Bernie bros need to do some reading. Even if you believe in climate change the current system needs reform. We have to fix permitting reform before anything
I’ve not completely given up on beef, or any meat, but in the past decade have curtailing my meat consumption. The environment is one reason but so is personal health. In general we would be a much healthier population if we cut back in eating meat.
Apparently according the @Commodore you are not even allowed to breathe out CO2 if you are for fighting climate change.
And sex isn't the same as gender anymore allegedly. Libs love changing the meaning of everything to shove square pegs down round holes. Gimmie a break.
eating meat is great for the environment monocrops destroy topsoil, ruminants revitalize it nothing but nutritionless subsidized corn and soy blighting the landscape but we must put all other considerations aside in the name of climate change, so the cows gotta go
Misinformation in the IPCC Quality control lapses this serious are simply unacceptable https://rogerpielkejr.substack.com/p/misinformation-in-the-ipcc excerpt: Last week I took a high-level look at the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Sixth Assessment (AR6) Synthesis Report (SR) and suggested that it is time for reform of this important institution. The IPCC matters because climate change is a serious concern and mitigation and adaptation policies should be informed by accurate science. Today, in the first of two posts, I explain how the IPCC made several misleading claims related to tropical cyclones. The IPCC’s failures are both obvious and undeniable. I will walk you through them in detail. Once again, I come to the conclusion that the IPCC needs reform. Mistakes can creep into massive assessments, to be sure, but the failures I document below are absolutely unacceptable. The first failure never rose above the depths of Chapter 11 of its AR6 Working Group 1 (WG1) report. The second is a bit technical and is much more significant – having made its way into the Summaries for Policymakers (SPMs) of both WG1 and the Synthesis Report released last week. Before proceeding, let me reiterate that the IPCC is not just one report or one group of people. It is many things and comprised of many different people. Its products are of uneven quality, and even individual chapters in the same report can be of very different scientific quality. For instance, in general, IPCC AR6 WG1 did a nice job on the physical science aspects of extreme weather, whereas IPCC AR6 WG2 was chock full of massive problems. I support the IPCC and want it to be high quality across the board. We all have a responsibility to call out when the IPCC does not live up to its own high standards, because climate change is too important for bad science to appear in the world’s leading scientific assessment. more at the link
Germany led by the "Green" party just decommissioned nuclear energy in exchange for burning more coal. Yes you heard that right. These are "climate" activists who are pushing this. . Corruption occurs in Europe as well and not just America
SMDH, and thanks for sharing. At a time where they need to get less dependent on Russian fossil fuel too... makes you wonder who exactly funds and promotes some of this BS. Uncle Putie can't be too far removed.
You can call this corruption, but "fighting climate change" only works to further unrelated goals because academia grants confidence, not critical thinking ability. Until academia is reformed, we won't see an end to this kind of stuff.
I’ve come around on nuclear has it looks like newer technology is able to address some of the previous problems with it. I can see though how a group like the Greens who have built up much of their history opposing nuclear haven’t given that up and changed their priorities.
Climate activists aren’t a monolithic group either. There is certainly some anti nuclear factions within as well as some factions that seem to be more luddites.
