General Discussion

It is unambiguous that the graphic produced in my post is attributable to the rising use of fossil fuels. While there have been events in geological time where these levels have changed owing to natural effects, this isn't such a time.

The expensive solar and wind scam - trillions upon trillions of dollars to merely achieve 16 Exajoules of energy annually while requiring the back up of fossil fuels - is not "robust." Rather it's a horrible waste of money that could and should be devoted to nuclear energy. Solar and wind are miserable failures if the goal was to do anything about fossil fuels. But that was never the goal. The goal was to attack nuclear energy, and the consequences for the partial success of that awful effort has left the planet in flames.

I regard the enthusiasm for solar and wind as cultish, a quasi-religious faith. As a former advocate of that faith, an apostate, one honest enough with himself to recognize that the data does not support the religion, I have come to know they are useless, expensive and destructive. The mining required, and the vast requirements for land and sea wilderness disruption are environmentally odious.

I often like to quote the shit-for-brains antinuke Benjamin Sovacool, published, ill advisedly, in Science on exactly how much destruction of the planet he is willing to embrace for this reactionary solar and wind fantasy, while dishonestly calling this crap "sustainable." Exactly what is going to power the mining of the sea floor, clipper ships?

Sustainable minerals and metals for a low-carbon future

Subtitle: