Greta to the World: Immediately and Completely Divest From Fossil Fuels

Mish

Greta Thunberg is at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, spewing more climate change nonsense.

House Still on Fire

Climate activist Greta is back on stage asking people to panic. Her message is ‘Our House Is Still on Fire

Here's some pertinent snips from Greta's List of Demands.

  1. One year ago I came to Davos and told you that our house is on fire. I said I wanted you to panic. I’ve been warned that telling people to panic about the climate crisis is a very dangerous thing to do. But don’t worry. It’s fine. Trust me, I’ve done this before and I can assure you it doesn’t lead to anything.
  2. Let’s be clear. We don’t need a “low carbon economy.” We don’t need to “lower emissions.” Our emissions have to stop if we are to have a chance to stay below the 1.5-degree target. And, until we have the technologies that at scale can put our emissions to minus, then we must forget about net zero. We need real zero.
  3. We demand at this year’s World Economic Forum, participants from all companies, banks, institutions and governments: immediately and completely divest from fossil fuels.
  4. We don’t want these things done by 2050, 2030 or even 2021. We want this done now.
  5. Our house is still on fire. Your inaction is fueling the flames by the hour. And we are telling you to act as if you loved your children above all else.

Greta a Pawn in Someone Else's Game

Telling people to panic doesn't work for the simple reason there is nothing to panic over.

A huge percentage of the world's populations lives day to day struggling with food, medical, housing or debt-related issues. Their concern, and rightfully so, is surviving the next week.

Excellent Video on Climate Nonsense

Global Warming Fraud Exposed In Pictures

Please consider Global Warming Fraud Exposed In Pictures

Fearmongering Lesson

None of the above tops AOC who says World Will End in 12 Years: Here's What to Do About It

Here's a lesson for you climate fearmongers: Never put a time frame on your prediction that is shorter than your expected life or you will be ridiculed until you die.

Greta Demands Action Now!

Even if you are still convinced man and not the sun is the overwhelming force in climate change, the idea that we can immediately divest from fossil fuels an have "real" zero" emissions is economic nonsense.

Such statements do not merit praise, they merit ridicule. And her parents deserve scorn for putting her on stage to be used in this way.

The media treats her like she is some sort of saint. Actually, she is nothing but a pawn in someone else's game on a fool's mission to achieve the impossible.

Ironically, Greta's message is so absurd that if we did what she asked, there would be panic and a global economic collapse.

Mike "Mish" Shedlock

Comments (172)
Maximus_Minimus
Maximus_Minimus

This site would do better if it avoided the idiot crowd's obsession with a teenage twit turned saint.

No. 1-33
Latkes
Latkes

Greta is a marketing gimmick. She does not think for herself. She is the equivalent of a hologram popstar, like Hatsune Miku.

Tony Bennett
Tony Bennett

"she is nothing but a pawn in someone else's game on a fool's mission to achieve the impossible."

...

Pawn? Absolutely.

fool's mission? Not so fast.

The "fools" are looking at skimming $billions (likely $trillions) if there is a mad dash to go Green (renewables, carbon credits, etc).

bradw2k
bradw2k

What disgusts me is how lefty educators hold up whining, demanding "activists" as heroes to their students. Such activists do not appeal to your reason, they do not expect you to make up your own mind, quite the opposite they intend to shame you into me-too-ism. Being such an "activist" is not a productive use of a life and should not be emulated.

SMF
SMF

We had people over to our house a couple weeks ago. One guest informed me how his little cousin in Canada is freaked out over the world ending in 12 (11 now?) years.

We may have a little more understanding than adolescents, but wow, how can anyone justify kids freaking out is beyond me.

Webej
Webej

We should stall and delay, spend trillions on military gear to blow up humanity instead, deplete the rest of the finite supply of fossil fuels driving the biggest vehicle we can borrow, and if turns out scientists were right to warn us of the risks, we will all just go to Mars or Venus.

Jojo
Jojo

You climate deniers are on the wrong side of history. You should realize this by now. Like Trump and Don Quixote, you can keep titling at the windmills of climate change forever but it is not going to change anything. There are simply too many who DO buy into climate change an who WILL continue to keep it in the forefront of political and business discussions.

Realist
Realist

Realist Point of View

  1. Global Warming is indeed a man-made problem.

  2. Greta is well-intentioned and idealistic.

  3. However, very few governments and institutions will do anything significant to slow or stop global warming. They will instead let future generations absorb the pain.

  4. The consequences of global warming will continue to get worse over the coming decades.

  5. The economic and human cost of inaction will eventually become so great that solutions will be found. But we have not reached that point yet.

  6. I expect mankind to develop the means to partially control the levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and partially control the average temperatures on earth sometime in the next century.

  7. Until then, we will just have to accept the consequences of our inaction.

CautiousObserver
CautiousObserver

Global Warming activists would gain more traction if their speeches focused on the energy sources the world should transition to rather than what we should transition away from (and nobody better say use "solar" and "wind" unless they also show how energy storage is going to be implemented and also what the costs and environmental consequences of that whole system is).

Making demands that everyone in the world must accept less individual freedom, a higher cost of living, and a lower quality of life is a tough sell.

Bam_Man
Bam_Man

Anybody care to take a guess at what the carbon footprint of the US military is?

crickets

JohnH
JohnH

Excellent Mish!

The "Global Warming Fraud Basics" chart is blurry when I click to enlarge - is there a better one available?

Sechel
Sechel

Making a 17 year old the world's bogeyman now? I thought I was watching FOX. There's an agenda here. She's not a political leader. She controls nothing.

rum_runner
rum_runner

Mish why don't you also share your opinions on prenatal care and home repair and other things you are UTTERLY UNQUALIFIED to opine on.

Tony Heller is a widely ridiculed clown. That he's your go-to guy says it all. I'll bet you haven't spent 5 hours educating yourself on the basics of climate change and climate science. Instead you continue to spread lies and disinformation based on your personal bias and gut feeling. It's pathetic.

I saved this quote of yours from a while back:

Mike Shedlock - "There is no "proof" of man-made global warming. There is data to support a THEORY, much of it fake, but some of it not. The time-frame analysis is clearly insufficient and there are thousands of factors. It is likely, we do not yet know the biggest cause of what's happening. Moreover, as LaCalle pointed out, the free market will take care of this problem anyway, assuming there is a problem"

Mish believes we don't even know what's causing climate change and don't worry, a planetary transition to a hothouse state is no big deal, the market will fix it.

Moronical to the extreme.

Realist
Realist

Hi Mish. One question. You used to say the that global warming was real but not man-made. Now it sounds like you are saying that there is no such thing as global warming and that it is all a fraud. Which is it?

23 Replies

Mish
Mish

Editor

What is the time frame?

I am willing to believe that despite very biased temperature measurements, perhaps temperatures have gone up.

Is it man-made? To what degree?

These cycles have happened over tens of millions of years. and will happen over the next 10 million million unless we blow up the planet with nukes.

Climate change is real. Based on the sun and perhaps background radiation.

Manmade contribution is perhaps 1% or 10% or 20% of the last 200 years. Pick a percent. But predictions about impacts from 20 years ago look downright stupid.

Fearmongering, changed measurements, hockey sticks, doctored chartsm and blatant outright lies and fraud are all solid reasons to be more than a bit skeptical.

Glacier National park just removed a sign warning all the glaciers will be gone by 2020.

Realist
Realist

Thanks. I will try to keep it simple and focus on what I think is your main answer:

”Climate change is real, based on the sun and perhaps background radiation”

First. Thanks for stating that climate change is real.

Based on that statement, how do you reconcile the fact that temperatures keep rising while solar irradiation is falling? Particularly in the last 30 years.

MaxBnb
MaxBnb

Climate is changing always.

Nothing to do with humans.

Global warming is socialist baloney

"The entire global warming agenda is based on one goal above all others, namely, to impose political costs on profitable manufacturing. In the mid-1970's, it was global cooling that the Left-wing activists were distressed over, but the same political agenda was in place, namely, passing regulations against profitable manufacturing practices. Their agenda has never changed. Their agenda is to make private enterprise less profitable and the nation-state more powerful. These activists are willing to invent any excuse that they think is politically salable in order to justify the national governments' interfering with private property."

MaxBnb
MaxBnb

Why This Fakery Is Being Promoted.
From 2009.

Global warming is based 100% on junk science. The most vocal promoters are not interested in the details of physical science. They are interested in two things: political control over the general public and the establishment of international socialism.

JUNK SCIENCE VS. REAL SCIENCE

For a detailed, footnoted, 12-page article, written by three scientists, two with Ph.D's from CalTech, click here.

This paper was sent to tens of thousands of natural scientists in the United States.

Over 31,000 scientists have put their reputations on the line and signed a politically incorrect petition opposing the 1997 Kyoto agreement or protocol. Here is a photocopy of a signed petition.

MaxBnb
MaxBnb

SOCIALISM'S LAST STAND

The global warming movement is not about global warming. It is about the creation of an international political control arrangement by which bureaucrats who favor socialism can gain control over the international economy.

This strategy was stated boldly by economist Robert Heilbroner in 1990. Heilbroner, the multi-millionaire socialist and author of the best-selling history of economic thought, The Worldly Philosophers, wrote the manifesto for these bureaucrats. He did this in an article, "Reflections: After Communism," published by The New Yorker (Sept. 10, 1990).

In this article, he made an astounding admission. He said that Ludwig von Mises had been right in 1920 in his article, "Economic Calculation in the Socialist Commonwealth." Mises argued that without private ownership, central planners could not know what any resource is worth to consumers. With no capital market, the planners would be flying blind.

Heilbroner said that for 70 years, academic economists had either ignored this article or dismissed it without answering it. Then Heilbroner wrote these words: "Mises was right."

Heilbroner was one of these people. There is no reference to Mises in The Worldly Philosophers.

This admission was the preliminary section of Heilbroner's manifesto. He was cutting off all hope by socialists that there is a theoretically plausible response to Mises. The free market economy will always outproduce a socialist economy. Get used to it, he said.

Then, in the second section, he called on his socialist peers to get behind the ecology movement. Here, he said, is the best political means for promoting central planning, despite its inefficiency. In the name of ecology, he said, socialists can get a hearing from politicians and voters.

Captain Ahab
Captain Ahab

Surprisingly, there are studies from NASA scientists regarding solar cycles and their impact on the Earth. Not just climate change--increased volcanic on Earth is a real eye opener. If the sun enters a prolonged minimum, which does seem to be the case based on the last three 11-year mini-cycles, we may well be about to confront a global disaster.

The Cliff-notes approach: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dalton_Minimum

rum_runner
rum_runner

"Predictions from 20 years ago look downright stupid"

Wrong again - climate models have done fairly well going back to the 1970s. Performance of actual models and not some quote from some individual:

Realist
Realist

Still waiting on your reply Mish. Why are global temperatures rising while solar irradiance is dropping?

Realist
Realist

What’s wrong Mish? Show me the science. Prove your point.

Realist
Realist

Can’t prove your point? Sad.

bradw2k
bradw2k

"climate models have done fairly well going back to the 1970s"

From 1978, I believe I watched this as a kid and was afraid, which of course was the intention so in that sense it did fairly well:

Realist
Realist

LMFAO! That was amazingly stupid. Even for you.

Realist
Realist

Climate has always changed. Yep it has.

The planet has gone through numerous ice ages. There was a mile of ice over New York as recently as 18000 years ago. Yep. There was.

The planet was 2 degrees warmer and ocean levels were 20 feet higher 122000 years ago. Yep. A well known fact.

The planet has been much warmer and much cooler many, many times throughout its history. Yep. It has.

And how is it that YOU know this? How did YOU acquire this knowledge?

In a word: Science. The field of Science and the hard work of Scientists provides us all with knowledge and understanding of our Universe.

Scientists can tell us how old the Earth is: 4.5 billion years old.

Scientists can tell us how far each planet is from the sun as they move through their orbits.

They can measure the amount of energy given off by the sun and how much of that energy affects a planet’s temperature.

Scientists can tell us the surface temperatures of every planet in the solar system, and they can explain why those planets have those temperatures. For example, Venus is not the closest planet to the sun, yet it is the hottest. Venus is 465C (870F) everywhere, all the time.

They can also explain 4.5 billion years of climate history on Earth.

So, when you claim that the Earth’s climate has always changed, you are correct. And you are accepting what Science explains.

Just like you accept gravity.

Another topic that Science can explain.

Scientists can also explain why the Earth is warming so rapidly right now instead of cooling. It actually should be cooling according to the scientifically well-known natural cycles that Scientists can explain. But it is warming, not cooling. The ice is melting, not growing. The oceans are rising, not falling. The climate is being affected. And Scientists know why. And they are explaining it to anyone with the ability to grasp it. The Science is clear.

However, there is a small percentage of people who refuse to recognize the scientific reality of Global Warming.

Just as there is a small percentage of people who think the Earth is flat. There are always a small percentage of morons who refuse to accept reality.

MaxBnb
MaxBnb

"However, there is a small percentage of people who refuse to recognize the scientific reality of Global Warming."

Over 31,000 scientists have put their reputations on the line and signed a politically incorrect petition opposing the 1997 Kyoto agreement or protocol. Here is a photocopy of a signed petition.

Realist
Realist

LOL. You believe that scam? You’re so f***ing gullible! Do you also belong to the flat earth society? Thanks for the laugh.

Now why don’t you take up my challenge and answer my question, where you prove scientifically that there is no global warming. Come on. Impress me with your amazing scientific knowledge.

MaxBnb
MaxBnb

Warming started ~18 000 years ago.
oh my scientist are fake and your are not --are you for real man

there is no man made global warming, and who say that warming is bad -- maybe is good --it is good at the moment -- it was good for dinosaurs -- it was much more warm than now

djhowls
djhowls

Why can't they all be true?
AGW could be the correct theory
Solar forcing could also be the correct theory
Grifters have latched on to either/or in order to ramp up our taxes knowing that nothing meaningful can be done in either scenario

bradw2k
bradw2k

"LMFAO! That was amazingly stupid. Even for you."

Oh my, someone is becoming unhinged. How many people will you call a moron today? The only thing amusing here is that a few months ago you were putting on a "I'm so polite and reasonable unlike that insult-spewing CountryBob" act. Now it's "moron" "coward" "f***ing gullible" every day. You are not convincing or intimidating anyone that climate catastrophism is as well known as gravity -- whatever that would mean. Deal with it. And by the way, the onus is on the catastrophists to make their case to other scientists and to laymen, not the other way around. Demanding that laymen who can see that climate science has become politicized to be fluent in earth science, otherwise they are "cowards" and "morons", is the kind of bullying I'd expect to find on youtube.

Realist
Realist

Well done Brad. (Sincerely) Finally someone noticed.

Why the change?

Here are some possibilities:

  1. I am trying to help Mish by being more controversial and antagonistic, thus generating more comments.

  2. I recently lost some people very close to me and am dealing with it through an angry streak.

  3. I am getting fed up with the comments of some people who don’t seem to understand what they are talking about.

  4. I am trying to be more effective in making people think harder about what they are saying, and get them agitated enough to try to learn something about what they are talking about, rather than just continuing to spout nonsense.

  5. Some combination of 1-4.

Anyway; thanks again for noticing.

Now, to your comment: Global warming is indeed a scientific fact. You are free to disagree with me, because it doesn’t matter what you or I think; it will eventually become apparent to everyone (other than a tiny percentage who will never get it).

I am merely trying to explain the science. I admit to being shocked at how many people still don’t get it.

For several years I commented in a different fashion. That appeared ineffective. Perhaps a different approach might be more effective in getting through to them (it does seem to be the American way; get in someone’s face and scream and yell at them).

Either way, unlike what many try to claim; my interest is in reality. I am not political. So many here assume that because I say that global warming is real; that somehow that means I want to tax them, take away their freedom, I’m a Socialist, I want to create a world government, and a lot of other crap.

Nope. I simply want to explain reality.

Plus I keep saying that I doubt that we will actually do anything significant about it anyway. So it is going to keep getting worse.

And I will simply sit back and watch it get worse. Nothing I can do about it. I will let Greta and others try. But I don’t expect them to accomplish anything either.

Realist
Realist

Hi Max. You are correct. A Milankovitch warming cycle began 18000 years ago. At that point, there was a mile of ice over New York. This warming progressed and peaked 10000 years ago. At that point the ice had melted back to roughly where it is today.

I have talked about Milankovitch cycles many times on this blog.

Of course every warming cycle ends and a new cooling cycle begins.

We have been in a cooling cycle for about 6000 years now. This cycle should continue for another 80000 years (give or take 10000).

You can see it in the long term average temperature records. The world’s average temperature was on a long slow decline for 6000 years. You can see that in the chart that Scoot provided earlier.

If it wasn't for man, the temperature would continue to decline for another 80000 years due to this natural cycle. The glaciers would grow, and 80000 years from now there would be another mile of ice over New York.

But that all changed when man began deforestation, agriculture, and producing greenhouse gasses like CO2 and CH4.

As a result, in 200 years we have completely reversed the previous 6000 years of cooling.

Which would be okay if could figure out how to stop it before it becomes a serious problem.

You are partly right when you say some of the warming was good. If it wasn't for man’s influence, , the planet would be a bit cooler now, heading towards much cooler in the future.

The reason why man made global warming is becoming bad, is because the changes are so rapid. I know that 200 years sounds like a long time, but nature is used to those changes taking place over 6000 years.

Plus, the changes are accelerating. Nature can respond to long slow changes, but struggles to adapt to fast changes. That is why we are losing so many species to extinction. Every single day the planet loses 150 species of plant, bird, animal, insect, fish, amphibians etc to extinction.

You are also correct when you say it has been much warmer (and much cooler) in the past. The reason you know this is because of science. Scientists can explain the entire 4.5 billion year history of climate on earth. They can tell you when it was warm, when it was cool, and why. They can identify every single time ice was over New York. They can tell you when there was no ice at all and why. When there was no ice, the oceans we're 600 feet higher, by the way.

So you rely on science to tell you about past climate, yet you reject science when it tells you about climate today and where it is going.

I appreciate that you decided to talk about the science.

Please continue this discussion. Tell me where I am wrong. Tell me where I am right. But please show me some science to back up your claims.

Thanks.

Realist

Realist
Realist

Hi dj. Thanks for your reply. There is no credible evidence for solar forcing in such a short time frame. Milankovitch cycles take 10000-20000 years to make a difference in climate, by altering the amount of energy captured from the sun by up to 6.8%. And we are currently in a Milankovitch cooling phase.

The 11 year solar cycle typically changes the sun’s output by only 0.1%. The temperature change associated with this is roughly 0.1 degrees C over the entire 11 year period. Plus, the last 6 years we're the low point in this solar cycle, and the earth recorded its 6 warmest years since 1880.

So both Milankovitch cycles have been cooling the earth, and the recent solar cycle was also cooling the earth. Yet because of greenhouse gasses we keep warming up the planet and setting new temperature records.

MaxBnb
MaxBnb

"If it wasn't for man, the temperature would continue to decline for another 80000 years"

If is not science

"Which would be okay if could figure out how to stop it before it becomes a serious problem."

When is it going to become problem? and why?

"we are losing so many species to extinction. Every single day the planet loses 150 species of plant, bird, animal, insect, fish, amphibians etc to extinction."

well it is Normal, since Charles Darwin theory, survival of the strongest

"So you rely on science to tell you about past climate, yet you reject science when it tells you about climate today and where it is going."

Not at all, there are scientist which say nothing to see here -- there is no proof and there is no scientific test/experiment that can do that.

Realist
Realist


Hi Max. I finally have a bit of time to reply. Thanks for your patience.

”If is not science”

I assume you meant to say ”this is not science” in reference to my statement about the earth’s natural Milankovitch cycles, which cool the planet for 80000-90000 years and them warm the planet for 10000-20000 years. The complete cycle repeats every 100000 years and has done so reliably for the last 2.5 million years.

I am indeed puzzled by your statement that this is not science. These cycles have been studied by scientists since the 1920s. You referenced these very cycles when you said a warming cycle began 18000 years ago. Please check your earlier comment. You can refer to my earlier comments on Milankovitch cycles, or if you doubt me, you can find plenty of information online to learn more about them. They are the primary driver of long term climate change on Earth. They have nothing to do with man so I would think you would want to learn more about them. There are 4 cycles (26k, 41k, 100k, and 400k years). And these natural cycles are currently in a cooling phase and will be for another 80000 years. Check out information about them online. There is a lot of info available.

”When is it going to become problem? and why?” in reference to when is the man made warming going to affect the planet.

It is already a problem and it is going to get worse as we move forward.The global warming that has already occurred has raised the average surface temperatures, and the ocean temperatures. This is melting the ice, and raising the ocean levels. It is also changing the climate. As mentioned, it is already causing mass extinctions and migration of people out of areas that are no longer habitable. Agriculture is being affected. Health is being affected. In fact, it is affecting more things than I have time to mention. Again, I’m sure you could search online to see an extensive list. And, of course, since we keep warming the planet, these problems will keep getting worse.

Regarding your extinction comment: ”well it is Normal, since Charles Darwin theory, survival of the strongest” Correct. Extinction has been going on as long as life has existed on the planet. However, compared to Normal background extinction rates, which are well known by scientists, the rate of extinctions going on right now are 1000 times the natural rate. Since 1970, the planet has lost 60% of all bird, fish, mammal, and reptile wildlife. Again, don’t believe me; check it out online.

Okay. I just answered several questions. Before you come back with more questions, it is only fair that you answer a question for me.

The earth and the moon are the same distance from the sun (150 million km, or 93 million miles). The sun shines on both, yet they have vastly different climates. The temperature on the surface of the moon that is facing the sun is as hot as 127C (260F). The temperature of the opposite side is as cold as -173C (-280F). The hottest recorded air temperature at the Earth’s surface was 58C (138F) in the Libyan desert.The coldest recorded temperature was -88C (-126F) in Antarctica. The average temperature on earth is 15C. There is no life on the moon and plenty of life on Earth. Science can explain the difference in these climates. Can you?

On other words, show me some science from any of the scientists you refer to, or from your own scientific knowledge that can explain why the temperature of our planet is what it is. After all, if you want to debate climate, it would help if you understand why our climate is what it is.

This may take you some time and I will patiently await your reply. After you answer my question with a reasonable answer, I will then be happy to answer more of your questions.

Winn
Winn

Hi Mish,
You might be right.
Greta might be right.
We shouldn't fight who is right.
Actually we have only one world to live.
We can't afford to lose our world to man made disaster.
The world is for us and for our kids.
More trees.
Low carbon emission.
That's it.

Zardoz
Zardoz

No can do, Greta. Jesus is coming, and we're supposed to have the world on fire for him.

Scooot
Scooot

Even if there wasn’t any man made global warming it’d still be better to stop polluting the planet, and that’s what we should strive to do. We don’t like walking around our streets if they’re full of litter so why would we like our air and oceans littered in the same way.

caradoc-again
caradoc-again

We'll know if TPTB take it seriously when they cancel a jamboree like Davos to reduce C02 and massively tax private jets.

Until then it's do as we say, not as we do.

Start with a massive reduction in carbon fuel based global travel and let's see what happens. Lot less C02 if none of us have a job.

Greggg
Greggg

Let's sum this up with the verified geological data from the last 17,000 years: https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2012/06/clip_image0021.jpg

Winn
Winn

Hi Mish,
One question.
I really like to hear your answer.
Here is the scenario.
We have a patient with dying of cancer.
We have only one controversial expensive treatment. You might even think stupid treatment.
But we do know the treatment won't make the patient adverse effect.
Will you treat the world dying of cancer with that treatment?
At least you'll have some hope he might recover.
Or will you watch the world dying of cancer?
The patient is our priceless world.

Captain Ahab
Captain Ahab

Unfortunately, for the advocates of man-caused Global Warming/Climate Change, the vast majority of recent/current global climate variation is caused by solar activity--for example the number of solar flares/sun spots.
Solar cycle 25 began in 2019, and NASA indicates it will be minimal compared to previous years. While no one knows for certain, it is likely the Earth is entering a long-term minimum similar to the Dalton Minimum at the beginning of the 19th century. Less likely, is a Maunder minimum. In either case, the planet is entering cooling phase, in which case solar power will NOT cut it. Without energy, millions will freeze and die of hunger. BTW, this is science, not global climate change religion.

MaxBnb
MaxBnb

President Jimmy Carter - Address to the Nation on Energy
April 18th, 1977

We are all doomed if you do not give us money.
And yes, it is all based on scientific recommendations

Sechel
Sechel

To me Greta is a smoke screen. She's speaking to an ideal. I want what's practical and achievable. We can use more solar and wind. It looks cost effective and getting more so. Looks like a no-brainer. Light bulbs that last longer and use less electricity another no-brainer. There's more of these. And coal seems to be an energy source that not only pollutes more than others , its not even cost effectives which is why its being turned off. I don't even take that 100% off fossil fuels seriously but its a good challenge to scientists and engineers. Even the fossil fuel industry says we can do a better job of reducing flaring. This from the engineers employed in the industry.

TumblingDice
TumblingDice

For those who dabble in stocks, two oil company stocks are down the last two days. Exxon Mobil (XOM) and Chevron (CVX). I added to my Exxon position today, buying the stock at $67.50 a share.

Exxon is trading at 5 year lows. Dividend is $3.48 or 5.15%.
I figured why not everything else seems to be trading at all time highs.

Anda
Anda

Spain has gone crazio bonkers also over this. The new socialist government just declared a climate emergency

no doubt with a lot of spending planned. They are really on a roll there, raising minimum wage by 29% over the next two years to the second highest in EU , telling parents they don't own their children and comparing them with jihadis for wanting to opt their children out of extracurricular activities ( diversity of all kinds) . Much more besides, the country has gone completely nuts.

charlly
charlly

create debates!

Stimpson
Stimpson

Hi Mish,

thanks for the story. your last story made me curious about the use of different time lines, so I checked the IPCC report that I could found. Admittedly, there are many publications so I may have looked at something else but in the report most graphs are starting around 1850. I did not see the use of cherry picked starting dates. Can you please provide the link to the study that did?

Sechel
Sechel

Tony Heller aka Steven Goddard is a climate denier and a conspiracist. He basally claims NASA and the National Weather Service have been fudging weather data with malicious intent. Tony Heller is also a birther(see a pattern).

So what's going on?
Goddard's accusations that NASA's peer-reviewed adjustments to temperature data are an attempt to fake global warming. Unfortunately this non-sense gets picked up by FOX news and promoted.

Realist
Realist

Fascinating. Mish would rather follow conspiracies on global warming instead of science. Just like flat-earth advocates. I can only assume that’s because it must be good for his blog. Otherwise I would think he was an idiot.

WildBull
WildBull

Greta is being exploited by her parents.

SleemoG
SleemoG

Sometimes doing nothing is the correct course of action, especially if no one knows what to do, as is obvious from this "discussion."

Herkie
Herkie

Really too bad that this brat jetsets around the globe burning fossil fuels at 525 miles per hour and 35,000 feet just to tell us we need to bankrupt the petroleum industry, without which we could not even survive with going on 8 billion people in the world today. Because our food like it or not is grown with pesticides, herbicides, fertilizers, all PETROCHEMICALS. And the dumbassed vegan Nazis that say we should all just go vegan and organic, first of all might I suggest they shove their tofu right up their collective butts? Second, organic farming takes about 50% more land than non organic farming to produce the same crop yields. Man employs about one billion acres of land now to grow food, so sure, we will just have to find another half billion acres of land to keep agriculture at the same level it is now.

What really pisses me off about all this is that it is utterly false. Nothing we can do is going to change what is happening. All the angst and resources spent are wasted. Yes the "house is on fire" because clearly something has changed, I notice for example I have not seen a squirrel in years, or walking sticks, or several other types of bugs that used to be common, now just gone, butterflies and bees getting rare. But that just is not from higher temperatures, it is another cause but they will not even try to figure it out because well they already have it all figured out don't they? Man made global warming is a myth and a religion. And man will die chanting it's creed and catechism.

RPTIII
RPTIII

Would somebody pls fwd a mailing addy to me for Greta. Going to send her a ticket to Paris so she can gleefully skip in front of a speeding Parisian bus


Global Economics

FEATURED
COMMUNITY