calibrated? It seems that SOME people are smart and literate enough to read more than 2 or 3 words!

        1. It's pretty apparent that JFree reads a lot of whacky stuff.

          1. have to kiss a lot of frogs and all that. I'm with jfree and I read it all also.

      4. Muted. Your prediction was correct in my case and I am sure we are both better for this.

      5. Best thing on this site is the vertical dashes that let us skip to the "next level" in a hurry.

      6. Nope ... He's been muted for quite some time now ... brought back out of curiosity and rightfully Muted In-Perpetuity again.

      7. It's never stopped him before.

    2. Think about how oil and coal and peat bogs are formed. So this is now EVIL and DANGEROUS?!?!

      I think the point is - all of that carbon that was sequestered over tens of millions or even hundreds of millions of years is going to be released into the atmosphere over 200 or so years.

      1. There is no way we are going to burn all the coal in the ground.

    3. “THEY personally aren't part of the blight; those people over THERE are the blight”

      As PJ O’Rourke says “Just enough of me, way too much of you”

    4. Actually a really good take of the situation... I thought anyways.

    5. The Pu calculus is wrong. A milligram is dangerous if eaten, but so are pins and needles if you stick one into the heart of every person--a daunting logistical problem. The radiolanthanum experiments at Los Alamos 76 years ago explosively pulverized extremely radioactive gamma-emitters, yet the physicists running the tests (Alvarez and Kistiakowski) clambered out of their tanks worried about forest fires, NOT the thinly-dispersed Ra-La.

  13. "They evidently demand a "just transition" that "must result in collaborating to rapidly share technology and finance to implement real, proven, and people-centered solutions at scale."

    Everything that doesn't involve forced sacrifice is a false solution in their eyes.

    1. Everything that doesn't involve forced sacrifice is a false solution when the objective is forced sacrifice.

      1. Perhaps more important: punishing the bad guys. Average people are just collateral damage.

        1. Oh, they want to burn the village.

        2. No, average people are the target

  14. Which side am I on?
    Easy: Not your side.

  15. Oh, and where are the "WE WANT NUKES!" signs?
    Not there?
    Not serious.

    1. If you're demanding government do "something" but rejecting natural gas and nuclear, then you probably don't actually believe in the wolf you're crying.

      ...or else maybe you're just stupid. A while back Tony insisted that windmills and solar panels weren't silly political fashion-accessories, and that they could replace fossil fuels today if the evil oil companies hadn't stopped government from adopting them.

      1. Would that be the same governments that shovel tax credits at them?

      2. Yeah, Bailey didn't even mention nuclear which does little to show me any seriousness on his part.

  16. Given that the activists say they want to reduce carbon dioxide emissions in order to keep the global average temperature from rising by more than 2°C, why in the world would they be against any of these processes and technologies?

    Because their real goal isn't keeping the global average temperature from rising by more than 2°C, their real goal is forcing de-industrialization.

    1. It's been pointed out by many: This is a religious movement.

      1. As well as a bowel movement.

        1. I was gonna suggest that as #2.

            1. Hey, you handed me that!

            2. And new product design; busy.

    2. None of them could live five minutes without their iPhone or social media or starbucks or their vaping (never met an "environmentalist" who didn't smoke something). Heat their home? Grow their own food? Hell they just call grubhug every night...they couldn't hunt or fish..they are damn lucky we have an industrialized society and they should get on their hands and knees and praise hydrocarbons...

      When you have a prosperous society you get those they want to bring it down because inside they are insecure and want to hurt everyone else...

      1. Regarding the Greta twit and her compatriots, they have no idea of what they are demanding and need to be ignored by adults.
        Unfortunately, there are few of them at conferences such as this.
        FDR made it a point to found the UN, unfortunately (for us) too stupid to understand that it would end up a dishonest, prevaricating, self-serving reflection of himself.
        Wanna fuck somebody with Tony's dick? Hope it was FDR and that it would be fatal. 70 years ago.

  17. The climate cultists chant "we want to live!" as they hector, harrass and intimidate US Senators to spend the nation deeper into debt. An odd choice of words for people who view humanity as a pestilence on the Earth, which would support far fewer humans without modern, reliable energy and food production.

    And they are weaponizing kids to intimidate their parents into compliance. Nanny state "public service" ads in California have kids nagging us to "use less electricity between 4 and 9 PM, when renewable energy is less available" or have vaguely threatening kids scowling at the adults imploring them to "do something".

  18. "The climate cultists chant "we want to live!" as they hector, harrass and intimidate"

    Because this is the exact opposite of what they want. Instinctively, they want to die. But the ego won't accept that, because the ego's purpose is to exist, so they collectivize but are still driven by instinct to seek self destruction. Only now they are at war within themselves, thus in pain, and feel a malicious, fanatical resentment against all that exists instead of just themselves.

  19. How do these little entitled rich pay the rent? Do they have jobs? I never get these "do gooders" who seem to be able to drive expensive cars, jet to Europe all the time and have so much "influence" in the media..I mean seriously do they have jobs? Either on Daddy's money (trust fund babies who always go red) or non profit grifters running some bullshit govt program.

    How many have a hard science or engineering degree and have looked at the evidence (or lack of such) on this topic?

    These folks are a threat to liberty and freedom...rich spoiled brats..

    1. Just as communist anarchists wear makeup and answer to "anarcho-capitalist" when infiltrating the LP as brood parasites, so mentalists tack on the "environ-" prefix the way undercover narcs wear long hair or duck hunters wear cammies and crouch behind blinds near their decoys. If they can dupe you into adding the cross-dressing prefix for them, that only makes you a useful... useful... ?? Drat! I saw that noun somewhere just a minute ago.

  20. Anyone who claims to actually be concerned about global climate warming change and who still exhales CO2 is a hypocrite.
    On a practical level, God or Mother Earth (whichever way you believe) will do the best job of caring for the planet. Man is not all that good at "fixing nature".

  21. STOP BELIEVING the Climate Change B.S. that has REPEATEDLY proven to be false every counting day that goes by. What do they call a hypothesis that is not only unpredictable but entirely not true??? A LIE!

  22. People like THAT stage a “walk out”…..and take a lot of hot air with them! Isn’t that a desirable outcome?

  23. People’s this, people’s that. What these “people” want is a massive transfer of wealth to their comrades in poor countries to create a thousand Venezuelas. I guess mass starvation and genocide will be good for the climate.

    1. SPRINGTIME FOR MISEK

    2. Transfer and/or destruction of wealth. Cuz wealth is bad.

  24. The solution to the destruction of our environment is to stop building cheap disposable crap, and spending as much on packaging .

    Make it law that things last 30 years and all aspects of our frenzied economy will consume less resources without impacting us having what we need.

    Industrialists won’t like it though.

    1. You know who else paid less for packing and shipping?

      1. Santa Claus?

      2. Herman Goering?

      3. The bogeyman?

        1. What are Jews without their perpetual bogeymen persecuting them?

          Jews have a long history of publicly claiming persecution via a holocaust in many nations besides Germany hundreds of times since before WW1.

          Which time weren’t they lying? Does the Nazi version in which it is illegal to demonstrate the lie in every nation where it allegedly occurred any more credible?

          Jews are the losers who fake persecution like someone who fakes cancer to extort money on a go fund me website. Except eventually their false persecution becomes a little too real when their lies are discovered.

          Here are hundreds of examples.

          http://wearswar.wordpress.com/2017/10/31/repeated-claims-of-6-million-jews-dying-decades-before-hitler-vs-ignored-soviet-death-camp-tolls/

          1. So now the edict of expulsion, getting booted out of Hispaniola, and countless pogroms throughout Europe are hoaxes, too.

            Shit, dude. Even the original Holocaust revisionists couldn’t explain away the Einsatzgruppen. It was just specific death camps or specific death tolls at death camps they were refuting.

            Why would Jews utilize a sympathy card before WWI that didn’t exist? No one cared before WWI what happened to the Jews. Unless like Holland, Turkey, the Jamaica colony they could immediately benefit from the brain drain of someone else’s diaspora?

            1. False sympathy and lies to beg for money and accommodation.poor persecuted Jews boo hoo.

              It worked for them financially and any repercussions for their lies added credibility to their persecution theme.

              All those examples I provided are proof of their behaviour.

              1. Wow! With situations from David Irving AND that guy who claims that Hitler never wanted to start a war. Very convincing.

                You know what else you can find reference to before the Nazis? The 3rd Reich. It was just one of those cultural tropes that came true.

                The original numbers given for the Holocaust in “the extermination of Europe’s Jews” was 5.1 million. The discrepancy is in Russia. They actually know where many of the European Jews were carted off to down to the train numbers. And the Einsatzgruppen figures that pretty much no one debates are well past 2 million.

                So yeah, 6 million is a gestimate. With the low end (assuming ever deniers wet dreams were true) being in the 3 or 4 million range. Totally nothing to cry about.

                1. Correction. Einzatzgruppen 100% confirmable strictly Jewish victims over 1,000,000.

                  So denier wet dream scenerio 2 or 3 million. Nothing to cry about.

                  1. Einszatzgruppen and Wehrmacht were also shooting communist party members and there’s the liquidation of the polish intelligencia that sometimes get mixed up with the Holocaust numbers. Plus they were corralling Russian troops by the millions and not feeding them.

                    So really the numbers are more like 11 million just in the East dying in death squads and captivity.

                    Because the Nazis you’re shilling for are just do misunderstood.

                    1. There weren’t that many Jews in all of occupied Europe.

                      Who survived?

                2. Rob what a Fourth Reich in the worst way. So he can exterminate the Jews.

                  1. I have suggested no such thing. You’re an idiot.

                    You on the other hand just stated,

                    “ Make Democrats Extinct
                    November.14.2021 at 11:23 pm

                    We should just wipe out the leftists.”

              2. There has been no objective forensic analysis at any supposed holocaust site. That means that there is no physical evidence. That probably has something to do with the fact that any activity that demonstrates evidence to refute the holocaust is a crime in every nation where it allegedly occurred.

                The crucial event of the whole bullshit story is the cyanide gassing of millions of Jews. That never happened.

                Fuckwitness Jews wrote books illustrated with pictures of themselves shirtless dragging gassed bodies from the chambers to cremation ovens. This brings tears and shekels to every Jew.

                But cyanide is absorbed through the skin and NOBODY could have survived a single day of such activity much less collecting reparations into their old age reminiscing about it over a game of checkers.

                When the fuckwitnesses are caught lying, even their inadmissible testimony is refuted.

                And so it goes with every bullshit story. The facts prove otherwise.

                Let’s not forget another old timey favourite.

                The story of Babi Yar is a popular lesson in Jewish schools described as the single largest event of the holocaust.

                The lesson is that between 30,000 and 100,000 Jews were taken to a ravine in Ukraine where they were killed.

                The story is told by one Jewish
                survivor, Dina Pronicheva, an actress who testified that she was forced to strip naked and marched to the edge of the ravine. When the firing squad shot, she jumped into the ravine and played dead. After being covered by thousands of bodies and tons of earth she dug herself out, unscathed, when the coast was clear and escaped to tell the story.

                They were stripped naked to leave no evidence.

                She is apparently the only person in history to successfully perform a matrix bullet dodge at a firing squad.

                The soldier aiming point blank at her never noticed her escape. Never walked a few steps to the edge of the ravine to finish her off.

                Naked she had no tools to dig herself out from under 30,000 bodies and tons of dirt.

                Only after the deed was done, the nazis realized that so many bullet ridden bodies were evidence oops. So they brought more Jews and millions of cubic feet of firewood to dig them up, cremate them and scatter their ashes in surrounding fields.

                There has been no forensic investigation at the site. None of the bullets allegedly burned with the bodies have been recovered. Not one shred of physical evidence of this has ever been found.

                There are aerial photographs of the area at the time but they don’t show any evidence of the narrative, no people, no equipment, no firewood, no moved earth, no tracks of any kind.

                Simply stating these facts is a crime in Ukraine where the Babi Yar narrative is taught in school

                Have you ever heard of the Bletchley park decrypts of the famous German enigma machines?

                It was credited for turning the tide of the war as allies knew what military actions the Germans were planning.

                Only released in the 1980s those translated messages included prison camp information, deaths, transfers and requests for medicines to treat illnesses. The numbers of dead don’t support a holocaust narrative which there was also no mention of.

                Are you willingly performing the feeble mental gymnastics required to believe, as the story goes, that Germans were communicating in code about prison camps while talking plainly about their military actions with their enigma machines?

                The numbers of dead from German enigma decrypts does align with Red Cross numbers.

                The Red Cross regularly visited all prison camps.

                It was their job to report the cause of all deaths. They recorded a grand total of 271,000 among all camps for the entire war. It is a matter of record.

                Are you performing the feeble mental gymnastics required to believe that the Red Cross were so incompetent that they were completely unaware of 95% or 5,629,000 deaths?

                Zyklon B is an off the shelf insecticide used among other places in Prison camps to delouse clothing and bedding to save prisoners lives by preventing typhus. The system used heating to release yes cyanide gas, fans to circulate the gas and more to exhaust the chambers to make the de loused articles safe to handle. Pictures of this equipment and the small de lousing buildings still exist in Aushwitz. But no evidence of any gas delivery system has ever been found in the shower houses where the bullshit holocaust allegedly occurred.

                According to Martin Gilbert in his book, Holocaust Journey, the gas chambers at Treblinka utilized carbon monoxide from diesel engines. At the Nuremberg trial of the Nazi war criminals, the American government charged that the Jews were murdered at Treblinka in “steam chambers,” not gas chambers.

                Gasoline engine exhaust contains about ten times the carbon monoxide than diesel.

                Even if the Diesel engines were running at their maximum of 500 ppm, death would take several hours.

                If zee Germans had used gas engines, death would have been in a few minutes.

                But in the revised bullshit holocaust narrative for treblinka zee Germans chose diesel even though they had plenty of gas for their tanks.

                And Nuremberg charged that they were “steam chambers”.

                Which stupid lie is more believable to a fuckwit? You have to perform some feeble mental gymnastics to buy that.

                The story of gassing Jews began as British propaganda to turn popular opinion against Germany. It was inspired to draw attention away from Jewish Bolshevik war crimes in Russt because that would work against allied propaganda. It also served global Jewish interests to create undeserved sympathy for Jews who had publicly organized boycotts of Germany driving Germany to war.

                Here is a documented letter from the head of British propaganda to the head of the war office recommending that they cease the gassing Jew holocaust propaganda because there was no evidence for it and if found out would work against their propaganda efforts.

                Victor Cavendish-Bentick, the Head of British Psychological Warfare Executive (Propaganda), in a handwritten note, written on Aug 27th, 1943, confirmed that the alleged mass murder of Jews in the so-called ‘death camps’ was a psy-op when he wrote:

                “We have had a good run for our money with this gas chamber story we have been putting about, but don’t we run the risk eventually we are going to be found out and when we are found out the collapse of that lie is going to bring the whole of our psychological warfare down with it? So isn’t it rather time now to let it drift off by itself and concentrate on other lines that we are running.” [Public Record Office Document F0371/34551 revealed by Stephen Mitford Goodson, Inside the South African Reserve Bank

                The only thing the bullshit holocaust narrative has in common with WW2 is that they were both the creation of Jews.

                These Jewish leaders are admitting it.. Are they lying?

                “We Jews are going to bring a war on Germany”.
                David A Brown, national chairman, united Jewish campaign, 1934.

                “The Israeli people around the world declare economic and financial war against Germany …holy war against Hitlers people”

                Chaim Weismann, the Zionist leader, 8 September 1939, Jewish chronicle.

                The Toronto evening telegram of 26 February 1940 quoted rabbi Maurice l. Perlzweig of the world Jewish Congress as telling a Canadian audience that” The world Jewish Congress has been at war with Germany for seven years”.

                Cites available upon request.

                1. My 11 million included non Jews. As the post said. They had no problem liquidating millions of Slavs or anyone else. There’s no moral or Logistical impediment to the Nazis killing 5 to 6 million Jews.

                  There were an estimated 9.5 million Jews in Europe pre ‘33. More than enough.

                  Actually, what YOU have to explain is where they went.

                  Most of the rest of your post looks like the Eric Hunt stuff. It should be informative to everyone who hasn’t drank the kool aid that Eric Hunt has recanted on most of his points. Asking the same question I just did:

                  Then where are they?

                  TIK has pretty good video underscoring the fake argument here. Which is basically “a real bad pro-Holocaust documentary was made. I can refute parts of it. So the entire Holocaust is in question.”

                  https://youtu.be/_VKI6K5zX6o

                  1. “Actually, what YOU have to explain is where they went.”

                    Actually I don't care where any lying Jews are.

                    The bullshit holocaust story requires that 6 million Jews were murdered and I’ve refuted that.

                    1. No, you haven’t. You’ve also shown yourself to be a literal nazi and a massive bigot.

                    2. I have considered and refuted with logic and science several key element of the bullshit holocaust story.

                      Bigotry is demonstrated by the refusal to consider counter arguments.

                      You have neither considered nor refuted my arguments.

                    3. If you want to demonstrate that you aren’t in fact a bigot and have considered my arguments you’ll have to either accept or refute them.

  25. Juvenile Hot Headed Activists Walk Out of U.N. Climate Change Conference in Glasgow Because They Didn't Get Their Own Way.
    Wah! Wah! Wah! Wah!

  26. What are these cunts going on about? Justin that piece of shit, low life, hypocritical, communist asshole wants to cap mileage on people using cars, planes and trains. Not enough for them?

    Of course, imbeciles like him will ignore those rules as he parties with other degenerate political parasites maskless.

    All pointless wankering anyway. Russia,China, India and Brazil - constituting about half of the world's population and land mass - won't play. Good luck with that Canada. All you're gonna do is impoverish your own populations and with little 'greening' to show for it. The Canadian and Quebec governments pledged to be green by 2030. This will end up being nothing but one gigantic corrupted racket doling out crony contracts to their buddies. That's how they roll here. Canada is as corrupted and inefficient a place as they come.

    Solyndra is gonna make a comeback under these bozos.

    Gallows are the new woodchippers!

    1. Welcome back.

    2. "Canada is as corrupted and inefficient a place as they come."

      We probably need to look to China and India for issues that encompass the entire globe. They are both large countries whose populations are confident of the future and are not overtaken by the cynicism and head in the sand complacency that the wealthier established nations have succumbed to.

      1. WTF are you talking about?

        1. Corruption in Canada, climate change and global leadership.

  27. No one cares.

  28. Imagine going to the ER with a bullet wound to the chest. The bullet still in there.

    The ER doctor puts a bandage on it and sends you home.

    "y r u mad?? The bandaid technically does mitigate the damage from the injury! How ungrateful to get upset with the doctor for helping. So what if what he did was so woefully inadequate to prevent death. He did *something* so how dare you oppose it!'

    This is how the right is acting.

    1. Did that seem clever to you as you wrote it?

      -jcr

      1. Probably not.
        But easier than research and facts and logic and all that other racist stuff.

    2. D-

  29. “…why in the world would they be against any of these processes and technologies?”

    You have to ask the question??? Holy shit. They’re progs and…and…free markets bad…

  30. Does anyone have any idea on how to cause global temperatures to plunge drastically?

    1. Global thermonuclear war might do it.

    2. According to ex-scientists Carl Sagan and Richard Turco (See: Whoopee-We're-All-Gonna-Freeze), nuking some huge Lebensraum-expansionist communist dictatorship would do the trick. Turco has, since the latest Molotov-Ribbentrop-Eastasia-Oceania pact, now decided Whoopee-We're-All-Gonna-Broil unless we find a way to surrender to communism and economic planning.

  31. The truly devoted environmentalists are also anti-capitalists and anti-industrialists. They would have us return to a largely agrarian society.

    1. I don’t think they’ve thought that far ahead.

      They believe a bogeyman story that doesn’t require critical thinking and their “ solution “ doesn’t either.

    2. There doesn't seem to be a free market capitalist solution to the problem. Socialist solutions are the obvious default.

    3. There's the anarcho-communist solution: eliminate all fences, let the buffalo roam and starve down to Comancheria population and technology levels run by headdress-wearing KGB bureaucrats.

      1. Controlled fusion is the communist solution that will allow us to continue in our energy intensive ways. It will be difficult, expensive and may prove impractical. Anarcho-primitivists have another solution: global economic collapse.

  32. “…why in the world would they be against any of these processes and technologies?”

    They do nothing to stop the burning of fossil fuel, which scientists have identified as the major contributor to global warming.

    1. They did a great job demonstrating this "new tech" that will replace fossil fuels whilst all congregating at Glasgow, no?

      1. I didn't see anything about new tech in the article. And I didn't see any free market solutions either. And of course, I saw nothing that would reduce the burning of fossil fuels.

  33. I'm gonna miiiisssss those Econazi looters!

      1. We should just wipe out the leftists.

        1. Like we tried with the Indians or Jews? Won't work.

  34. When you run out of arguments, just pump up the scare dollars and rerun the old 1992 Rio Conference with new branding.

  35. Any proposed solution to climate change that doesn't include nuclear power is not a serious argument. There are newer technologies that can use what is now nuclear waste for power generation. There are navy ships that use on-board nuclear power. They are small enough to be placed almost anywhere and small enough to calm people about the possibility of a massive melt-down. We'd have to build a lot of them but that's better anyway since they can be networked and the failure of one plant would be inconsequential.

  36. While young trees take in CO2 while growing, they also tend to darken the Earth's surface when compared to grass etc, thereby reflecting less visible light back into space.

    In addition, trees reduce runoff, returning water as vapor to the atmosphere, and H2O is an even stronger greenhouse gas than CO2.

    Thus, while temperatures might be cooler under their shade, trees (especially mature ones) warm the climate at the canopy level and contribute to climate change. Farm and grassland management would be better.

  37. Why was this article erased from the list of “latest”?

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.