@dale-cloudman's banner p

dale-cloudman


				

				

				

					1 follower  

					follows 0 users  

					

					
joined 2024 April 15 07:25:07 UTC
				

				

				

				

				

				

					
						
							Verified Email
						
					
				

				

				
				
				

				
User ID: 2989


				
				
				

			

		

	














	


		


			



	

		

			

			

				

					

						

							
						

						

							
							

								
dale-cloudman


								

								

								
								
								

								
							
					
 
				


				

				
				
				

				

					1 follower  

					follows 0 users  

					joined 2024 April 15 07:25:07 UTC
				


				
					

					
No bio...

				

				

				

				

				

					

					

					
					
					

					
User ID: 2989


					
					
					
				

			


					

						
							
								Verified Email
							
						
					



		

	

 











			
			

			
			

			




	


		

			
‎

			

				
				

					Hour
					Day
					Week
					Month
					Year
					
				

			


			
‎

			

	
	

	 Hot Bump Top Bottom New Controversial Comments
	



		

	






	

		
		

		
		
	

	

  







		

			
			
				The Vacuity of Climate Science
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Hi, the author does address it :)


“Origins of the Theory


If the greenhouse effect has never been demonstrated, then why does anybody believe that CO2 causes warming in the first place? The answer is somewhat embarrassing. The first to propose the effect was Fourier in 1824, who (according to Arrhenius) believed that an actual greenhouse works “because it lets through the light rays of the sun but retains the dark rays [i.e. infrared radiation] from the ground”. Fourier proposed the atmosphere had a similar property. When Tyndall discovered in 1859 that CO2 does indeed absorb infrared radiation, early climate modelers took this fact and ran with it, with Arrhenius doing “the first calculation of the warming of Earth due to CO2 increase” in 1896. But actual greenhouses do not work this way. They work by physically blocking hot air from escaping and mixing with the outside air. This was shown by R W Wood as early as 1909. It is more than strange that despite this falsification, and a lack of any further proof, the theory has persisted to this day.”


The key is that Tyndall showed CO2 absorbs IR, but this in and of itself isn’t the greenhouse effect. The effect is the (extra) warming a surface undergoes as a result of said absorption.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				The Vacuity of Climate Science
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
The key here is “experimentally demonstrate”. Pointing to Venus isn’t an experiment! I thought the following demonstrated why rather effectively:


“The problem this poses is best exemplified by going back to Pekeris 1932. (It must be noted that Hansen et al 1983 cites Wang 1976 which cites Goody 1964 who then cites Pekeris 1932). In Pekeris, the models of the time led the scientist to believe that “it becomes plausible the temperatures on […] Venus, Earth, and Mars are about the same”. As Venus’s temperature is 464ºC while that of Mars is -63ºC, his egregious error reveals the fundamental problem of not having experimental means by which to validate models. This leads to a situation where models are susceptible to overfitting available data, with no ability to check their operations by proving that the actual effect matches the model’s prediction.”


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				The Vacuity of Climate Science
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
The ignorance is coming from this reply not from the author of the article. It is salient that you didn’t actually provide a link, source, or explanation of how the GHE can thus be verified. It also doesn’t address why the referenced 2021 peer reviewed paper said a lab verification was lacking — because the typical demonstrations (involving gas in glass jars or plastic bags) don’t demonstrate the GHE. Their results are an effect of gas densities affecting convective heat loss, not radiative effects. They work equally well with Argon.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				The Vacuity of Climate Science
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Venus can be explained by a thicker atmosphere and thus a larger adiabatic lapse rate effect. Also see: https://www.themotte.org/post/960/the-vacuity-of-climate-science/203479?context=8#context . It's just not a good demonstration of GHE.


As to the thermodynamics, the arguments are plentiful. I'll just point out two physicists believed that it does violate the 2nd Law and published a peer-reviewed paper to that effect (Gerlich & Tscheuschner). Most others, of course, disagree. The point in the article is that rather than debate it, let's demonstrate it experimentally, in the real world - and this has not been done for the GHE.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				The Vacuity of Climate Science
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
It’s a bit subtle although not really.


The GHE is actually that the surface gets warmer, not the atmosphere. Actually the lower atmosphere (the troposphere) is warmed far more by conduction and convection than radiative effects. The 0.04% quantity of CO2 actually is very relevant here, even if that amount it absorbed doubled, it’s still far outclassed by convection which 100% of the air participated in.


But that’s a furphy as far as GHE is considered, because GHE is really about the extra downward emission of IR, not the atmosphere itself warming due to absorption. This extra downward IR is said to warm the surface more, given same energy input.


This latter piece is what hasn’t been demonstrated and what some physicists argue is thermodynamically impossible. I don’t want to debate the theory of that (most say it’s possible, a vocal few say impossible; not much we can add to it ourselves here), I’d rather defer to experimental evidence, and it being lacking doesn’t look good for the “it’s possible” side.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				The Vacuity of Climate Science
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
The greenhouse diversion is unfortunate due to the naming but also interesting. We can call it a hothouse instead and call the way it really works the “hothouse effect”, which is suppression of convection. HHE != GHE , of course, so it’s not relevant on that level.


What’s interesting to consider though is that a hothouse made of glass vs a hothouse made of a thin plastic, works essentially as effectively. But the glass absorbs and thus emits more IR, both into and out of the hothouse. This downward IR should, by the GHE, warm the interior much more than the plastic walls which don’t emit nearly as much IR. But, it doesn’t. This is peculiar and points to the GHE being weak rather than powerful as it’s said to be (causing the Earth to be +33°C warmer than it otherwise would be).


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				The Vacuity of Climate Science
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
It’s a good question and is already addressed in the article:


“Although the burden of proof is on a theory’s proponents rather than its critics, we can conjecture what one such proof might look like: it would have to consist of an external energy source – such as the sun or a heat lamp – that is set to warm a surface. The energy input should be measured and the surface, in the presence of greenhouse gases, should get much hotter than that input alone can provide, emitting much more energy in response. This would definitively demonstrate the greenhouse effect itself, after which the anthropogenic influence could be gauged by introducing more carbon dioxide into the apparatus and measuring the marginal temperature response.”


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				The Vacuity of Climate Science
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
The flat earth documentary was fascinating because the guy actually proved the Earth was round in his experiment. Then they had to explain away their results and pretend it didn't happen.


Re: climate science, I think the situation is the same as with medicine. The default assumption on medicine is a new thing doesn't work. So you have to positively prove it. Only then can your intervention be recommended. For climate policy, it should be the same. You want to impose new taxes, de-industrialize (which industrialization has massively benefited humanity), ban synthetic fertilizer (which synthetic fertilizers are responsible for vast amounts of our food production), degrow the economy, etc? Then you have to actually prove, definitively, there is an issue, and that your policy would work.


This is not the state of affairs today. Today it's just presumed that the climate alarmists are right. If you question it they say "the science is settled" and smear you as a "denier" (which grew out of the "Holocaust denier" term). They've flipped the burden of proof in the public and policy sphere. But that's not how science is done. The person proposing the theory is the one that needs to prove it. It's not up to others to falsify it.


That being said I'm working on an experiment that could actually definitively falsify the GHE. Will see how it goes!


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				The Vacuity of Climate Science
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Your curiosity can easily be satiated by... reading the article :)


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				The Vacuity of Climate Science
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Essentially a repeat of Wood's 1909 experiment (http://www.wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/wood_rw.1909.html), except actually measuring the solar insolation and the backradiation with a pyranometer and pyrgeometer, respectively. Then experimentally measuring heat losses due to conduction and convection. Finally seeing if these add-up as they should on the different setups (IR-opaque glass vs IR-transparent rock salt). So we'll see definitively whether added backradiation causes warming or not.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				The Vacuity of Climate Science
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
That would be not due to the GHE (which is radiative) but something else, like say convection loss being less because of warmer atmosphere. If this were the case it would mean all the climate models are wrong, because they all rely on the GHE (downwards IR causing higher surface temps). I'm happy to accept this and then we could talk about what that might look like.


Two points though:


    

  1. 

    In the troposphere the CO2 absorption is already saturated, as Knut Angstrom's assistant found in 1900. So the effect on the lower atmosphere would essentially be nil
    

    2. 

  2. 

    The alarmists' rebuttal to #1 is that higher up in the atmosphere, at colder and lower-pressure layers, the effect is not yet saturated. Perhaps those, then would become warmer? Yet consider that if the air absorbs more IR, so, too, does it emit more IR. Added CO2 provides the air a way to cool that it wouldn't otherwise have. In fact, the standard understanding of the climate consensus is the stratosphere ought to cool with more CO2 rather than warm up.
    

    So if the troposphere doesn't warm due to more CO2 as its absorption is already saturated, and the stratosphere cools, and the downwards IR doesn't have a warming effect... where does that leave the warming theory then?
    

    3. 



				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				The Vacuity of Climate Science
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Greenhouses are relevant because the GHE should be the mechanism by which they work. But, they don't. That they work due to the HHE and not the GHE is evidence against the GHE.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				The Vacuity of Climate Science
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
The linked post is meant to show that using Venus to corroborate a model is foolish, as that same reasoning was used to predict it had the same temperature as Earth. It provides just as much support to any more modern theory, namely, none at all.


For an adiabatic lapse rate on Venus description see: https://youtube.com/watch?v=_4KG0-2ckac ,


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				The Vacuity of Climate Science
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
For me, the way nuclear power is handled is a dead give-away that the climate alarmists aren't actually interested in the climate. If CO2 emissions really as as catastrophically dangerous as they are made out to be, then nuclear is the obvious, guaranteed-to-work, 100% solution that would completely have already solved this problem by now.


As in the article: "This is highly relevant because it means our current climate scare is based not on irrefutable scientific evidence but rather on hysteria and alarmist fear-mongering that fifty years of “failed apocalyptic predictions” have failed to abate. This is crucial to understand as it makes it clear that rather than debating how humans should mitigate this alleged impending disaster, the proper focus should be to question why those in power are employing psychological fear tactics to promote taxation, restriction, and degrowth, and why so many intelligent people have uncritically bought into the hysteria when these proposed policies are clearly to their own detriment."


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				The Vacuity of Climate Science
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
It appears you started skimming earlier than that, as this is in the 3rd paragraph: "Worst of all, the alleged recent warming trend that is said to confirm earlier model predictions is based on data that appears to be adjusted to match the very models it is meant to be independently corroborating." It is elaborated in the article on the "Correlation is not causation" section.


As to the 2nd Law: "As to the thermodynamics, the arguments are plentiful. I'll just point out two physicists believed that it does violate the 2nd Law and published a peer-reviewed paper to that effect (Gerlich & Tscheuschner). Most others, of course, disagree. The point in the article is that rather than debate it, let's demonstrate it experimentally, in the real world - and this has not been done for the GHE."


As to thinking the Earth during summer is hotter than the Sun... genuinely not sure what you're addressing here.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				The Vacuity of Climate Science
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


Yeah, and Lord Kelvin estimated age of Sun to be about 32 million years (IIRC). Noone claims that scientists are always right.




You're missing the point, perhaps deliberately?


The question centers around why experimentation is important. Anyone can observe something and then make a model up to explain that observation. This does not, and cannot, demonstrate the model is correct. Scientists were wrong about the surface temperature of Venus before it was measured -- yet they made models that perfectly predicted their (incorrect) surface temperature. That their model matched their prediction did not corroborate the model in any way, as is obvious by the fact that it was wrong.


Since then, scientists have measured the temperature of Venus. And now... they have made models to perfectly predict that (correct) surface temperature. Because this time around the temperature is correct, it feels like the model is thus more correct (on this basis) than the previous one. In a sense it is, in that it gives the right temperature. But it is no more (or less) validated by this than the incorrect model! The evidentiary value is exactly the same. You can always make a model fit certain data points, it doesn't mean the model is correct.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				The Vacuity of Climate Science
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
I've collected these links as well, albeit they are more technical than the video. Will I next be asked to provide a simpler one? :)


    

  1. "Venus: No Greenhouse Effect" https://theendofthemystery.blogspot.com/2010/11/venus-no-greenhouse-effect.html
    2. 

  2. "Why does this simple equation predict the Venus surface temperature so accurately?" https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/508573/why-does-this-simple-equation-predict-the-venus-surface-temperature-so-accuratel
    3. 



				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				The Vacuity of Climate Science
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Sure. The grand canyon is a good starting point. The temperature at the bottom of the canyon is hotter than at the top. Why is that? It's not due to the greenhouse effect. It's due to earth's adiabatic lapse rate.


Essentially, gravity pulls air in the atmosphere downwards, doing work to compress it, which increases its pressure and temperature. The hotter air then starts expanding and rising (being displaced by the cooler air being brought down), which causes it to cool and decrease in pressure. This is an ongoing process. Notably, it has nothing to do with any radiative properties of the atmosphere (i.e. the greenhouse effect). It can be calculated from basic values of the mass of air and gravity: https://phys.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Thermodynamics_and_Statistical_Mechanics/Heat_and_Thermodynamics_(Tatum)/08%3A_Heat_Capacity_and_the_Expansion_of_Gases/8.08%3A_Adiabatic_Lapse_Rate .


The lapse rate is essentially the same on Venus as on Earth, and as Venus's atmosphere is thicker than Earth, the lapse rate has a longer way to go, resulting in a higher temperature increase. It must be noted the pressure on Venus's surface is 90x that of Earth's.


The blackbody calculation presumes no atmosphere and thus no adiabatic lapse rate. The presence of an atmosphere and gravity introduces this mechanism by which work is done, heating the air as it compresses and gets close to the surface. It explains the tropospheric temperature gradient and, it must be re-iterated, has nothing to do with any radiative properties of the air. Any atmosphere, even one without any greenhouse gases whatsoever, would have this feature.


The question then is: as the adiabatic lapse rate explains the grand canyon temperature difference, why would it not also explain the temperature difference between the surface and the effective blackbody temperature? It must be noted the effective temperature of Earth (255K, -18C) is indicative of the average amount radiated by an entire column of surface plus atmosphere above. As we've established there must be a gradient due to the lapse rate, the average of this column must necessarily be somewhere in the middle. Below is hotter, above is cooler.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				The Vacuity of Climate Science
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
On experiments:


    

  1. 

    "Benchtop Global-Warming Demonstrations Do Not Exemplify the Atmospheric Greenhouse Effect, but Alternatives Are Available", https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.jchemed.8b01057
    

    _
    

    (It must be noted the "alternatives" provided are analogues, not demonstrations of the GHE.)
    

    2. 

  2. 

    "Climate change in a shoebox: Right result, wrong physics", https://www.researchgate.net/publication/243492513_Climate_change_in_a_shoebox_Right_result_wrong_physics .
    

    3. 



				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				The Vacuity of Climate Science
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
It may be worth reviewing the links I just provided as to why Argon is a valuable control for these experiments (https://www.themotte.org/post/960/the-vacuity-of-climate-science/203988?context=8#context).


In short: carbon dioxide is more dense than air. CO2 and Argon are about the same density as each other. A typical experiment involves adding CO2 to a beaker and observing the surface temperature get hotter. But the reason is that the convective loss of the bottom is suppressed because the air is prevented from rising due to the heavier CO2 above it. This works equally well with Argon. In closed containers, the differing gas density still affects the rate of convective loss, as #2 points out.


The experiment you linked must therefore also be performed with 100% Argon (as it was with 100% CO2) as a control.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				The Vacuity of Climate Science
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
"The greenhouse diversion is unfortunate due to the naming but also interesting. We can call it a hothouse instead and call the way it really works the “hothouse effect”, which is suppression of convection. HHE != GHE , of course, so it’s not relevant on that level."


HHE = the "hothouse effect" I just coined here for clarity in communication.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				The Vacuity of Climate Science
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
It also won't change the point here. I'll try it again with newly coined terms in bold.


The florb effect is a radiative phenomenon. Any object above 0K absorbs & emits infrared radiation. Certain gases, like CO2, also absorb & emit infrared radiation, while others don't. If you increase the concentration of CO2 in the air, the air now will be emitting more infrared radiation, both upwards and downwards back toward the surface. This downward emission of infrared causes the surface to become warmer. This warming is called the florb effect.


A hothouse, by contrast, works by the hothouse effect, a totally different phenomenon. The sun heats the inside of the hothouse, which causes the air inside to become warmer. This air rises, but is physically prevented from escaping by the hothouse walls. This allows the air inside the hothouse to get warmer than the outside air. It is an effect of suppressing convective loss rather than a radiative phenomenon.


The peculiar thing: A hothouse remains equally hot whether its walls are transparent to infrared, or absorbing of infrared! This is despite the IR-absorbing walls emitting infrared into the hothouse, while the IR-transparent walls don't. According to the depicted mechanism of the florb effect, the IR-emitting walls should result in a much hotter hothouse interior. Yet, it doesn't.


Thus, the fact that a hothouse works due to the hothouse effect, and not due to the florb effect, is evidence against the florb effect.




You see now?


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				The Vacuity of Climate Science
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Ehm... at the time you wrote this, I provided two links. One was to another post I made in this thread, and one was to a YouTube video. There are no "various YouTube videos" linked, just one (which was related to the discussion), and no "otherwise unrelated content" at all (in fact, no links to other content at all besides the one video). So it seems you're operating on a mind-already-made-up, prejudiced basis and are interpreting what I'm writing via feelings, emotions, and pre-existing beliefs rather than sensible facts and clear-headed evaluation of what I'm writing here.


Your other points are equally invalid. I haven't evaded any questions -- you'll have to point out where I have if you want to make that claim, but you won't be able to, as I haven't.


I haven't written anywhere that I think the GHE is empirically verified. Rather to the contrary, I've written how it hasn't been experimentally verified (https://www.themotte.org/post/960/the-vacuity-of-climate-science/203568?context=8#context). And no, this is not a link to "otherwise unrelated content", it's a link to something else I wrote in this thread.


You are misinterpreting what I wrote about greenhouses. The point is that, the fact that greenhouses don't work according to the GHE (see https://www.themotte.org/post/960/the-vacuity-of-climate-science/203995?context=8#context if you are getting tripped up on the terminology here) does not prove, in and of itself, that the GHE doesn't exist, but it does speak very much against it. This doesn't mean the GHE exists, it just means the fact of how greenhouses work is not sufficient evidence to disprove the GHE.


Perhaps the only valid thing you did write here is that you "don't know a thing about climate models" (your words). I can accept that. But the salient question then is, whence do you draw the confidence with which you've formed your opinion about what I wrote?


To help you answer that question I will re-iterate something I wrote at the start of the article that is very relevant here, with emphasis added: "This is highly relevant because it means our current climate scare is based not on irrefutable scientific evidence but rather on hysteria and alarmist fear-mongering that fifty years of “failed apocalyptic predictions” have failed to abate. This is crucial to understand as it makes it clear that rather than debating how humans should mitigate this alleged impending disaster, the proper focus should be to question why those in power are employing psychological fear tactics to promote taxation, restriction, and degrowth, and why so many intelligent people have uncritically bought into the hysteria when these proposed policies are clearly to their own detriment."


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				The Vacuity of Climate Science
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
This was the relevant part: "In closed containers, the differing gas density still affects the rate of convective loss, as #2 points out."


Quoting from the paper, emphasis added:




Even if the experiments were done in a sealed container, and CO2
were compared with Ar, differences in convective transport
could not be ruled out.


[...]


In some of the reported demonstrations, the container is
sealed so that interfacial mixing should not be a factor, but a
temperature difference between air and CO2 was still
reported.[3–5] Sealing the container brings into play additional
factors, which are difficult to quantify, especially the infrared
characteristics of the “window.” In Ref. 5, for example, T is
reported to be 25% greater for CO2 than for air. As we have
argued, a difference of this magnitude cannot be accounted
for by far-infrared absorption. This experiment probably involves the direct absorption of sunlight rather than of reemitted far-infrared radiation, but that effect should be even smaller.  [7]
Simple models of natural convection suggest that
the difference in the heat flow between the two gases should
be less than 10%.[17] The calculations depend on the geometry,
however, and the conditions are in a transition regime between laminar and turbulent flow, and thus it is possible that
small changes could have disproportionate effects. These uncertainties reinforce the value of including a comparison case
that uses a heavy gas without infrared absorption, such as argon.




				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				The Vacuity of Climate Science
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Some of the alarmists are explicit about their ideological tendencies, see: https://twitter.com/ClimateBen/status/1766859556313841773


"Does capitalism mean fully entering rapid mass extinction in either the 21st or 22nd century?


Yes.


Will humans and the majority of species face mass death or annihilation by 2050- 2150?


Yes.


Are mass media journalists telling us scientists urge economic system change?


No."


And later in the thread: "Abrupt climate change is just one compounding factor in extinction catastrophe. Change this Extinction Economy now while it's still too late to protect species and everyone."


I suspect there's a large overlap between climate alarmism and anti-capitalism.


This is highly dangerous. As the image shows (source: https://ourworldindata.org/extreme-history-methods), the global poverty rate was over 80% in 1800. Today it's less than 20%. Capitalism and the industrial revolution it helped to fuel is the obvious cause of that. Note that modern-day class warriors rail against the inequality of capitalism -- but they leave out the fact that the vast majority of people on the planet are far better off today than 250 years ago.


The dangerous aspect is if they have their way, the systems that enabled this to happen will be reversed and thus we'll head back in the direction of extreme poverty for all.


/images/17133444819677088.webp