Just a note: Despite your inflated opinion of your own brilliance, you actually told me all I'll ever really need to know, in terms of ever taking you seriously at all is concerned(as in never) when you actually recommended the writings of Helga Zepp-Larouche, she of the Satanic climate change swindle.
Double down on your ignorance if you wish. To the political "left" or those with visons of an actually important United Nations, the Carbon tax is the objective. It doesn't matter if we have an Ice Age ahead or a return to a Carboniferous geological epoch to ideologues who will use whatever horrific scenarios they can conjure up to advocate some solution that requires funding world government. Massive redistribution of wealth is the dream, with the "leaders" of the new world particularly benefitting.
George HW Bush didn't like Lyndon LaRouche, neither did Winston Churchill. I believe he was once a bit of a communist, then a labor activist, and somewhere along his road he found the world's leaders being overly partisan to oligarchs. Helga is oh maybe almost thirty years younger and is picking up the torch. I consider the LaRouche movement to be ideologues as well, with some of the problems that entails. But it is worthwhile to read their literature because they are articulate, and they do look for reasons why the political people do what they do.
Helga is a Catholic believer, and in the context of that faith there is sometimes the issue of "Satanic" possession wherein Priests undertake to exorcise some demon. I have no experience or expertise on the subject, and even though sometimes it is a topic on Coast to Coast, I don't think we have Siro's ideal of rational materialism in evidence to prove the case. And so, as in all subjects beyond the reach of our ability to produce and reproduce objective data, we cannot prove or disprove the thesis. I find her comment a bit Hillaresque, as comparable to Hillary's demonization of all the "deplorables" who don't see the light she sees.
I have written elsewhere some of my concerns about the science on climate change being political and pressing the evidence to the political cause.
There is justifiable skepticism about the scope, bias, and conclusions put forth by the government-financed "science".
I might accept the data on temperatures across recent decades and recognize that there has been a rise of about 2 degrees F coupled with a rise in ambient CO2, but we have experienced fairly large changes like this in epochs before we "invented" fire. I believe there could be other factors of more significance;, perhaps related to earth's trajectory through not-entirely empty space, with fluxes in hydrogren gas with or without reduced carbon gases, or energetic ionized particles. We do know of huge variations of such materials in space, having the density or size required to occlude vision of beyond. Other possibilities are variations of the earth's core nuclear heat-generating activity which could conceivably warm the ocean floor and cause outgassing of dissolved CO2, or actual volcanic emissions. I have yet to see scientific reports capable of quantifying such factors, and to date they are mostly ignored or minimized with dismissive assumptions.
But even if Climate Change is as portrayed by our concerned politically-correct and well-recompensed and fully accredited government-compliant professionals, the Carbon Tax is not a solution to the problem.
We have non-Carbon energy prospects that are becoming economical even now. Large scale exploitation of geothermal and solar power are particularly interesting at the moment. Research on industrial prototypes of "Cold Fusion", now discussed as "LENR"(Low Energy Nuclear Reactions), is underway, as the fact of cold fusion is now established scientifically. Problems with reproducibility have been reduced. One factor that made early experiments non-reproducible involved trace impurities in the palladium or other electrode materials. Beryllium doping at a fraction of a percent is apparently beneficial. Other elements are apparently not.
I favor nuclear developments in power generation generally with multiple safety measures including a potential-energy-based sort of measure that will automatically eject the nuclear accelerator rods if the positive safety measures become incapacitated.
Fusion reactors are also seeing some progress towards utility.
So I see no need to turn out the lights on planet earth and return to the dark ages technologically. There is so much we can do to replace carbon energy, and I for one would love to see all that happen.
The LaRouche groupies have been trying to promote such developments, along with the idea of better avenues of transportation, such as the Silk Road. Unlike a fully-blindered ideologue, as many totally dedicated political activists are, I read opinions of people across the world, and across the spectrum.
Here is one who knows the LaRouches:
Lyndon LaRouche and The Muslim World - Schiller Institute
www.schillerinstitute.org/conf-iclc/2007/landbridge_c... Proxy *Highlight
Ahmed Kedidi ... Dr. Kedidi is a professor at Doha University in Qatar, a former Member of ... Here is the translation of the written text of his speech to the Schiller ... a professor at Qatar University and political analyst on al-Jazeera and different Arab ... of Lyn and Helga for the new Silk Road and for Islam's entry into history.
https://www.schillerinstitute.org/index.html
https://www.schillerinstitute.org/conf-iclc/2007/landbridge_conf_kedidi.html
https://www.schillerinstitute.org/conf-iclc/2007/landbridge_conf_kedidi.html
I consider even some of the things people like Red have to say, when they are not doing the full-Ayers in slinging totally bizarre falsehood about other people.
