The Church of Climate Change in these Latter Days

[Hagoth]

On the other thing, I will bite.

The depopulation thing is not about the environment. Its just a fad among hippies and fancy people. I am cool with it. People who dont like kids or dont care for kids shouldnt have kids. People who think their electric car is better for the environment than my Mom’s car should definitely not have kids. My mom drives a Honda Pilot.

Hagoth, would you trade your kids if it would contribute to cooling Earth? Would the Earth be degrees cooler today if you were childless? Not to put you on the spot or anything. I am just making the point that most likely, you love your son and daughter. Most likely, you would choose to have your family over doing your fair share for the so-called consensus. And, my point is, any argument that puts an ideology or consensus or the great big huge world as a priority over something like having kids - lacks credibility. This depopulation conversation is just noise for noise sakes.

If one of my kids wants to have a family, I will tell them to not consider the ice or the Amazon and to do whatever they want. I would tell them the same thing about whatever the hell crisis CNN and NPR are promoting that day. Meh, ignore it, do whatever you want and skip the propaganda.

I generally agree with you, ME. I just don't think there's an global plot to castrate people. Like I said before, nature and technology will be the determining factors, not evil conspirators. We move forward constantly in other scientific fields. Why not use our knowledge to pump less crap into the air? Why is that such a dangerous idea? If anyone has conspired in this domain it's the oil companies, as has been revealed by their own internal documents. But they are failing. Sustainable energy is now cheaper than fossil fuels. I don't understand why people want to keep things the way they were because of political alliances. I don't choose sides politically on things like this, but I do push I against conspiracy theorists. I watch things like the stable carbon isotope ratios in the upper atmosphere and the Greenland ice cores. There is no question that those ratios have changed to indicate an increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide from humans burning fossil fuels. No question about it. That increase tracks with global temperatures. And that's about it for me. Just don't yell at me and try to tell me I am being duped by Leftist crazies because I believe those numbers. I'm not the one who started this thread with outlandish accusations, I just pushed back at what sounded like lunatic talk-radio ranting to me. That's all.

[Hagoth]

I have a background using common sense. Is that sufficient, or do I need a PHD or somethin?

And you just assume no one else does, including all of the people who are experts.

[Mayan_Elephant]

I generally agree with you, ME. I just don't think there's an global plot to castrate people. Like I said before, nature and technology will be the determining factors, not evil conspirators. We move forward constantly in other scientific fields. Why not use our knowledge to pump less crap into the air? Why is that such a dangerous idea? If anyone has conspired in this domain it's the oil companies, as has been revealed by their own internal documents. But they are failing. Sustainable energy is now cheaper than fossil fuels. I don't understand why people want to keep things the way they were because of political alliances. I don't choose sides politically on things like this, but I do push I against conspiracy theorists. I watch things like the stable carbon isotope ratios in the upper atmosphere and the Greenland ice cores. There is no question that those ratios have changed to indicate an increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide from humans burning fossil fuels. No question about it. That increase tracks with global temperatures. And that's about it for me. Just don't yell at me and try to tell me I am being duped by Leftist crazies because I believe those numbers. I'm not the one who started this thread with outlandish accusations, I just pushed back at what sounded like lunatic talk-radio ranting to me. That's all.

Thanks, Hagoth the Bruce. Well said.

I just don't think there's an global plot to castrate people.

^^^^^^ That, to me, is the straw man here. Of course, there is not a plot to cut off balls and yank out wombs. Of course. That would not be well received. People, generally though not universally, would frown on such a plot. Some people would just need lots more money to explore the biohazard waste optimization of the human oysters and uteruses. Once funded, they will eventually come around on the plot.

This is what the apologists for the propaganda and shame campaign sound like in the real world - "we never said that we were going to castrate the peasants, we just said that we like it better when there are less kids. Stupid, and probably religious, people that have kids are making it worse for the rest of us. F those people."

While I may have exaggerated how the argument lands on the other side, I also may not have exaggerated it at all.

Sustainable energy is now cheaper than fossil fuels.

False. Absolutely False. So, so, so, so, so, soooooo soooooo soooooo false. If and when that is true - there will be no fossil fuel production or consumption for energy. The claim that sustainable energy is now cheaper may apply to a specific appliance on a specific day, or something. As of right now, it is not even true for a 1,900 sq ft home in El Dorado County, California with a 20-year amortization. It damn sure is not true for a grid that must provide reliable energy to dispatch an ambulance, count mass mailed-out ballots, or control a traffic light. Oh.... a home like that must have propane, by the way.

But, there is another glitch to this. Even if the wind, sun and ocean currents are free - so what? Nobody can plug their Stratocaster and Marshall stack into the sun, clouds or ocean. The infrastructure and batteries, when factored into the cost, make the cost of marginal or incremental renewable energy significantly more expensive than the next minute of energy from fossil fuels.

[RubinHighlander]

In your personal common sense opinion, would the earth be better off with the atmosphere having a CO2 level of 200 ppm or 800 ppm?

My personal common sense:
- emissions from petro-based fuels is unsustainable and unhealthy for all living things on the planet (crappy air quality crappy life)
- the petrochemical industry is one of the biggest powers on the planet, it's the foundational infrastructure of modern society, it's a big hungry animal that wants to keep growing
- we have the tech to move to clean energy solutions, but the economic and political resistance is fighting the change
- climate change has been weaponized as a political issue
- there's a lot of counter-science propaganda that funded by the petroleum industry to serve and protect their interests
- there's a lot of muddy science around the topic because of it's political nature, so there's a lot of miss information
- there is a lot of good science, that I think dominates the general consensus
- a warming climate is not new (Earth has been hotter in the past), but it is bad for our species survival and much of the life currently here, not too mention all the pollution from petrochemicals
- Jesus is not coming back to fix it all, so we are the species that can make the difference or go extinct
- Meteorology and climate science has improved quite a bit over the years; what used to be a joke about their predictions is now pretty solid with all the tech and data available to produce an accurate forecast
- there are many cycles the planet goes through that science has identified: the extinction events, the ice ages, the solar cycles, magnetic field, atmospheric chemical make up, tectonics, volcanism, etc.
- as far as CO2, the evidence is pretty clear to me that humans are changing the atmospheric ratios of carbon isotopes via our carbon 14 fossil fuel, a level Earth has not seen for millions of years

So, would a warmer Earth with more carbon blocking sunlight be better for us? Better is the subjective view here. Sure it would mean greener climate for some areas closer to the northern hemispheres, but it means vast deserts and displacement for much of our species as they try to run away from the, costal areas, new deserts and the heat. It could throw the whole planet into a big imbalance and lead to a mass extinction event. I'd rather roll the dice with keeping the temperatures where they are, cleaning up the air and environment, rather than risk the whole future on our current path.

But, it's all just the crazy evolutionary madness on this tiny little third rock from Sol. We can nuke it, die a slow death via our carbon 14 or maybe the aliens will finally get here and we'll make great pets.

As always IDKSAF!

[dogbite]

Sustainable energy is now cheaper than fossil fuels.

False. Absolutely False. So, so, so, so, so, soooooo soooooo soooooo false. If and when that is true - there will be no fossil fuel production or consumption for energy. The claim that sustainable energy is now cheaper may apply to a specific appliance on a specific day, or something. As of right now, it is not even true for a 1,900 sq ft home in El Dorado County, California with a 20-year amortization. It damn sure is not true for a grid that must provide reliable energy to dispatch an ambulance, count mass mailed-out ballots, or control a traffic light. Oh.... a home like that must have propane, by the way.

But, there is another glitch to this. Even if the wind, sun and ocean currents are free - so what? Nobody can plug their Stratocaster and Marshall stack into the sun, clouds or ocean. The infrastructure and batteries, when factored into the cost, make the cost of marginal or incremental renewable energy significantly more expensive than the next minute of energy from fossil fuels.

There's lots of ways to cut this cake, not just the one you propose. For example, a new car would be cheaper to drive a given distance than my 13 year old car based on gas consumption. Except that I also have to buy a whole new car to achieve that savings. Similarly, installed production will continue until it's time to upgrade or operating costs climb too high. But new installation of production to meet increased demand would prefer renewables all else equal.

Of course it's not all equal. The best places to install renewables require new transmission line construction.

But if you want to compare the operating costs of installed renewable vs installed petroleum production, then renewables win. But that's just another way to slice the cake.

So for this discussion to have meaning, we would need to agree on what the cake even is and includes. Because to bake a cake, you have to farm wheat...

[Mayan_Elephant]

Sustainable energy is now cheaper than fossil fuels.

False. Absolutely False. So, so, so, so, so, soooooo soooooo soooooo false. If and when that is true - there will be no fossil fuel production or consumption for energy. The claim that sustainable energy is now cheaper may apply to a specific appliance on a specific day, or something. As of right now, it is not even true for a 1,900 sq ft home in El Dorado County, California with a 20-year amortization. It damn sure is not true for a grid that must provide reliable energy to dispatch an ambulance, count mass mailed-out ballots, or control a traffic light. Oh.... a home like that must have propane, by the way.

But, there is another glitch to this. Even if the wind, sun and ocean currents are free - so what? Nobody can plug their Stratocaster and Marshall stack into the sun, clouds or ocean. The infrastructure and batteries, when factored into the cost, make the cost of marginal or incremental renewable energy significantly more expensive than the next minute of energy from fossil fuels.

There's lots of ways to cut this cake, not just the one you propose. For example, a new car would be cheaper to drive a given distance than my 13 year old car based on gas consumption. Except that I also have to buy a whole new car to achieve that savings. Similarly, installed production will continue until it's time to upgrade or operating costs climb too high. But new installation of production to meet increased demand would prefer renewables all else equal.

Of course it's not all equal. The best places to install renewables require new transmission line construction.

But if you want to compare the operating costs of installed renewable vs installed petroleum production, then renewables win. But that's just another way to slice the cake.

So for this discussion to have meaning, we would need to agree on what the cake even is and includes. Because to bake a cake, you have to farm wheat...

I agree on every point.

The most eco-friendly vehicle I can drive is the one I got already. The same is true for homes, kitchens and snowboards.

Thanks for your post. I like your style.

[Hagoth]

Why do you want scientists to stop being scientists when it comes to the consensus of climate change? Do have any respect for at least one scientists who disagrees with your precious climate consensus? Because if you don't, and you only respect people who agree with the "consensus," your precious consensus has become anti-science and is on its way to becoming a religion.

Yeah, either you are totally rephrasing what I said in a way that works for you or I am doing a very poor job of communicating. What I'm saying is that when there are vast majority of experts in agreement, they should be considered seriously, rather than shrugged off by non-experts, or people who imagine evil conspiracies, because they don't like what they're hearing. And I'm not talking about people like pre-Galilean astronomical "experts," I'm talking about people who actually have the technology to observe and measure the phenomena they study.

[Hagoth]

Why do you want scientists to stop being scientists when it comes to the consensus of climate change? Do have any respect for at least one scientists who disagrees with your precious climate consensus? Because if you don't, and you only respect people who agree with the "consensus," your precious consensus has become anti-science and is on its way to becoming a religion.

Yeah, either you are totally rephrasing what I said in a way that works for you or I am doing a very poor job of communicating. What I'm saying is that when there are vast majority of experts in agreement, they should be considered seriously, rather than shrugged off by non-experts, or people who imagine evil conspiracies because they don't like what they're hearing. And I'm not talking about people like pre-Galilean astronomical "experts," I'm talking about people who actually have the technology to observe and measure the phenomena they study.

[Hagoth]

DB, here was the original conversation:

DB: Don't trust climate science. Increased CO2 is a good thing. There is a global religion of climate scientists intent on reducing the population. It is scary to do something.

Hagoth: Trust climate science. Increased CO2 is a bad thing. There is no global conspiracy. It is scary to not do something.

Hagoth: I'm ok either way. Either more CO2 is good and the population is going to get smaller (better for everyone in the coming generations) or we reduce CO2 emissions and help make the world safer for coming generations. Win win. What we shouldn't do is shoot the messenger and sit around doing nothing.

DB: You so fat you can't see your pecker.

Hagoth: Yo mama so fat SHE can't see my pecker.

[Dirty Bird]

DB, here was the original conversation:

DB: Don't trust climate science. Increased CO2 is a good thing. There is a global religion of climate scientists intent on reducing the population. It is scary to do something.

Hagoth: Trust climate science. Increased CO2 is a bad thing. There is no global conspiracy. It is scary to not do something.

Hagoth: I'm ok either way. Either more CO2 is good and the population is going to get smaller (better for everyone in the coming generations) or we reduce CO2 emissions and help make the world safer for coming generations. Win win. What we shouldn't do is shoot the messenger and sit around doing nothing.

DB: You so fat you can't see your pecker.

Hagoth: Yo mama so fat SHE can't see my pecker.

I see you really enjoyed my pecker joke, did it make you laugh when you read it?

Is it possible for us to reach a consensus on the fact that the majority of climate science is centered on changes in CO2 levels and how they will impact our lives in the future?

The following is what I would like you to explain to me, if it is not too much trouble. When the concentration of carbon dioxide (CO2) is 150 parts per million (ppm), plants have a difficult time growing and finally die off, do you agree? Does the fact that the planet was just 120 parts per million away from certain plants on earth dying from starvation if CO2 dropped down to 150 parts per million make you feel more at ease? Because in the early 1800s, the concentration of carbon dioxide was approximately 279 parts per million. Surely you are not so naive as to think that something like that could never take place, are you?

The NASA International Space Station maintains a CO2 level of approximately 1000 to 2000 ppm with a maximum allowable of 5250 ppm. The current concentration of carbon dioxide on earth is approximately 420 parts per million. At a concentration of 150 parts per million, plants are dying.

Around 5000 ppm is the ppm level on a submarine.

It is not uncommon for the rooms in our house to exceed 1000 ppm.

There are around one thousand parts per million in greenhouses.

Many of the plants that are found on earth emerged wit CO2 levels between 2000 and 4000 ppm.

Sacrament services in Mormon churches hit 600 parts per million.

In light of the fact that plants begin to starve at approximately 180 parts per million and die off below 150 parts per million, I would like to know why you are so concerned about the current CO2 level of 420 parts per million.

Do you ever give any thought to the possibility that if we do find a means to reduce the levels of carbon dioxide, things could go out of hand and we would end up killing off a significant number of plants that we depend on? There were only a few hundred years ago when the atmosphere of the world was on the verge of reaching 150 parts per million. Is that a statement that is not true?

[Hagoth]

It's not about unhealthy levels of CO2. Your lungs are filled high concentrations of C02 before every exhalation. It's about increasing atmospheric temperatures. It's about increasing ocean temperatures. It's about methane released by increased water temperatures. It's about melting icecaps. I'm not concerned that the world won't go on just fine as those things happen. It will find new a new balance, but there will be fewer people and a lot fewer other species. And a lot of suffering along the way.

It's not political, it's not religious. And maybe all of the climate scientists are dead wrong. If they are wrong and we heed their warnings we will have a better world to live in. If they are right and we heed their warning we will have a much better world to live in.

If there is a conspiracy to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, it is as much a Conservative conspiracy as a Liberal one. Have you ever driven the length of Texas from the top of the panhandle all the way to the pointy end? I did it in the 80s and the thing that really stood out to me was the omnipresence of vast oil fields and refineries. I drove it again just a couple of years ago and I was mindboggled by the sheer number of wind farms that now stretch from horizon to horizon. Conservative, Trump-voting Texas, the land of Greg Abbot and Ted Cruz, is more enthusiastic participant in the conspiracy than anyplace I have ever been. The only things competing with the number of wind turbines is the number of MAGA hats and Jesus Loves You/Jesus Wants to Hurt You billboards.

[Mayan_Elephant]

If there is a conspiracy to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, it is as much a Conservative conspiracy as a Liberal one. Have you ever driven the length of Texas from the top of the panhandle all the way to the pointy end? I did it in the 80s and the thing that really stood out to me was the omnipresence of vast oil fields and refineries. I drove it again just a couple of years ago and I was mindboggled by the sheer number of wind farms that now stretch from horizon to horizon. Conservative, Trump-voting Texas, the land of Greg Abbot and Ted Cruz, is more enthusiastic participant in the conspiracy than anyplace I have ever been. The only things competing with the number of wind turbines is the number of MAGA hats and Jesus Loves You/Jesus Wants to Hurt You billboards.

What makes you think that the oil production was politically influenced, or not, and that the wind farms are politically influenced, or not? Comparing wind turbines to political hats and religious propaganda seems a bit conspiratorial.

I have lived in Texas and worked in Texas. My kids were all born in Texas. One of my sons was born outdoors near White Oak Bayou - it was unscheduled. I have driven that ribbon of highway from New Orleans to Los Angeles and from Shreveport to Albuquerque and from Houston to Oklahoma. I also published, for many years, the only offshore drilling monthly and oilfield services monthly reports that included financial models for every public company in the world that owned offshore drilling rigs, the largest inventory of land drilling rigs and workover rigs, the largest non-sovereign fleet of vessels, and that Halliburton company and others like Halliburton/Dresser.

Three of the ten largest cities in America are in Texas - Houston, Dallas and San Antonio. Saying "[c]onservative, Trump-voting Texas, the land of Greg Abbot and Ted Cruz, is more enthusiastic participant in the [greenhouse gas emissions] conspiracy than anyplace I have ever been" is wildly disingenuous. People died in Texas when the wind farms failed. There are clearly issues in Texas related to the grid. Nobody is denying that. Conspiring to make this a MAGA vs. Windmill issue is just chumming, Hagoth - but I think you knew that. Right?

One has to consider a few other facts about this. Which was one of the early and biggest entities to get this wind shit going? Oh.... that would be Enron. There is a reason that people do not find reliance on wind and solar to be credible - because it is not credible yet. The parties are not credible, the so-called cost savings are abso-effing-lutely not credible, and the promises of reliability are not credible. It may get there. I hope it does. But as long as it is framed as a MAGA vs millions of particles conspiracy and as a political ideology, that is not going to happen.

And one more thing.... can I assume that you specifically and adamantly do not want America to be great again? Probably not. I think that assumption would be goofy. Just as I think it would be goofy to think that if you did want America to be great again that you also hated polar bears and penguins.

[Hagoth]

What makes you think that the oil production was politically influenced, or not, and that the wind farms are politically influenced, or not? Comparing wind turbines to political hats and religious propaganda seems a bit conspiratorial.

Yes, it does sound conspiratorial because that tendency to make everything a conspiracy is exactly what I'm lampooning. I seem to have hit a nerve, but only because you can't see the wink and tongue in cheek. My point is that I DON'T think it is politically motivated, and I'm using satire to show that someone could just as easily flip it around and make wild claims that it's some cartoonish secret society of Conservatives wearing red hats and waving guns and Confederate flags around that want to take the coal miner's jobs away.

Ultimately, like everything else, it will turn out to be almost entirely financially motivated. But a lot of commentators and politicians do choose to color outside of the reality lines to make it political. Trump, for instance, is always complaining about the nasty wind turbines that are killing "our beautiful American eagles" and whales. It is not, nor should it be, a political issue. Why does HE want to make it political? And it definitely should not be a religious issue.

There is a reason that people do not find reliance on wind and solar to be credible - because it is not credible yet. The parties are not credible, the so-called cost savings are abso-effing-lutely not credible, and the promises of reliability are not credible. It may get there. I hope it does. But as long as it is framed as a MAGA vs millions of particles conspiracy and as a political ideology, that is not going to happen.

Of course it is not credible YET, and it never will be if we just argue about it and don't actually do it. And it will never be a viable solution in isolation. The answer is to diversify with many forms of energy production including, in my opinion, some of the newer nuclear options that are smaller, simpler, and far, far safer. Oh, and energy from tides and waves, where we have barely started to scratch the surface. Should I be surprised that companies like Enron are involved? Their obsession with the bottom line forces them to realize that fossil fuels are definitely not a viable long term solution.

And one more thing.... can I assume that you specifically and adamantly do not want America to be great again? Probably not. I think that assumption would be goofy. Just as I think it would be goofy to think that if you did want America to be great again that you also hated polar bears and penguins.

I have always thought America was great and still is, despite some corny campaign slogan. What I want is for America to also be GOOD again.

How am I supposed to imagine America will become "great again" simply by denying climate science, depleting fossil fuels (which we need for making stuff like plastic and fertilizer). and pumping CO2 and particulates into the air at the fastest possible rate? How should I imagine America will be made worse by using energy from the sun and wind?

Do you agree with DB that climate science is a phony religion created by an invisible uber-powerful cabal of Leftists because they want to depopulate the planet for no obvious reason? And if so, how do you imagine believing and spreading that rumor will make America great again? Because THAT is what I'm disputing here. I'm just asking for a logical answer to support it, but I haven't heard one. Or at least instructions on how to join that cabal so I can get my membership card. I bet they throw kick-ass parties.

[Dirty Bird]

It's not about unhealthy levels of CO2. Your lungs are filled high concentrations of C02 before every exhalation. It's about increasing atmospheric temperatures. It's about increasing ocean temperatures. It's about methane released by increased water temperatures. It's about melting icecaps. I'm not concerned that the world won't go on just fine as those things happen. It will find new a new balance, but there will be fewer people and a lot fewer other species. And a lot of suffering along the way.

It's not political, it's not religious. And maybe all of the climate scientists are dead wrong. If they are wrong and we heed their warnings we will have a better world to live in. If they are right and we heed their warning we will have a much better world to live in.

If there is a conspiracy to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, it is as much a Conservative conspiracy as a Liberal one. Have you ever driven the length of Texas from the top of the panhandle all the way to the pointy end? I did it in the 80s and the thing that really stood out to me was the omnipresence of vast oil fields and refineries. I drove it again just a couple of years ago and I was mindboggled by the sheer number of wind farms that now stretch from horizon to horizon. Conservative, Trump-voting Texas, the land of Greg Abbot and Ted Cruz, is more enthusiastic participant in the conspiracy than anyplace I have ever been. The only things competing with the number of wind turbines is the number of MAGA hats and Jesus Loves You/Jesus Wants to Hurt You billboards.

You mean to tell me that it is not about having harmful levels of CO2? The only thing that those who are concerned about climate change talk about is the hazardous levels of carbon dioxide. Doesn't the reduction of harmful CO2 necessitate the use of renewable energy sources such as wind, solar, wave, and battery power? In spite of the fact that I do not share your viewpoint, I am able to comprehend the perspective from which you are approaching this discussion up to this point. On the other hand, you are causing me to be confused by claiming that it is not about hazardous levels of CO2.


The community that studies climate change is attempting to reduce the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, right? Of course, the goal is to bring down the temperature of the atmosphere, by lowering CO2 admissions.


It is not political or religious, according to you said. On the other hand, it is undeniably political, and it is unquestionably about providing the future generations with a religion to follow in besides the Abrahamic religions. The phenomenon of climate change is the ideal vehicle for the establishment of a worldwide religion. As is the case with the antagonist of Christianity, the devil, the antagonist of climate change, carbon dioxide, is also invisible. It is nearly impossible to verify all that the prophets of climate change have brought up in their predictions. People argue that coral reefs are in danger of extinction, but the vast majority of people will never be able to see for themselves that this is the case. The majority of people will never be able to see for themselves that the polar bears are in danger of dying, despite the fact that they claim that they are.


Everything in the climate change community that is considered to be a catastrophe (or a sin in Mormonism) can be resolved by simply explaining to the masses that they are all wrong and that the climate change narrative is the true narrative, and once accepted, everything that is difficult becomes better for the entire world. This is similar to how the situation is resolved in Mormonism. Mormonism teaches us to accept limits in our day-to-day lives because we believe that this is the way we demonstrate our devotion to God. That is the case with the community concerned with climate change. Once one accepts the many constraints that exist within the climate community, they are able to experience a sense of fulfillment that comes from making a contribution to the general improvement of the cause. Both Mormons and climaters, accept limitations so they can prove their worthiness in being part of the cause. It's all about saving mankind from themselves.


Take a look at what you have written here if you continue to not believe me, which I am certain you do not believe and that is fine. You made the following statement: "If they are wrong and we heed their warnings, we will have a better world to live in. If they are right and we heed their warnings we will have a much better world to live in." I'm sorry, but the very thought of that phrase causes my entire body to start to jerk back in pain and at the same time I almost threw up in my mouth. When it comes to obeying the brethren, how many times have you heard a Mormon use those exact words you just said. Mormons will make statements such as, "I will follow the brethren regardless if the church is true or not because the lifestyle they espouse is better than anything else I can find outside of Mormonism." In other words, you are saying just that, is that not the case? Have the scientists become your brethern?


Since I've only gone to Texas a few times, I've never spent a significant amount of time there. However, I was just in progressive San Francisco, and I found it really enjoyable to inquire with locals about the whereabouts of the poop maps. This was done to ensure that I did not unintentionally foot in any of the millions of heaps of progressive feces that are scattered throughout the city. Does the state of Texas have the poopoo issue? Or is it considered a liberal thing to have piles of excrement on public streets?

[Mayan_Elephant]

Yes, it does sound conspiratorial because that tendency to make everything a conspiracy is exactly what I'm lampooning. I seem to have hit a nerve, but only because you can't see the wink and tongue in cheek. My point is that I DON'T think it is politically motivated, and I'm using satire to show that someone could just as easily flip it around and make wild claims that it's some cartoonish secret society of Conservatives wearing red hats and waving guns and Confederate flags around that want to take the coal miner's jobs away.

See? Gollydarnit. See? Here we go agreeing again. This is getting to be ridiculous.

If only I could see you wink while you agreed with me there would be less confusion.

Trump, for instance, is always complaining about the nasty wind turbines that are killing "our beautiful American eagles" and whales. It is not, nor should it be, a political issue. Why does HE want to make it political? And it definitely should not be a religious issue.

C'mon brother. You know the answer to this, so I will assume this is a lampoon question too but I will address it with a bit of Mayan Loxodonta musth.

Trump wants to make shit political because ..... well..... because he is a politician running for a political office and doing so with funds provided by a political action committee to help him compete for a political nomination within a political party where votes are required from members of that political party on random Tuesdays during a political season we call a political campaign. A similar question would be, why do those guys in tight pants bend over and touch each other for hours on Sundays?

I went to a Trump rally in 2020. I have already mentioned this. I have also seen ACDC and Midnight Oil in concert. The energy of that Trump rally was significantly greater than those concerts. It is a spectacle like you have never seen. He had a schtick in the show where he talked about flushing toilets, low flow showers, and shitty dishwashers. It ain't just windmills he is going on about. At one point during the grand display I went out and talked to the press and the protestors. I learned more about Trump's campaign talking to the press, the protestors, the security detail, and the people waiting to see Trump than I could ever learn from Trump. Why???........ because Trump makes it about the show and he is the show and he is running for a political office. The people are a hell of a lot more interesting than the show.

[Mayan_Elephant]

I learned more about Trump's campaign talking to the press, the protestors, the security detail, and the people waiting to see Trump than I could ever learn from Trump.

Look at me, responding to my own post. Let's call it expanding and expounding.

Okay.... Windmills, eagles, toilets, and low-flow shower heads.

I have replaced a few shower heads in the last few years. The first thing I do when I get the shower head is take a 3/8" drill and drill out all of the filters inside the shower head, then remove the replaceable filter, and if necessary, drill out any restrictors in the shower head. One day, we were working in Sonoma County and it was late after work when we checked in to our hotel. I grabbed a drill, a crescent wrench, teflon tape and put it in my bag. My wife asked, "what the hell are you doing now?"

"Want to have a nice shower or a bad shower?"

I drilled out the restrictors in the hotel shower head too - you're welcome.

The credibility issue in climate science is real. It is personal. It feels urgent not because the science or the consequences are urgent, but because it has become part of the lording control and "F You" of our day to day lives. Not everyone has the wherewithal to drill out their crappy shower heads, increase the flushing volume of a toilet, or repair an old truck that doesn't require smog testing. In my family, we can do all of that and we laugh at the ding dongs that just accept their lord's commands like they were from The God's pulpit puppet.

This conversation topic is fueling the populist angst. If someone votes or promotes the mandate of low-flow toilets and showers.... but still plays golf, drinks California Wine, or puts almond milk in their specialay non-dairay lattay on Sunday when they do the NYT crossword puzzle.... f*** em. Seriously. If someone tells you that you should be concerned about the environment and pay more for less because of climate science, but they drink wine, play golf, or drink almond milk - go ahead just roll coal while you do donuts on their country club lawn.

[Hagoth]

You mean to tell me that it is not about having harmful levels of CO2? The only thing that those who are concerned about climate change talk about is the hazardous levels of carbon dioxide. Doesn't the reduction of harmful CO2 necessitate the use of renewable energy sources such as wind, solar, wave, and battery power? In spite of the fact that I do not share your viewpoint, I am able to comprehend the perspective from which you are approaching this discussion up to this point. On the other hand, you are causing me to be confused by claiming that it is not about hazardous levels of CO2.

But your argument was that the levels of CO2 we are breathing are not dangerous. I agreed with that. The reason you were confused is that we were talking about two different things. It's not about the respiratory danger of CO2, it's about the effect of greenhouse gasses. Not just CO2, but increased water vapor as temperatures rise, and increased methane as the ocean temps increase. Those are greenhouse gasses too.

Thank you for finally helping me realize that you know nothing about climate science, you merely have an opinion about it. I sometimes forget that we live in a world where people think their opinion and feelings trump science.

The community that studies climate change is attempting to reduce the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, right? Of course, the goal is to bring down the temperature of the atmosphere, by lowering CO2 admissions.

Now you're starting to get it. Please do yourself a favor and pick up a college 101 level text book about any earth science and read the chapter about climate change. Or at the very least, read the entire Wikipedia entry. Please, just do it.

It is not political or religious, according to you said. On the other hand, it is undeniably political, and it is unquestionably about providing the future generations with a religion to follow in besides the Abrahamic religions. The phenomenon of climate change is the ideal vehicle for the establishment of a worldwide religion.

No, it is NOT political. Science ultimately is not and should not be political, but we have PEOPLE making it political. And this new world religion you're talking about? It's not a thing. It's entirely in your head, or in the heads of whoever you listen to for this kind of reactionism.

I think we've gone around and around enough on this topic. Maybe you can start a new thread about another conspiracy. Here's a suggestion. You still haven't responded to my question about adrenochrome. If you have an opinion about that, please start a new thread to discuss it. Otherwise I think I've wasted enough time here, and I'm pretty sure there are only three or four of us reading it anyway, so not really time well spent, don't you agree?

[Hagoth]

Why???........ because Trump makes it about the show and he is the show and he is running for a political office. The people are a hell of a lot more interesting than the show.

Exactly! And when he or anyone else who has that kind of rabid following shoots off his mouth about science that he doesn't understand (or actually even care about) people just believe him. And that's dangerous.

You know what doesn't care about politics? Ocean temperatures. Stable isotope signatures. Infrared refractions. Things like that, you know, scientific data. Working people up at a rally changes attitudes about those things, but those things don't get sucked into the charade.

[Hagoth]

Look at me, responding to my own post...

See, I knew it! You really are Moksha. That's why I've seen you in real life but I've never seen him. The Clark Kent glasses don't fool me.

This conversation topic is fueling the populist angst. If someone votes or promotes the mandate of low-flow toilets and showers.... but still plays golf, drinks California Wine, or puts almond milk in their specialay non-dairay lattay on Sunday when they do the NYT crossword puzzle.... f*** em. Seriously. If someone tells you that you should be concerned about the environment and pay more for less because of climate science, but they drink wine, play golf, or drink almond milk - go ahead just roll coal while you do donuts on their country club lawn.

Ha! I love it.

About toilets, though. I replaced my toilets with the highest efficiency ones and guess what? One flush still does the job for me. If Trump requires ten or fifteen flushes to get his sh*t to go down he has much bigger problems than eagles and windmills, and we should cherish him while we still have him because he's a very unhealthy man and his days are numbered. This topic makes no sense to me. It sounds like whining for the sake of whining. I hear a lot of accusations of liberal people being snowflakes but come on, what is more snowflakish than having an arbitrary minimum of gallons-per-second hitting your skin when you take a shower? (wink, tounge/cheek) And why is it more macho or patriotic to believe that? And who should we blame when we're in Texas and the water pressure is lower because it comes from a tower instead of a mountain reservoir?

If they design better toilets now than they did 80 years ago why not go with something that is more efficient instead of being a luddite about it and insisting that the old, less efficient ones must be better cause it was good enough for my granddaddy? And while I'm at it, you damn kids get off my lawn!!

People like Trump want to make it political, but it doesn't need to be. I'm not talking about promoting energy efficient toilets, I'm just talking about using a better product because the engineering has evolved. Why does Trump hate that idea? I dunno. Why does he love coal?

[Mayan_Elephant]

Why???........ because Trump makes it about the show and he is the show and he is running for a political office. The people are a hell of a lot more interesting than the show.

Exactly! And when he or anyone else who has that kind of rabid following shoots off his mouth about science that he doesn't understand (or actually even care about) people just believe him. And that's dangerous.

You know what doesn't care about politics? Ocean temperatures. Stable isotope signatures. Infrared refractions. Things like that, you know, scientific data. Working people up at a rally changes attitudes about those things, but those things don't get sucked into the charade.

Greta has a bigger following. This knife cuts both ways. If I recall correctly, Al Gore, Hillary and Biden had bigger followings than the people that beat them. So damn much drama from every direction.

ETA: This is a credibility issue. When I lived in Cali I would get letters in the mail about my water consumption for my home. Then I would drive past almond orchards, vineyards and golf courses that were not metered. I was not the only person having that experience. I am not wrong to think that the ocean temperatures and isotopes and refractions aren't really an issue at all if they are only a widget for regulating who can do what.

Science is great. It is more than great. People are also great. There has to be some dignity in this conversation that to me, is currently lacking.