As the center of the U.S. freezes this weekend, Elon Musk is trying to figure out how to save Tesla from going the way of Enron.
Religions die hard. It takes an orgy of evidence to change a person’s mind on a subject that is integral to their moral and ethical structure.
In the case of Tesla, the mania surrounding it over the past decade has been inextricably bound up with the hysteria of global warming.
For years investors ignored the obvious warning signs that Tesla would never be able to graduate from a boutique, hand-built car manufacturer and technology skunk works to a mass producer.
I’ve been very hard on Musk in the past, with good reason. But, as a guy with vision I applaud him getting Tesla off the ground and legitimizing the idea of the upscale electric car.
But it was never going to work as a mass production scheme because Musk isn’t that guy. He’s a dreamer and a schemer, not a builder. And, as I’ve said multiple times, he should have stepped down as CEO of Tesla ages ago.
A man has got to know his limitations as The Man once said.
People Need Religion
And this goes for the Global Warming crowd as well. There’s is a religion based around basic human hubris — that we are far more impactful on the world than we actually are and our activities need to be reined in.
This comes from worshiping the environment as a substitute for traditional religions. Marx preached organized religion is the ‘opiate of the masses’ but people need religion of some form or another to bring meaning to their lives and guide their behavior.
So if they reject Christianity, for example, they will seek out a new thing to elevate and substitute for it. I would argue that Star Wars provided that for me as a teenager and later Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle.
We all need a religion.
The environment is definitely one of these substitute religions. In fact, modern environmentalism has all the trappings of a classic human religion.
We have our Satan, consumerism. It is the bastard child of capitalism since this version of environment-worship is rooted in Marxism.
We have the apocalypse story, Global Warming. We will literally destroy all life on the planet turning it into Venus. It’s the rapture for Gaia worshipers.
And we have the High Priest of Technocracy who will save us from ourselves, Elon Musk. He will put a solar panel on every roof, take us to Mars while we drive around, guilt-free in our luxury Teslas.
The problem with all of it, of course, is that it was all bought with debt and government largesse, itself a consumerist fantasy created out of the opulence that capitalism provided.
And while there are plenty of reasons why electric cars can make sense, less carbon dioxide isn’t one of them. But, that’s where the billions in grants and Wall Street funny money came from.
Tesla is witches’ brew consisting of equal parts the Fed’s insane zero-bound interest rates, the elevation of global warming to religious significance by the left and cynical Wall Street profiteering.
The Fed provided the money, the government gave out the subsidies to entice the Wall Streeters and global warming provided the upscaling demand as Generation Prius gave way to the siren’s call of Musk’s consumerism.
In essence, we live in a period of history so wealthy relative to our basic survival needs we can indulge the ravings of mad Marxists at levels of taxation and wealth redistribution which are far greater than any previous economic cycle.
Why this occurred, in my view, is confluence of three things:
- Rising sun output lowering the cost of food production.
- Enshrining private property rights and the subservience of government to the people in law in some places, like the U.S.
- Accessing the deep, high-density energy reserves of the planet (Oil).
Those three thing created real wealth for humanity at a rate easily double previous periods of recorded history.
There’s no doubt that this period has been messy and our institutions and cultural identities are having a hard time adjusting.
The environmentalists certainly have a point about pollution and consumerism.
But only up to a point.
And if they would confine their activities to getting polluters to pay their ‘externalities,’ limiting governments’ protection of them and educating people about being less wasteful then I would have zero problems with them.
In fact, I applaud their efforts. What they fail to understand, willfully I believe, is that the efficiency enforced by the laws of economics on producers drives waste and pollution down over time.
But their religious fervor cannot allow them to see that and allow nature, as it were, to take its course. And there’s is a religion based on the unquenchable envy of Marxism.
My substitute religion however, doesn’t tell me to expropriate 10% of world GDP to ensure I get another Star Wars movie to add to my gospel either.
But you do see that from the Global Warming extremists. And the sad part is that the same Wall St. profiteers who sold them Tesla are also selling them carbon credits, solar panels and electric luxury cars.
The very people who they rail against, Wall St. are the ones handing them the money to indulge their power fantasies about saving the world.
You can have your environmentalist cake and eat it too, Greenies.
And it would all be great if it weren’t all a complete lie. Global warming is a bubble bursting just like Tesla is because both are stories built on a foundation of debt and consumption, not privation and thrift.
Like capitalism is.
The climate cycle is changing in front of our eyes. The sun is shutting down and will likely remain so for at lest another ten years, possibly far longer.
The climate is only just now catching up to this fact. And we are woefully unprepared for this fact as Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez goes full Marxist retard touting a Green New Deal.
We are in a transition state from warming to cooling. Weather is getting violent. The upper atmosphere is cooling off so quickly even the religious nuts at NASA have had to admit it publicly.
And yet, people cling to their religions because they have to. Just like they cling to Marxism that forms its foundations despite its truly horrific record of human abuse.
As Musk and Tesla fall from grace we’ll see the scales lift from many true believers’ eyes. Because nothing wakes people up faster than seeing their future gutted as their brokerage account plunges towards zero.
At that point even this cycle will turn. Expectations will be tempered and people will finally become open to truly sustainable solutions we all actually want.
“Men it can be said, go mad in herds, and only regain their sanity slowly, and one by one.”
This 19 minute video is a proper skewering of the Green New Deal insanity.
Further to the above quote several dozen demos, and a few republicans have publicly signed on to support it. ASTOUNDING!!
Also worth noting: :LENR (cold fusion) is now commercial with the E-Cat SK. This small reactor 22 kW has been heating a i building since Nov 19
These substitute religions are what’s known as political theology. Ever since I explored this area a few years ago I see these substitute religions everywhere. The global warming myth is certainly the biggest and most dominant.
Debunking it will not only mean people’s people’s “moral and ethical structures” are dismantled, I think it’s more than that. It will involve a general epistemological crisis because people have believed this on the basis of what is supposed to be hard science. When it turns out to be false the very foundations of our knowledge will be called into question.
Because people just won’t be able to cope with their entire world view collapsing we will see more of a pattern that had already started to emerge. The high priesthood of global warming will declare that even the cooling is part of the warming and that luckily we have one a few years before we hurtle into disaster again.
Dave. They already have made the argument that cooling is part of the warming. Weather isn’t climate is their bullshit response now
So your the expert now, awesome
I’m a guy with an opinion you disagree with… Is that troubling to you?
Precisely why they had to change the name from “Global Warming” to “Climate Change” LOL. You cant win with these people. If the planet actually does enter a prolonged cooling period, they will say it was caused by us ( CO2 emissions & cow farts). I enjoyed reading your thoughts on this Tom.
When they have to change the name of the crisis because their predictions didn’t com pass is the second most common sign that you are dealing with a con.
The first sign is always the emotional blackmail, usually fear.
I am curious: you realize you are totally misqouting NASA scientist Mlynczak right? You understand that you are soreading falsehoods? Do you do zero research?
I do a lot of research and as I told you privately, did he not admit the upper atmosphere is cooling off?
Yes or no?
I didn’t ascribe conclusions to him. And even if he didn’t say this, then he’s obviously not looking at the data which has been clear for nearly two years now that the upper atmosphere is cooling rapidly. And as such, who cares if I misquote someone so thoroughly wrong about basic facts that his opinion is therefore irrelevant anyway.
There are industries who operate with “vacuums” as thin as the thermosphere is. I came to the conclusion there are many types of experts, but not that many in several fields.
There is almost no heat transfer up there and sun wind has nothing to do with the dynamics of infrared trapping gases on the lower atmosphere.
i liked the beginning of the article because it points out good how the crowds always need a revolutionary, trending topic to believe in and a hero to follow.
However, after Tom goes into a ridiculous rant about how humans are not having that much of an impact on the earth.
Tom, you know you are misquoting the NASA article? Did you read the article?
That NASA guy was just referring to a small cycle of cooling in the northern atmosphere within a much larger cycle of world warming?
You think paying for externalities will give you back 90% of sealife, forests, wildlife, clean rivers?
Plus why do you try to gain readers support by belittling people who care about the environment calling them “greenies”?
I apologize but it sounds like a very poorly thought article with basically 0 evidence for defending your argument that humans have less effect on the earth than thought.
Btw, i am no supporter of this new liberal movement with government regulating even what we think; where one has to be politically correct at all times. However, i am for defending the earth from greed and allowing the other creatures that God put in this world to have their
i also want future generations to have untouched nature to hunt, play, fish, walk or even live.
So do I, I just don’t think expropriating 10% of global GDP and putting it in the hands of the most corrupt and venal people on the planet is the path to solving these problems. That’s the point.
“Plus why do you try to gain readers support by belittling people who care about the environment calling them “greenies”?”
Because sometimes you have to be told things roughly to wake you up from your mania. Sorry, Javier, I can see you can about this but I also think you’re way over-stating your case because you are, like so many, overly invested in this idea.
If you compare the relative efficiency (and pollution) of today’s manufacturing versus a generation ago, you’d see the tremendous progress. But, if you measure it against a zero point then nothing will be good enough.
I think the argument about ‘externalities’ is a bogus one that Leftists and environmentalists have used for decades (going back to Keynes and Samuelson in economics) to justify government intervention into economic activity.
What do you think will stop the ‘externalities’ from not being paid for? And if you say more tight control over business, you’ll have proved my point that its a religion not based on logic, reason or facts.
The Austrian economists have argued against externalities not being paid ages ago, I’d look them up and read the arguments. Then understand the implications, we can foist the costs of on someone else or pay for them up front, but they always get paid. Pollution is a part of the process, and the relative importance of it to people in the aggregate depends on their relative safety.
The farther we are from subsistence, the more we can worry about the future costs of polluting. But, if we are fighting for our survival, then we don’t.
We are in the luxury period of having this conversation about pollution and how to deal with it. The question is not what should be done but what will you do?
One abdicates responsibility the other takes it. Clean up your own life and you’ll clean up those around you. That part of environmentalism I applaud. But, I won’t stand for expropriation of hundreds of billions of dollars over politicized theories.
What do you say to the recent reports of air pollution leading to an increase in dementia cases? Is this all smoke and mirrors to push the electric agenda?
I don’t have an opinion on that one way or the other. I am simply looking at this in terms of economics. CO2 is the not driver of global warming. It never has been nor will be.
Pollution is part of the cycle of efficiency and growth. It simply is. Today’s air quality is far higher than it was when we were burning wood and coal.
It’ll be far higher in the future as we burn oil more efficiently or utilize better engineered nuclear reactors.
But, you can’t get around the energy density problem by wishing it away. Solar and Wind are simply incapable of providing the energy needed to power 1/10th of modern society.
So, if you want to go back to subsistence, be my guest, but don’t expect me to go with you and if you point a gun at me to do so, expect a bigger one pointing back at you.
That’s what the AGW religion is doing and I won’t apologize for being on the other side of that argument. No idea is good enough that it’s worth pointing a gun at someone’s head to implement.
When the AGW crowd wants to have that discussion I’m happy to do so. But, that’s as far as it goes.
Far from being a ‘global warming’ gas, CO2 is one of the few molecules which can emit radiation. Without it, the planet would heat up.
O2 and N2 are homonuclear diatomic molecules, therefore they have no net magnetic dipole, therefore they cannot emit infrared radiation. CO2 in its two degenerate bending modes does have a change in its net magnetic dipole, and it can therefore emit.
This is why CO2 cools off the upper atmosphere. But what very few people know is that CO2 also cools the troposphere, except it’s difficult to measure because water vapor (which condenses out of the atmosphere above the tropopause) swamps CO2’s effects.
Here’s the long-term stratospheric cooling caused by increasing CO2 content:
The non-warming of the climate has become a topic much discussed since about 2005. John Christy has testified to Congress about the “gap” between IPCC climate models, which are based on steadily increasing levels of atmospheric CO2 and observations of atmospheric temperatures, measured by both satellites and radiosondes, 1978-2015 (see Christy fig. below).
There have been many attempts to explain this discrepancy, ranging from a flat denial that such a gap exists (Tom Karl, Science, 2015, pp. 1,469-1,472, doi: 10.1126/science.aaa5632) to attempts to account for the “missing incoming energy.” For example, Kevin Trenberth has proposed that the missing energy, instead of warming the atmosphere, “hides” in the deep ocean, to be released later.
Based on all the foregoing discussion, of the log-dependence of CO2 forcing (Myhre et al., GRL, 1998, vol. 25, doi: org/10.1029/98GLO1908) and its possible climate-cooling effect, I have a simpler hypothesis on the ineffectiveness of CO2 in warming the climate. I realize that this explanation is unacceptable to the IPCC and to many climate-warming advocates. I believe that the “gap,” now 40 years long, according to Christy, has existed throughout the Industrial Revolution — and probably during the whole of the Holocene. In other words, I consider that the “pause” may be permanent.
I also believe that the gap will continue to grow in the future and demonstrate a convincing empirical argument supporting my explanation — namely, that CO2 no longer affects the climate, except perhaps at the slow level of its log-dependence.
This log-dependence has to be modified (1) by CO2 cooling of the climate and (2) by possible positive feedback from water vapor, as assumed by the IPCC.
Cooling of Atmosphere Due to CO2 Emission
“Abstract: The writers investigated the effect of CO2 emission on the temperature of atmosphere. Computations based on the adiabatic theory of greenhouse effect show that increasing CO2 concentration in the atmosphere results in cooling rather than warming of the Earth’s atmosphere.”
How increasing CO2 leads to an increased negative greenhouse effect in Antarctica
Why CO2 cools the middle atmosphere – a consolidating model perspective
Observations of infrared radiative cooling in the thermosphere on 2 daily to multiyear timescales from the TIMED/SABER instrument
“Abstract:. We present observations of the infrared radiative cooling by carbon dioxide (CO2) and nitric oxide (NO) in Earth’s thermosphere.”
A Guide to CO2 and Stratospheric Cooling
Climate “Science” on Trial; Evidence Shows CO2 COOLS the Atmosphere
Note the CO2-induced spectral cooling rate (positive numbers in the scale at right) extend right down to the surface of the planet, whereas CO2 shows just a slight bit of warming (negative numbers in the scale at right) only at the tropopause (ie: just above the clouds, where it absorbs a greater percentage of reflected solar insolation).
DB, thank you. As a chemist with a high energy spectroscopy background this is a breath of fresh air in the discussion and something I should have known. So I in the most non-gay way imaginable, “I love you, man!” :)
TESLA by the numbers, further to myths vs reality.
New title suggestion: Ruminations of a petulant child who’s portion of ice-cream was threatened to be redistributed.
Essentially your argument is who is or should be the arbiter of the redistribution of wealth.
In my estimation you would have it favor mining corporations.
What were the 2000 wars in the last 2500 years fought for?
All states and laws were created to reinforce the property rights of (stolen by) previous mass murderers by threat of violence.
Am I supposed to take you seriously when you resort to name calling, guilt tripping and specious assignations of the devil in your apocalypse story?
Perhaps your hubris is helping you do exactly what you consider so problematic with AOC.
And that gold coin in your pocket; the one with your face on one side and hers on the other, is but a piece of metal.
My suspicions are that it is a genetically imposed dream by an ET
which comes to earth to harvest the filthy lucre collected by it’s slaves before each glaciation cycle.
“Sanity is the imposition of language” ? “The whole of existence is speaking to you, but how can one hear it when their own voice is so loud”?
Meanwhile even the evul natsoc types have discovered that the ever more finer polluting agents (like hormonal agents, plastics, nano stuff) is going to seriously disrupt public health for generations. You can wave around tidbits of info here and there, but the fundamentals are in. Climate ist fucked, so are top soils and phosphate reserves and the inevitable stream of refugees has to be stopped before they even think about moving somewhere else.
Climate change relativism is corporate/globalist disinfo to prevent a nation to take care of her future. You might not be able to fix the problem fundamentally, but thinking that “it wont be that bad, or so we hope” is risking everything.
Galileo could not convince the power religionists of his time. So too today. Never learn from history.
CO2 is pollution now?? yep, it is pollution, according to the political knot heads. I always thought that pollution was a substance that was dangerous to living agents, not one hundred years from now, or 50 years, or 30, or even ten years, but right now. I have been force fed this bucket of AGW tripe since—- I remember 1986. When it was said that the world would be “burned to a crisp” in ten years. But 1986 is over thirty years ago, and right now my ass is freezing off on March 3, 2019.
CO2 is pollution?? I always understood that without CO2, the life cycle would be no cycle, But, maybe Musk and Government INC. could invent a new replacement cycle.
CO2 is pollution? Tell the greenhouse operator that he is killing his plants by injecting CO2 into his greenhouse. He really must be stupid.
Anyway, Man (and Woman of course) Caused Climate Change or AGW, is, yes, a Socialistic religion for the masses (note every socialist immediately on board,) , but for the power Globalist crowd it is much more.
It is the globalists’ Ultimate Poster Child, guaranteed to control and limit and even at times destroy everything and everyone who believes in responsible liberty of movement.
Proven by the established fact that the whole establishment liar media/press, all of it, exists in the pay of the Globalist Master Class, will never allow a dissenting contribution or opinion. For that, you must visit the alternative media. Like I said, same as in Galileo’s day of infamy. According to the power class of his day.
Tom, you will never have any luck arguing logic with the woked seers.
I know Joey. But every once in a while I indulge myself. It’s a weakness
The real tragedy is that most of the individuals thumping their chest on the subject wouldn’t know a Joule is only a second from a Watt. OK, so I should put more energy into making my argument more powerful…
I thought that was perfectly succinct
Aah Scientism and the power of media propaganda. Acolytes soo want to believe and its a religion that is easy to access. It requires zero input, question nothing, accept what you are told and repeat giving that dopamine hit of sounding knowledgeable on an important scientific subject.
Your article actually covers the best counter and that is real environmental concerns. Give the masses an alternative by moving funds away from the climate change fallacy to real world problems like desertification and maintaining biodiversity. The argument will never be won unless opponents show their own green credentials and give people an alternative they can embrace. The problem is currently opponents all sound cold and uncaring, not a good approach for winning hearts and minds.
Tom since you like research, read up about seawater greenhouses, they are a really elegant solution for arid regions.
Here’s an example of an intelligent man who has a studied point of view who starts by blaming socialism and ends with blaming marxism. In between he addresses debt, interest and usury. He could easily have stated his point of view without mentioning the s or the m words. And yes, it would help if what he said was coherent, but that’s another matter.
Martin Armstrong’s “The Solution”
Socialism is a euphemism for collectivism. Marxism was today is an offshoot of 1979s french post-modernism. And yes Martin us a smart man.
You are one of the few people who seem to recognize the progressive agenda, not just climate change, as a religion. They have the twin gods of science and the state. The state naturally is the most important of the two gods.
The problem with their view of science is that the universe is very Newtonian and deterministic. The progressives also treat current scientific knowledge as unchangeable religious dogma. In this respect they are little different than the Christians they despise. These days I find the Christians to be less dangerous because it is possible disagree with them and not have to worry much about a violent response which is not something that can be said about the left these days.
Tom, I usually follow you at RI where I find your articles mostly well constructed with solid logic and facts that can be validated…..except for now.
There can be no discussion on weather or climate or climate change without first acknowledging the patented process of chemical ice nucleation. This process is well proven and well used. you can find articles illustrating billions of dollars of damage caused by a man made snow storm in Beijing:
When the CIA says that geoengineering is something that they are very interested in for dealing with climate change then you know very well they are already doing it! Then there is monsanto with patents for plants that are immune to elements that are not found on earth in that form……unless you are spraying those elements in the atmosphere to block the incoming sun. Which is what the geoengineers at Harvard say they want to do if they are allowed!
Look up, you will see these suggested future operations happening every day. Planes do not leave 10 mile long (or more) condensation trails. In fact modern jet engines are all but incapable of leaving any condensate as over 85% of the air passing through them is non cumbusted as they are really just large turbine powered fans.
Why is there a nation wide illegal federal gag order on all NOAA employees. What is so threatening to the US that they need to gag the meteorologists.
Then there are all the military applications for altering your enemies climate…..just ask Iran.
If you are really interested in the climate then go to Dane Wigintons site geoengineeringwatch.org. He has posted a 1970 congressional report outlining the dangers and potential lawsutis on the US governments climate modification programs. Another good site is climateviewer.com
You must log in to post a comment.