The Hidden Costs of Fighting CO2

The Scottish Covid inquiry recently heard from Ashley Croft, an epidemiologist, who said that there never was any reliable evidence to confirm facemask mandates and that “the evidence base has not changed materially in the intervening three years”. He referred to “individual, societal and economic harm” of lockdown “that was avoidable and that should not have occurred.”

***

Europe's GDP to U.S.: $17.8 trillion to $26.8 trillion. In the Bush years, the two economies were roughly equivalent and there was a lot of chatter that Europe represented the economic future. That turned out to be a combination of excessive hype and optimism about Europe, excessive pessimism about the U.S., the effects of the Great Recession, Covid, the Russian invasion of Ukraine, and a couple other factors.--NR

***

"The special counsel shall be selected from outside the United States government." — Code of Federal Regulations, Title 28, Chapter VI, § 600.3(c).
Special counsel is supposed to be independent of the current government, not an employee...

---Dershowitz

So, why do we have Weisse?

***

WOD

Albedo: Noun. In astronomy "proportion of light reflected from a surface," 1859, from scientific use of Latin albedo "whiteness," from albus "white."

Late Old English albe "white linen robe" worn by priests, converts, etc., from Late Latin alba (in tunica alba or vestis alba "white vestment"), fem. of albus "white," from PIE root *albho- "white" (source also of Greek alphos "white leprosy," alphiton "barley meal;" Old High German albiz, Old English elfet "swan," literally "the white bird;" Old Church Slavonic and Russian lebedi, Polish łabędź "swan;" Hittite alpash "cloud"). Hittite!

Albania might be derived from this but it's hard to understand--as is the fact that Scotland was sometimes called Albania by the British.

****


The Hidden Costs of Fighting CO2

"You write as if you have solid information confirming that the best way to deal with climate change is to reduce emissions of CO2 and methane. I understand that nearly everyone assumes that reducing greenhouse-gas emissions is the only, or at least the unquestionably best, means of dealing with climate change. But this assumption is no more than that: an assumption – and, at that, an assumption taken on faith.

We have, as far as I know, no solid information showing that the costs of efforts to reduce CO2 emissions (by whatever amount) are worth the resulting benefits. What would be sacrificed by such efforts? And how do we know that the value of these sacrifices would be less than the value of what would be sacrificed if humanity dealt with climate change instead in some alternative manner – say, by building higher seawalls and more air-conditioning? Or by arranging to increase the earth’s albedo? Or by reducing government-erected barriers to the construction and use of nuclear power plants? Or perhaps even by simply suffering climate change’s negative (along with its positive) consequences? Or by some combination of these (and other) means of dealing with climate change without reducing emissions of CO2?"--Bordeaux, in a post responding to a guy urging immediate reduction of CO2 production--and presumably the economic decline with it.

An assumption made by global warming devotees in the anti-carbon dogma is that the endpoint of unrestrained carbon production is very--but undefinably--bad. But the loss of energy production as the world moves back before steam power (and, presumably, solar and wind filling in the blanks) is definitely terrible. 

Imagine, purposely, recreating the joys of the 1700s