CLIMATE CULT Timeline to Apocalypse 1970s - Global cooling will kill us all. 1980 - Correction, looks like Global warming will kill us all. 1990s - Global warming will definitely kill us all. 2000s - Global warming stopped. UN memo (original). Let’s call it Climate Change because the temperature keeps fluctuating up and down leading to a 14 year temperature pause while CO2 continued to rise unabated. 2010s - Everyone realises climate change is normal. UN memo (1). Let’s call it a Climate Emergency. 2010s - There was no climate Emergency. UN memo (2). Let’s corrupt the science with unlimited funding to government controlled institutions who are willing to falsify temperature data, then call it a Climate Crisis. 2020s - The Climate Crisis failed to eventuate. UN memo (3). Let’s find a useful idiot and name her Greta. She will be our climate cult Goddess. Australian climate cult members were busy exploiting the dry summer starting many fires leading to many arrests for arson. 2021 - Greta failed to change the climate and just yelled at everyone. 2023 - UN memo (4). We will wait for El Nino to arrive and we shall call it Global Boiling. To ensure success the cult got busy with arson attacks throughout Europe starting in Greece when 79 arsonists were arrested. Arson arrests are made in Canada after a big season of wildfires. 2024 - Everyone realises El Niño is a natural event that has always occurred for as long as the Pacific Ocean has been in existence. 2025 - UN memo (5). We shall declare CO2 a toxic hazard that will kill us all. 2025 - UN memo (5) is immediately cancelled when a 9 year old pointed out that CO2 is the trace gas of life without which we and all carbon based life forms do not exist. All that carbon came from CO2. It is called a trace gas because there are traces of it measured at an incredibly low 420ppmv or 0.042%. Barely enough to raise the temperature in a room full of climate cult members releasing methane in a desperate attempt to raise the temperature. 2030 - The climate cult is exhausted from its endless lies but manages to double down for another decade of stupidity with fresh funding from corrupt governments and corporations making lots of money from intermittent renewable energy that never works when the wind stops and the sun sets. 2040 - The climate cools while CO2 continues to rise and everyone realises temperature and CO2 have decoupled. UN admits defeat and commences the biggest compensation payout in human history. Now we can add permafrost Methane release as the latest fake disaster according to COP 28. Every single climate cult doomsday prediction date has come and gone with nothing to show. How many more decades do we tolerate the climate cult clowns that destroy everything they touch.

Your attacks on agroecology and organic farming are ignorant and anti-scientific. I'm an ag scientist. Chemical agriculture is completely dependent on fossil fuel and grows LESS FOOD per acre than organic according to research published in Nature. Yeah I know, surprising - if you've swallowed the line from Monsanto. Its so tiresome when otherwise smart people swallow the propaganda from chemical corporations. Seriously how do people not understand that chemical agriculture is a huge user of fossil fuels? You can also read ISTAAD (old now, but still) to discover the UN's recommendations (from 500 scientists from various fields) of organic agriculture as BETTER for economic development and chemical pesticides, and even fertilizers, as not worth the cost.

Moving from Rotterdam to Paris means living with +2.5 degrees average temperature. Moving from Rotterdam to Bamako will get you an increase of 16 degrees in average temperature.

If Mark Lynas who just flew I from Washington is campaigning to reduce use of Fossil Fuel he is nothing more than a Climate Barron making money out of Climate Hysteria. How do I know, simple hits Hypocrisy!

'PromoSM'

Fyi - Mark starts to talk at 7.20 mins

an hour and 16 to watch out of date science. yeah i do not think so.. 10c baked in, even if net zero today. says James Hansen. ALL IPCC RCP's are a lie.

Why do people always look for one or perfect solution. It is such an epic fail, itself of human ability. Technology will redeem nothing... Because it is all PRIVATE Never has ONE TOP DOWN Policy or any Social Engineering worked out as planned.

Can we all just kill ourselves already?

In your title graphic, don't you mean "LIFE in an extreme climate?" how on Earth do people make these kinds of mistakes? It's literally the FIRST word anyone sees and you misspelled it.

Extinction-Level Event The Era of honest scientific studies is dead. It died by political grant. These paid for productions are right up there with the Salem witch climate crisis or don't fall off the earth flat earthers. You'd think being wrong 100% of the time would bring at least a pause , a question, But no....... Shame on you Oddly the cure for what ever flavor of todays climate crisis happens to be is always the same, more taxes , wealth redistribution and liberty lost

Remember when these types were mostly on the street corners wearing the, "The End is Near" signs? Front and back collecting change in their , End is near, black little buckets. Ah, the good old days. Now the left and academia seeks them out, calls 'em science guys and are paidfor propagandists with our precious tax dollars. You gotta laugh.

We don't have the time or political stance to begin turning this global killer around. This is not going to happen, at this rate, we will be lucky by 2050, if civilization still exist, we are warned every day about the global warming Being WARNED, and doing something is mute, the Power, Fossil fuel Corp.

Fundamental to the whole global warming debate is the current measurement of C02 in the atmosphere which can be found on the Keeling Curve website. It shows no sign at all that the rate of C02 being pumped into the atmosphere is in any way reducing. Until it does we remain with our foot hard on the throttle to the nearest cliff. It is obvious now that we are years away from doing anything that will be effective at any worthwhile scale to slow the obvious warming that is now taking place. Even the most optimistic scientists are having to face up to the fact that basic physics has been in control all along and we are all now reduced to being passengers in a train wreck.

Nuclear great, my only concern would be when civilization eventually collapses under strain of climate change are reactors all going to be shit down safely? I sort of doubt it?

ZERO, the number of times these climate proctologist have been predictively correct. Who needs math and science when you can just talk crap. kzbin.info/www/bejne/eauXZpl7idxjbZo

In the 50s thu the 70s the consensus was of course the ice age was here. The consensus cure was to cover the poles In coal dust. "The evidence in support of these predictions [global cooling] has now begun to accumulate so massively that meteorologists are hard-pressed to keep up with it.” The Cooling World“A study release last month by two NOAA scientists that the amount of sunshine reaching the ground in the continental U.S. diminished by 1.3% between 1964 and 1972.” The Cooling World“Telltale signs are everywhere...the thickness of the pack ice...the southward migration of warmth-loving creatures like the armadillo...” Another Ice Age?“Since the 1940s the mean global temperature has dropped about 2.7 degrees.” Another Ice Age?“The threat of a new ice age must now stand alongside nuclear war as a likely source of wholesale death and misery for mankind,” The Ice Age Cometh!

•Prior doomsdayers , " Science". They are as predictively correct as todays ,*Warmers*. • “The Earth’s Cooling Climate,” Science News, November 15, 1969.• “Colder Winters Held Dawn of New Ice Age,” Washington Post, January 11, 1970.• “Science: Another Ice Age?” Time Magazine, June 24, 1974.• “The Ice Age Cometh!” Science News, March 1, 1975.• “The Cooling World,” Newsweek, April 28, 1975.• “Scientists Ask Why World Climate is Changing; Major Cooling May Be Ahead,” New York Times, May 21, 1975.• “In the Grip of a New Ice Age?” International Wildlife July-August, 1975.• “A Major Cooling Widely Considered to Be Inevitable,” New York Times, September 14, 1975.• “Variations in the Earth’s Orbit, Pacemaker of the Ice Ages,” Science magazine, December 10, 1976.

What « extreme » climate ? Where ?

New flash about vegan cheese. In manchester NH there is a pizza restaurant by the name of 900 degrees that has the best vegan cheese Everrrr.

Life in an extreme climate lecture? That IS scary!

Last year (2022) stats just came out yesterday. Highest level ever of coal being burned. With 2023 on target to be the worst. And so it goes...And the IPCC does not even measure Methane Release from the Performafrost. They CAN'T. CHINA, INDIA, GERMANY all on board with COAL. I personally think, here, today, as I post this, that WE ARE AT 2.3. And if this El Nino continues on it's projected path, I FEAR, with 1st Grandchildren arriving in NOVEMBER for My and the WORLD'S KIDS.

The muppet is nothing more than a fear monger and a doomsday we

Wow Mark. Can you say cognitive dissonance? You're a mess mate. Should take care of yourself for a change, cause walking this path doesn't seem to be working for you.

So all this time we've been sitting on the precipice of catastrophe and it only took a 1C change in average global temps to send us over this cliff? Get a grip. This is delusional.

Humans cannot replace what mother nature has already provided humans to eat. It is not aniamls

AHISMA!

There's no evidence for fossil fuel use peaking and an estimate of 2.1-2.4C by 2100 (33:20) is almost impossible. Even if in relative terms fossil fuel use looks to be peaking, in absolute terms its rising because of the demand for growth which renewables just cannot keep pace with (let alone replace). And all that matters is the cumulative amount of emissions in the atmosphere, the absolute amount, this is all that physics responds to. Physics couldnt care less about 'relative to gdp', it only deals in absolutes. The latest IPCC report said that this was only possible if every country stuck to their NDCs but theres not a country on earth that is doing that, in fact almost all have rising emissions not falling. So to say that this is most likely is simply incorrect, it is in fact the least likely. We're going to hit 1.5c in the next few years as a global average. Thats .5c in less than a decade and emissions are still rising. The idea that in the following 70yrs we only add .6C or .9C is laughable. We've doubled our energy use in 30yrs (& doubled all emissions ever released) and are going to double all that again by 2050, how in any calculation will that mean less than 1c will be added by 2100? And thats without mentioning methane and nox which are rising faster and faster all the time. We are now technically well over 500PPM when Nox & CH4 (& others) are included. The current energy imbalance has more than doubled in 15yrs so the energy is already there, mainly in our oceans for now, we'll be lucky to stay below 2.1C by 2050 at the rate we're going. One major issue I have with eco-modernists (the term used here and how I used to see myself) is that there is this absolute faith that technology can save us. And while theres no doubt that technology improves all the time and has brought (and hopefully will bring ) enormous benefits to our lives, it has also invariably led us to live higher energy, less efficient and more wasteful lives. It has increased the damage, pollution and biodiversity loss that is crippling our life support systems. Whatever path we chose we need to start thinking of broader issues that just power generation. We can decarbonise our entire energy supply but if that just maintains lifestyles that destroys the remaining biodiversity on the planet, then we're dead anyway so honestly whats the point? Why I moved away from this type of thinking is because its very limited, it sees only power generation as one thing, economic growth as another, food production as another , materials and resource extraction as another, But these (and many more things) are just parts of a deeply intertwined system that includes us and the natural world. Until we start seeing things in that way, we're always going to be doing more harm than good. Ive read Mark's 6 degree book and its very good but what is on display here is the idea that we can continue some kind of business as usual as long as we decarbonise energy. Its a seductive message but its not true. If we're not actively reducing energy use and emissions across the board then we are adding to the problem. The primary goal of any country now should be a concentrated, long term, steady reduction in energy USE. Obviously starting with fossil fuels and in the wealthiest, most polluting countries first but a year on year reduction in demand across all sectors and rich countries is the only chance we have to avoid the absolute worst scenario this century. And honestly you could do a lot of the heavy lifting with going after the biggest polluters in any society. Theyre a tiny fraction of the worlds population but responsible for more than 50% of emissions. It might even give us the breathing room to convert as much as possible to nuclear, But adding nuclear or any other energy without reducing overall energy use is just adding to the problem. The emissions and their damage dont go away just because you built a nuclear power plant 20yrs later. Im not pro nuclear or anti nuclear. I do believe it could be a net positive but like any technology, if we're not looking at the full impacts, upsides and downsides then we're just fantasising and offering solutions that dont exist in the real world. Im no expert in any sense but there are a lot of hurdles to clear and very little in the way of explanation in how these can be overcome. (see below if interested for some of the issues I have with converting to nuclear) Fusion doesnt work, after billions of euros and decades of research, just 5 seconds of net energy gain was ever achieved and never since replicated. Maybe it will in the future, its important research but thats all it is now and for the foreseeable future. So this rant is about fission and mainly the logistics, there are so many other issues but these are the ones that for me have never been answered in any serious way by anyone claiming the future is nuclear. Fission, as is said does work but we currently have 450 working nuclear plants (and hes right about Germany, shutting down working plants, its idiocy). But to decarbonise most of the planet (nuclear plants wont solve food production, airplanes or even power in many smaller nations) which is over 20,000TWH of energy, it would take 30-40,000 of todays largest nuclear power plants. And thats just to meet todays demands (which are expected to double in 30yrs) plus they would require 10-20% backup, fossil fuels or renewables. The construction alone (cement mainly but also mining) has been estimated to alone put us above 2C, thats before we work out where the water would come from,. Rivers are experiencing droughts yearly now, France had to shut down plants two years in a row because water either too hot or too low. Will we need desalinisation? then that requires tens, maybe hundreds of thousands of (the current largest desalination plants) to be constructed and powered, which are hugely resource and energy intensive processes. Where do we put these then? seas are rising, storms are going to get more frequent and powerful, are we going to build this infrastructure along coasts that may not exist in 30yrs? Whats the emissions & material involved, what energy use will be needed just to run these? Also who is going to build them? At present it takes nearly 20yrs to build a reactor, there are only a few thousand people worldwide with the experience to design and engineer nuclear power plants. We need 100 times this number and thats just the designers/architects/engineers. How many hundreds of specialised construction workers are needed for each engineer? Who is going to train these people, where are the universities we need, who is going to teach them when theres only a few hundred people teaching now? Then theres the fuel needed, where does that come from? where does the waste go? - And these are the issues we can probably overcome, it gets worse. All the points raise by Mark here about renewables in terms of materials also apply to nuclear (although nuclear plants would be expected to last at least twice as long) but probably the biggest issue (IMO and in terms of how realistic or viable this idea of nuclear saving us is) is the time involved. Lets say by some miracle, the entire world decided to go nuclear or even 50% and we're going to do it by 2050 (which is logistically, politically, materially, economically impossible) but lets pretend it can happen. What happens between now and then? Do we just keep burning fossil fuels at the rate were going because then 4C is closer to the minimum by 2100 and not the maximum and no amount of nuclear will protect us from what we will unleash. And then we have tens of thousands of nuclear power plants to maintain in a civilisation that is falling apart. The only other alternative is to go completely renewable (or as close as possible) in the meantime which means rebuilding our infrastructure to allow for decentralised energy production but then we have to rebuild infrastructure again by 2050 to prepare for intensely centralised nuclear power production. Either option is going to put us over 2C by mid century and likely over 4C by end of century. Whether its nuclear or renewables, (probably both), we first need breathing room to make these enormous changes. We need to stop making the problem worse and the only way that will happen is a managed, sustained and long term reduction in energy use, its not a guarantee by any means but its quite possibly the only chance we have to maintain control why we work on long term solutions.

Climate is an issue but lack of essential resources (food, water, shelter, oxygen, safety) will be our own self inflicted demise

Has the establishment not told you to never dissent from the status quo or narrative?

All this projection of how the natural world will react to the massive amounts of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, so underestimates the fragility of the balance of the planets ecosystems. The dominoes started falling years ago and the effects have passed the exponential. The focus needs to be on the rate of increase andnot the temperature increase. The rate of increase by percentage hsa gone up every decade and in the previous decade there was a 32 percent increase, while the previous decade saw a little more than half of that. If the 32 percent rate doubles this decade, as it most assuredly will, will be around 60 percent hotter than at the start of this century. We will pass 2 degrees by 2030. Civilizations world wide will begin to collapse once supermarket shelves empty out. The under developed countries will not be survivable and migration will look like a flood of humanity. This is inevitable due to the power stucture that rules us and their own survival being their only concern. On the bright side there will probably be nuclear destruction to put a quick end to us all. All hail the cockroach king.

Housing should be seen as an essential means to live and not a commodity that should be expoilted for greed. Thank you for uploading and sharing.

Gaia is perfectly safe. We are the problem and the solution. The solution being, that we will simply annihilate ourselves through a lack of will not through the lack of intellect. Why so, those that can implement the changes that are needed have no $$$ incentive to do so. They think that they have enough money to ride out the coming storm. Good luck when no one is left to feed, clothe and nurse you, unless they are counting on A.I and artificially constructed food to feed them. Thank you for uploading and sharing.

One problem with that 2.5C number being the possibility that James Lovelock was correct, in that a quick shift from 1C to 5C might happen. As happened end of the last ice age. A jump from one stable climate system to another. A jump of 4 or 5 C.

A quick note: Can't it just be that humanity has had its day and will one day, or gradually, disappear from the face of the earth? Or that, just as that audience member pointed out regarding 'punk', that just because of this ever-ongoing 'apocalypse' wonderful new things could emerge (think of the mythological phoenix), or out of what I have called the 'pathology of normalcy' another better 'normalcy' could see the light of day? And who knows what else could/will happen before or when the sun can no longer do its job and the earth has to continue bouncing in the universe on its own. When I look a bit at what previous generations have predicted what would happen on earth, and were quite often completely wrong, then I wonder whether 'we' will be better at that. Maybe humans should become a bit more humble, and stop believing they are a main factor in what will happen in the future. Anyway, it is of course nice to think about all that, to fantasize, to do 'scientific research', and believe 'we' are the helmsman of the ship called Earth. Louis XV, or Madame de Pompadour: “Après moi/nous) le déluge". 😈

P r o m o S M 😳

Ik was er toch echt niet, hoor.

Дякую що дозволили взяти участь у такій цікавій коференції!

I disagree with Oleksandra. In my opinion, there was quite a lot of work for urban planners in the local context of understanding what is the "urban planner" means in Ukraine. I worked with urban planners for about 2 years and there was huge amount of work

Спасибо, очень интересная дискуссия. Но, вероятно, будет, как обычно. 40 процентов отката чиновникам, потом оседание по верхам, в итоге исполнителю упадет пара-тройка тыщ евро и требование за три месяца нарисовать что-то простое и дешевое на коленке ))

【ｐｒｏｍｏｓｍ】 😕

Thank you for these interesting talks! The timecodes below the video don't work, however.

is masterplan reiners tell-all personal story about living under the shadow of rem?