Yes, well summarized, Michael. MR echoed my thoughts: do policy makers get it? While radical Greens may want anarchy, most Progressives are underestimating the potential for global geopolitical chaos if reliable energy collapses in the coming winter or beyond.
Devastating testimony. Well constructed, chock full of crucial facts that cut the legs out from under the radical decarbonization policies of the Democratic party and the permanent federal and UN bureaucracy and woke states like California, New York and Massachusetts, while also landing an important blow against the collusive censorship campaign of these forces together with big tech social media. I'd love to know the back story of how you were even permitted to appear.
I have been reflecting on how the massive international radical decarbonization campaign is so "Soviet" in its massive misallocation of resources based on centralized decision making, with not the slightest concern given to market signals of consumer preferences. The result will be similarly crippling to the economies that have bought into this foolishness and will generate human suffering on an enormous scale. How obvious it should be to ordinary people that electrifying transportation and residential heating while simultaneously destroying the electric generating system is insanity, and yet the best and the brightest call it disinformation.
Please keep pressing your message, Michael. You haven't been silenced yet, and hopefully more people will start paying attention.
There is no scientific evidence that CO2 emissions are harmful to humans in any way. So-called “fossil fuels” are harmless after particulates are removed. Coal is a fossil fuel. No fossils have ever been found in petroleum and its origins are still subject of speculation.
Thank you! I appreciate that you believe this committee is acting in good faith. I pray you are right, but I am less convinced. I guess we’ll see if they have sound or nefarious goals as we watch what they do with your wise counsel.
Michael, thanks for your great work, but I do have a comment that is just slightly negative. You seem concede that CO2 at 0'044% in the atmosphere will cause global warming, but there is no science that supports that claim. Eight billion humans inhale O2 and exhale CO2, but we cannot create CO2. Also temperature is claimed to have increased and been retained but we now know that the earth itself gives off heat
Michael, good work however I struggle with trying to fathom out why you believe that AGW is happening on account of the burning of fossil fuels.
Maybe it is outside of this article to explain your views on why the planets global temperature is rising, except on account of anthropological causes as you state?
"Concentrations of the leading greenhouse gas, carbon dioxide, are at unprecedented levels that haven’t been observed in at least the last 800,000 years. The pre-industrial level of carbon dioxide was at about 278 parts per million (ppm). As of 2016, carbon dioxide was, for the first time, above 400 ppm for the entirety of the year. Measurements of atmospheric carbon at the Mauna Loa Carbon Dioxide Observatory show a continuous increase since 1957 when the observatory was established from 315 ppm to over 410 ppm in 2017. Based on the ice core record over the past 800,000 years, carbon dioxide ranged from about 185 ppm during ice ages to 300 ppm during warm times."
You as a scientist can't really agree with this "cause and effect relationship" is valid as CO2 is singled out as the primary greenhouse gas that is the cause of AGW? By agreeing that the Planet is warming you don't elaborate. What you seem to insinuate is that you believe in this CO2 story?
Change in our Planet's climate is indeed happening - a scientific fact backed up by past records - as you have always stated, but in a normal natural and natural cycle surely? But this is not a catastrophic state of affairs, is it?
"Climate Alarmism" is what you are referring to and this you must agree is a hoax and a fraudulent claim by its proponents? It is this misinformation that warps the minds and attitudes of our future generations, causes undue anxiety and are nothing but despicable lies, would you not agree?
I like your sensible approach to this vexatious question, but I find it difficult to understand your position on this AGW on account of the burning of fossils fuels and the CO2 question.
Shellenberger is politically astute. And he's talking to average people that are really scared and traumatized by the apocalyptic climate change media narrative. He would probably agree with your observations and conclusions. But those would polarize any political process attempting to get the nation energy independent via more natural gas and nuclear power. He correctly acknowledges, like you do that CO2 is rising. But gives a nod to it being anthropogenic causes. I think that position finds a political center, and it also keeps the focus on natural gas and nuclear. Notice he never advocates for coal in developed nations, only in undeveloped nations where that may be their only option. Coal can be replaced with natural gas in Western nation based on known reserves and the ability to tap them quickly. Give the guy a little "breathing room," a common ground is being formed with everyday people that may not agree on climate change, political affiliations, or anything else, but for different reasons agree on this prescription that Shellenberger deftly articulates.
Shellenberger, Epstein, Moore and others are being sly and smart. Let me explain something to you, something important. The people leading the Climate Change Cult DON'T GIVE A DAMN ABOUT CLIMATE CHANGE!!! They've even admitted it in their own statements. Just as the Covid lockdowns, masks, vaccines were not introduced to protect us against Covid. These all have nefarious purposes. We are seeing already, as Shellenberger talks about, using Climate Change to push "The Great Reset", "You will own nothing", "The end of Abundance", End of Free Speech, Digital monitoring, Digital currency, in short the Ecofascist, neo-Feudal Totalitarian World State.
In fact ~1/2 of the Climate Change Alarmism foot soldiers also don't give a damn about Climate Change. Many of them are Watermelons, Green on the outside, Red on the inside. They have been completely marginalized for 70yrs after the dismal failure of communism. So they have been on the fringes of society, now they've embraced Ecofascism, just jumping on board the Climate Change bandwagon in order to be relevant again. They don't care. They want to use climate change to foist a communist eco-state. And then drop the eco.
Other Greenies are just on an ego trip, they want power, they often hate humanity and want to destroy it, or are Doomers. In the Climate Change Fear movement, ulterior motives are the norm, not the exception. Genuine believers, maybe 1 in 3 at most.
So talking Climate Change Denialism you are immediately marginalized, censored, pigeon-holed & demonized. Bad idea. Be smart, be sly, like they are. Play their game but beat them at it.
The right thing to do is say: "Yeah, Ok manmade Climate change is happening, we need to mitigate it, but it is not urgent, the data does not show it urgent, even the IPCC is not showing that, modest measures will be sufficient", BUT "you are doing it totally wrong, the wrong methods, they won't work, they're worse than nothing". "Wind & solar is a dismal failure, you have failed, Nuclear power is the only effective low carbon energy source". "You will fail at reducing emissions because your methods are irrational, proven failures". "You are going to destroy mother nature rather than protect it".
The earth's temperature in the lower troposphere (where the greenhouse effect happens) is going up at about 1.3 C per century. Some of that is due to the increased CO2 in that part of the atmosphere. There is no doubt about that.
But there also are very big benefits from the higher CO2, particularly for agriculture. Commercial greenhouse operators add substantial amounts of CO2 to improve the amount and quality of their produce. Open-air agriculture has benefited by as much as a 10% increase in production without any added fertilizers.
Those are all good points. Very effective arguments and go right to the heart of the argument. It isn't so simple. Increased growing seasons, increased rainfall in many areas, agriculture and ecosystem growth in northern latitudes, more ice free regions, Arctic shipping, lower heating costs, increased vegetation growth. Prevention of a disastrous Ice Age. Lower extreme temperatures in Northern regions. And the cost of trying to reduce CO2 needs to be balanced with the many beneficial environmental, social & humanitarian projects that could alternatively be funded with that much capital.
These type of arguments can't be brushed aside so easily as by just saying: "Just another crackpot climate change denier, you will be censored".
I should add that a lot of the people in the Climate Change Alarmism crowd are just the usual grifters and scam artists, that couldn't find buyers for any of their crap but have figured out that if you stick the word "Eco" in front of it or tout some climate change Fear Porn, suddenly the money starts flowing. Just real idiot projects like solar roadways in France, a crazy idea, costs 10X what ordinary home solar costs. Nutty geothermal projects that cost 10-100X what greener alternatives cost, but they get $millions in funding, because "they're eco-friendly". And of course the giant carbon trading, net zero, carbon credit financialization of carbon scams. Lot's and lots of billionaires, Al Gore included, who got rich on that money train for the ultra-rich.
I have long claimed that AGW is fraudulent with respect to both CO2 claims and termperature. With respect to temp. it is now acknowledge that the earth itself gives off heat (thanks to my efforts) and that such heat flows to the atmosphere where it cannot be distinguished from any human contribution. I am an engineer with 50+years experience in the field of environmental safety and health. I know that there are good and honest scientists, but any that claim they know the levels of CO2 8000,000 yrs ago should be subjected to peer review and they were not. I am aware of the meas on Mauna Loa and what they did was unethical at best.
The only thing that will allow what Michael has said to be put into affect is a change in congress and the administration. The only problem with that is that Republicans are too stupid to really do that. they focus on stupid stuff that won't allow them to take power, and if they do take power, again, they focus on stupid stuff. The Democrats are the whacko party. The Republicans are the stupid party. I guess for most people whacko beats stupid.
Michael, great work as always. Is anyone listening?
Yes, well summarized, Michael. MR echoed my thoughts: do policy makers get it? While radical Greens may want anarchy, most Progressives are underestimating the potential for global geopolitical chaos if reliable energy collapses in the coming winter or beyond.
Great testimony Mr. Shellenberger. You need to run for office again. More people need to learn your name.
Excellent
Devastating testimony. Well constructed, chock full of crucial facts that cut the legs out from under the radical decarbonization policies of the Democratic party and the permanent federal and UN bureaucracy and woke states like California, New York and Massachusetts, while also landing an important blow against the collusive censorship campaign of these forces together with big tech social media. I'd love to know the back story of how you were even permitted to appear.
I have been reflecting on how the massive international radical decarbonization campaign is so "Soviet" in its massive misallocation of resources based on centralized decision making, with not the slightest concern given to market signals of consumer preferences. The result will be similarly crippling to the economies that have bought into this foolishness and will generate human suffering on an enormous scale. How obvious it should be to ordinary people that electrifying transportation and residential heating while simultaneously destroying the electric generating system is insanity, and yet the best and the brightest call it disinformation.
Please keep pressing your message, Michael. You haven't been silenced yet, and hopefully more people will start paying attention.
Excellent! I hope they listen.
Darn fine testimony. Fully agreed. This is the only pragmatic and ethical approach that I can think of.
On point. Rational. Accurate.
In other words, the antithesis of what politicians and the current mainstream media can process.
There is no scientific evidence that CO2 emissions are harmful to humans in any way. So-called “fossil fuels” are harmless after particulates are removed. Coal is a fossil fuel. No fossils have ever been found in petroleum and its origins are still subject of speculation.
Thank you! I appreciate that you believe this committee is acting in good faith. I pray you are right, but I am less convinced. I guess we’ll see if they have sound or nefarious goals as we watch what they do with your wise counsel.
Michael, thanks for your great work, but I do have a comment that is just slightly negative. You seem concede that CO2 at 0'044% in the atmosphere will cause global warming, but there is no science that supports that claim. Eight billion humans inhale O2 and exhale CO2, but we cannot create CO2. Also temperature is claimed to have increased and been retained but we now know that the earth itself gives off heat
Maybe time to doxx the lobbyists and their myriad of money sources pushing the nefarious green new deal agenda
We should be grateful that politicians aren't in charge of the availability of gravity.
Michael, good work however I struggle with trying to fathom out why you believe that AGW is happening on account of the burning of fossil fuels.
Maybe it is outside of this article to explain your views on why the planets global temperature is rising, except on account of anthropological causes as you state?
The MSM promotes such articles as follows:
https://bio.libretexts.org/Courses/Monterey_Peninsula_College/MPC_Environmental_Science/09%3A_Climate/9.05%3A_Anthropogenic_Causes_of_Climate_Change
"Concentrations of the leading greenhouse gas, carbon dioxide, are at unprecedented levels that haven’t been observed in at least the last 800,000 years. The pre-industrial level of carbon dioxide was at about 278 parts per million (ppm). As of 2016, carbon dioxide was, for the first time, above 400 ppm for the entirety of the year. Measurements of atmospheric carbon at the Mauna Loa Carbon Dioxide Observatory show a continuous increase since 1957 when the observatory was established from 315 ppm to over 410 ppm in 2017. Based on the ice core record over the past 800,000 years, carbon dioxide ranged from about 185 ppm during ice ages to 300 ppm during warm times."
You as a scientist can't really agree with this "cause and effect relationship" is valid as CO2 is singled out as the primary greenhouse gas that is the cause of AGW? By agreeing that the Planet is warming you don't elaborate. What you seem to insinuate is that you believe in this CO2 story?
Change in our Planet's climate is indeed happening - a scientific fact backed up by past records - as you have always stated, but in a normal natural and natural cycle surely? But this is not a catastrophic state of affairs, is it?
"Climate Alarmism" is what you are referring to and this you must agree is a hoax and a fraudulent claim by its proponents? It is this misinformation that warps the minds and attitudes of our future generations, causes undue anxiety and are nothing but despicable lies, would you not agree?
I like your sensible approach to this vexatious question, but I find it difficult to understand your position on this AGW on account of the burning of fossils fuels and the CO2 question.
Maybe another time? 🤨
Shellenberger is politically astute. And he's talking to average people that are really scared and traumatized by the apocalyptic climate change media narrative. He would probably agree with your observations and conclusions. But those would polarize any political process attempting to get the nation energy independent via more natural gas and nuclear power. He correctly acknowledges, like you do that CO2 is rising. But gives a nod to it being anthropogenic causes. I think that position finds a political center, and it also keeps the focus on natural gas and nuclear. Notice he never advocates for coal in developed nations, only in undeveloped nations where that may be their only option. Coal can be replaced with natural gas in Western nation based on known reserves and the ability to tap them quickly. Give the guy a little "breathing room," a common ground is being formed with everyday people that may not agree on climate change, political affiliations, or anything else, but for different reasons agree on this prescription that Shellenberger deftly articulates.
Shellenberger, Epstein, Moore and others are being sly and smart. Let me explain something to you, something important. The people leading the Climate Change Cult DON'T GIVE A DAMN ABOUT CLIMATE CHANGE!!! They've even admitted it in their own statements. Just as the Covid lockdowns, masks, vaccines were not introduced to protect us against Covid. These all have nefarious purposes. We are seeing already, as Shellenberger talks about, using Climate Change to push "The Great Reset", "You will own nothing", "The end of Abundance", End of Free Speech, Digital monitoring, Digital currency, in short the Ecofascist, neo-Feudal Totalitarian World State.
In fact ~1/2 of the Climate Change Alarmism foot soldiers also don't give a damn about Climate Change. Many of them are Watermelons, Green on the outside, Red on the inside. They have been completely marginalized for 70yrs after the dismal failure of communism. So they have been on the fringes of society, now they've embraced Ecofascism, just jumping on board the Climate Change bandwagon in order to be relevant again. They don't care. They want to use climate change to foist a communist eco-state. And then drop the eco.
Other Greenies are just on an ego trip, they want power, they often hate humanity and want to destroy it, or are Doomers. In the Climate Change Fear movement, ulterior motives are the norm, not the exception. Genuine believers, maybe 1 in 3 at most.
So talking Climate Change Denialism you are immediately marginalized, censored, pigeon-holed & demonized. Bad idea. Be smart, be sly, like they are. Play their game but beat them at it.
The right thing to do is say: "Yeah, Ok manmade Climate change is happening, we need to mitigate it, but it is not urgent, the data does not show it urgent, even the IPCC is not showing that, modest measures will be sufficient", BUT "you are doing it totally wrong, the wrong methods, they won't work, they're worse than nothing". "Wind & solar is a dismal failure, you have failed, Nuclear power is the only effective low carbon energy source". "You will fail at reducing emissions because your methods are irrational, proven failures". "You are going to destroy mother nature rather than protect it".
Very clear statement about the right approach.
The earth's temperature in the lower troposphere (where the greenhouse effect happens) is going up at about 1.3 C per century. Some of that is due to the increased CO2 in that part of the atmosphere. There is no doubt about that.
But there also are very big benefits from the higher CO2, particularly for agriculture. Commercial greenhouse operators add substantial amounts of CO2 to improve the amount and quality of their produce. Open-air agriculture has benefited by as much as a 10% increase in production without any added fertilizers.
Those are all good points. Very effective arguments and go right to the heart of the argument. It isn't so simple. Increased growing seasons, increased rainfall in many areas, agriculture and ecosystem growth in northern latitudes, more ice free regions, Arctic shipping, lower heating costs, increased vegetation growth. Prevention of a disastrous Ice Age. Lower extreme temperatures in Northern regions. And the cost of trying to reduce CO2 needs to be balanced with the many beneficial environmental, social & humanitarian projects that could alternatively be funded with that much capital.
These type of arguments can't be brushed aside so easily as by just saying: "Just another crackpot climate change denier, you will be censored".
I should add that a lot of the people in the Climate Change Alarmism crowd are just the usual grifters and scam artists, that couldn't find buyers for any of their crap but have figured out that if you stick the word "Eco" in front of it or tout some climate change Fear Porn, suddenly the money starts flowing. Just real idiot projects like solar roadways in France, a crazy idea, costs 10X what ordinary home solar costs. Nutty geothermal projects that cost 10-100X what greener alternatives cost, but they get $millions in funding, because "they're eco-friendly". And of course the giant carbon trading, net zero, carbon credit financialization of carbon scams. Lot's and lots of billionaires, Al Gore included, who got rich on that money train for the ultra-rich.
I have long claimed that AGW is fraudulent with respect to both CO2 claims and termperature. With respect to temp. it is now acknowledge that the earth itself gives off heat (thanks to my efforts) and that such heat flows to the atmosphere where it cannot be distinguished from any human contribution. I am an engineer with 50+years experience in the field of environmental safety and health. I know that there are good and honest scientists, but any that claim they know the levels of CO2 8000,000 yrs ago should be subjected to peer review and they were not. I am aware of the meas on Mauna Loa and what they did was unethical at best.
This is such a great summary of the challenges we all face, but I'm afraid the politicians will ignore it and continue to pursue disastrous policies.
The only thing that will allow what Michael has said to be put into affect is a change in congress and the administration. The only problem with that is that Republicans are too stupid to really do that. they focus on stupid stuff that won't allow them to take power, and if they do take power, again, they focus on stupid stuff. The Democrats are the whacko party. The Republicans are the stupid party. I guess for most people whacko beats stupid.