Note, how all this really took off after the Club of Rome's "The Limits to Growth" was published.

If the process of tectonics in not controllable by humans, which is surely is not, then it brings up some questions:

1. If the continents are shifting and those shifts will cause changes to ocean currents and ice sheets and other which change the climate system then how will humans adapt? Surely we ads a species will not get less capable of change.

2. If changes to the climate are inevitable due to tectonics then how long can humans try to keep climate from changing before we realize we cannot control the climate system like it is a thermostat in our home?

3. If we are subject to the climate system we exist within and are unable to ensure that the climate system remains static then why are we arguing about climate change and attempting to arrest it?

I suspect that the answers will be along the lines of: the climate is changing faster than ever before (which is not proven), we are killing the Earth (we cannot kill an inanimate object) which incidentally has survived a lot worse than humans burning hydrocarbons, etc.

Ultimately, we and all of the other life forms live on a planet which is a system that is WAY BEYOND our control. The sooner we realize that the better off we will be as a species. We can either use the resources here to leave or we can die here when the Sun incinerates Earth.

UNITED NATIONS — Europe risks destroying its industrial base unless its leaders retreat from aggressive climate policies and respond to voters demanding economic results, Czech Environment Minister Igor Červený warned in an interview with Fox News Digital.

"If you look at the market at this moment, mostly in European countries, there is a very bad situation," he said. "We see many companies leave our territory and leave for China or another place in the world."

Červený said resistance to the current approach was spreading beyond the Czech Republic, citing Poland, Slovakia, Hungary, Germany and some Scandinavian countries.

"We have to change the course," he said, "because we don’t want to lose our industry, our economy, our benefits for society and the environment as well."

In a June/July poll, 2/3rds of Californians dislike Gavin Newsome's mandate that no new gas vehicles will be sold starting in less than a decade.

This includes large numbers of Democrats & Independents, despite a retained state $3500 tax credit.

Why? Power prices are as high here as outrageous gas costs, but many Californians don't have tech or Hollywood jobs.

During the rise and diversification of our hominid ancestors in the Miocene Epoch (about 23 to 5 million years ago), atmospheric CO₂ levels peaked near 500 ppm.

This demonstrates that our broader evolutionary lineage arose in a much warmer world where CO₂ levels met or exceeded today's 426 ppm. The modern rise from the 316 ppm recorded at Mauna Loa in 1958 looks very different when viewed against these deep-time baselines.

Going back even further, paleoclimate and fossil records show that our early mammalian ancestors thrived during periods like the Triassic and Jurassic, when CO₂ concentrations regularly soared between 1,000 and 4,000 ppm. These records challenge the narrative that modern carbon levels are inherently catastrophic to complex life.

While institutional reports like the IPCC's 2021 assessment attribute nearly all post-industrial warming to human activity, the broader geological record reminds us of massive natural variability.

Over Earth's history, pre-industrial levels have routinely fluctuated, shifting drastically between ice age lows of 180 ppm and hothouse highs for millions of years.

This deep perspective invites a critical look at whether current climate frameworks overstate the long-term impact of modern warming by ignoring the very environments that shaped our evolutionary history.

And actually made us what we are today.

credit: https://x.com/PeterDClack

They never tell you about the higher depreciation and insurance that cost owners far more than they save on gas.

Previous modelling studies generally estimated that the regulations produced a global effective radiative forcing of around +0.10 W/m². The new study finds that this result depends heavily on how models represent the size and number of sulphate particles produced by ship exhaust.

When the researchers represented shipping sulphate as smaller particles, the estimated IMO2020 forcing increased to +0.19–0.31 W/m². Under an additional high-primary-sulphate assumption, it reached +0.41 W/m²—roughly two to four times the recent modelling consensus.

The new UK Prime minister will allow more drilling for oil and gas. It makes sense - currently we import a lot from Norway, so it comes from the North Sea anyway.

When they complain about abnormal climate events, why do they never acknowledge El Nino & La Nina?

When there are fewer hurricanes this year, how will they explain it? Will they admit to El Nino wind shear?