Judge orders NEVI Funding restored

[mkhuffman]

AI generated but broadly accurate:
The American Petroleum Institute (API) is running "Lights on Energy" and "
When America Builds, America Wins" campaigns, eight-figure, multi-year initiatives designed to promote U.S. oil and natural gas production, push for infrastructure permitting reform, and influence policy. These campaigns feature television, digital, and podcast ads targeting policymakers and voters in key states, highlighting energy security and economic growth.

An API-affiliated group runs "Energy Independence" campaign ads frequently on nearly all the cable news channels. I suspect many of us have seen the ads multiple times. They feature clips of most recent US Presidents saying that the country needs to become energy independent, with a voice-over tagline that says something like "they all said it, now it's time to do it." What the API apparently wants is less regulation over oil and gas extraction, but the ads focus only on the rather ambiguous term "energy independence" and descry that at least as far as the API is concerned, the presidential promises remain unfulfilled.

The US arguably became energy independent (again) in 2019 when for the first time since 1957, the country's energy exports exceeded imports. While it's true that the US imports more crude oil than it exports, what the API ads don't mention (along with the fact we are the world's largest exporter of energy) is that this is because their member companies want access to imported crude for their specific refining purposes. I'll spare everyone any further boring details about US energy production and use, and say only that at best, the API ads are one-sided and a strong argument can be made that they are highly disingenuous.

I'm unaware of a similar eight-figure campaign - or even a much smaller one - by "green energy" lobbying groups. If any such campaigns exist, I'd welcome information about them.

What's the "green industry," @mkhuffman? What do you perceive to be the motivations of players in the "green industry" space?

Thanks in advance!

Per my favorite AI:

These are the largest companies in the renewable energy and green sector, ranked by market capitalization as of late 2025/early 2026 data. They include leaders in solar, wind, hydro, and sustainable utilities.
GE Vernova (NYSE: GEV): Market cap around $195-204 billion; specializes in wind turbines, solar, hydro, and gas turbines for renewables.
NextEra Energy (NYSE: NEE): Market cap around $145-179 billion; world's largest producer of wind and solar energy, with 24,600 MW capacity.
Constellation Energy (NASDAQ: CEG): Market cap around $89-100 billion; focuses on clean energy generation including nuclear and renewables.
Sungrow Power Supply (SZSE: 300274): Market cap around $44 billion; leading in solar inverters and energy storage.
LONGi Green Energy Technology (SSE: 601012): Market cap around $19-23 billion; top solar panel manufacturer.866ff3b610de64ea61
First Solar (NASDAQ: FSLR): Market cap around $19-24 billion; thin-film solar module producer.
Other top companies include PT Barito Renewables Energy ($114 billion, Indonesia-focused), Verbund AG ($25 billion, Europe), and Brookfield Renewable Partners ($18 billion). The total market cap for the top 137 renewable companies is around $844-884 billion.

Estimated Value of the Green Economy
The global green economy, encompassing renewables, sustainable technologies, climate mitigation, and adaptation markets, was valued at over $5 trillion annually in 2024 and is projected to exceed $7 trillion by 2030, growing at about 6% per year.

One analysis estimates it at $7.9 trillion as of Q1 2025, representing 8.6% of listed equity markets, though this may include broader sustainable investments.c61e62 It has been the second-fastest growing sector since 2015, behind only technology, with green revenues often outperforming conventional ones by 2x in growth.

Sponsored

 

[mkhuffman]

There are several, but one of the most prevalent I see is that EV's have a higher total lifetime carbon footprint because of mining/manufacturing the massive battery pack and charging with a grid that uses coal power plants.

Now I understand there are many that don't believe carbon footprints have anything to do with the rapid warming of the planet over the last 100 yrs....but that's an entirely different conversation and quite frankly will not engage with that one anymore, not worth my time.

Thanks for making the attempt to answer my question.

I have seen claims about the environmental damage BEVs cause, but I never associated those claims with the oil industry. I guess the oil industry is motivated to fund studies like that, and the green industry is not. Biases on both sides for sure.

 

[mkhuffman]

What's the "green industry," @mkhuffman? What do you perceive to be the motivations of players in the "green industry" space?

Thanks in advance!

I forgot to mention: they are motivated to make as much money as possible, just like the oil industry.

 

[Dave Cundiff]

I forgot to mention: they are motivated to make as much money as possible, just like the oil industry.

I never heard of any of these companies as a funder or source of industry-subsidized policy research, @mkhuffman. Your assertion that these companies bias the public discourse appears to be based on pure speculation. Have you seen evidence to the contrary?

On the other side, the evidence that the fossil fuel industry has actively funded researchers with the apparent goal of influencing policy is so well known that it barely gets news coverage any more. One of the many articles on this phenomenon: https://www.theguardian.com/environ...uel-companies-donate-millions-us-universities

***

When the vast majority of scientists agree with a proposition, policy action can be stalled by people who don't have a better argument at all. They just have the ability to cast doubt on the consensus. An influential and solidly researched book on this phenomenon is the 2010 book Merchants of Doubt (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merchants_of_Doubt).

By positing a "green industry" research agenda that barely exists, and using it to minimize the "fossil fuel industry" research agenda that is quite influential, you contribute to cynicism and you help postpone needed policy change. I suspect that's not your intention -- you probably just want a healthy and truthful world, as do I -- but that's the effect you seem to be having.

***

Regardless of policy disagreements, @mkhuffman, I appreciate your contributions to this forum and to the Rivian community.

Very best wishes!

 

[mkhuffman]

I never heard of any of these companies as a funder or source of industry-subsidized policy research, @mkhuffman. Your assertion that these companies bias the public discourse appears to be based on pure speculation. Have you seen evidence to the contrary?

On the other side, the evidence that the fossil fuel industry has actively funded researchers with the apparent goal of influencing policy is so well known that it barely gets news coverage any more. One of the many articles on this phenomenon: https://www.theguardian.com/environ...uel-companies-donate-millions-us-universities

***

When the vast majority of scientists agree with a proposition, policy action can be stalled by people who don't have a better argument at all. They just have the ability to cast doubt on the consensus. An influential and solidly researched book on this phenomenon is the 2010 book Merchants of Doubt (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merchants_of_Doubt).

By positing a "green industry" research agenda that barely exists, and using it to minimize the "fossil fuel industry" research agenda that is quite influential, you contribute to cynicism and you help postpone needed policy change. I suspect that's not your intention -- you probably just want a healthy and truthful world, as do I -- but that's the effect you seem to be having.

***

Regardless of policy disagreements, @mkhuffman, I appreciate your contributions to this forum and to the Rivian community.

Very best wishes!

Dave, you are one of the people who makes this forum great. So glad you are here!

I am a lazy man, and why do the hard work of researching to answer your great questions when I have Grok to do it for me?

---

The renewable energy and clean tech sector (the core of the "green economy") maintains a robust network of industry-specific trade associations and corporate-backed groups that lobby aggressively on behalf of companies generating the bulk of that ~$7.9 trillion in annual revenue. These groups focus on tax credits (e.g., from the Inflation Reduction Act), permitting reform, grid infrastructure, domestic manufacturing incentives, and protection against policy rollbacks—distinct from the environmental NGOs I mentioned previously, which often align with them but prioritize broader conservation.

Top Industry Lobby Groups (2024–2025 Data)

These organizations represent thousands of companies in solar, wind, storage, transmission, and related supply chains. Lobbying totals for the broader "Renewable Energy" category exceeded $82 million in 2025 alone, with industry groups dominating the top spenders.

• American Clean Power Association (ACP) → The leading voice for multi-tech clean power (wind, utility-scale solar, storage, clean hydrogen, transmission). Represents over 800 companies and projects. Lobbying: Record highs, including $5.05 million (full-year figure in recent disclosures), $3.8 million in one quarter alone in 2025, and $2–4+ million annually in prior years. Focuses on preserving IRA tax credits, offshore wind, permitting reform, and transmission buildout.
• Solar Energy Industries Association (SEIA) → Represents the entire U.S. solar supply chain (1,200+ member companies). Lobbying: ~$2.82 million in 2025, $1.87 million in 2024, with major spikes (e.g., $950,000 in one quarter) to defend solar/storage tax credits and manufacturing incentives. Led coalitions sending letters from 1,500+ companies to Congress and organizing Capitol Hill blitzes.
• American Council on Renewable Energy (ACORE) → Unites finance, policy, and technology players; members account for ~90% of recent utility-scale renewable growth. Focus: Investment in transmission, small/mid-size clean energy firms, and policy to accelerate deployment.
• Clean Energy Buyers Association (CEBA) → Represents large corporate purchasers (1/5 of Fortune 500, >$38 trillion market cap) that buy clean power directly. Lobbying: Hundreds of thousands annually; pushes for low-cost, reliable carbon-free electricity and grid modernization.

Other notable players include Advanced Energy United (formerly Advanced Energy Economy), Growth Energy (biofuels), and company-specific efforts (e.g., NextEra, Tesla, First Solar).


These groups routinely outspend individual environmental NGOs on issues directly tied to industry revenue growth.

Public Information & Awareness Campaigns Supporting the Green Industry

Industry groups and companies run targeted campaigns to build public and policymaker support for clean energy adoption—emphasizing jobs, lower bills, energy independence, manufacturing revival, and reliability. These directly drive demand (and thus revenue) by shifting consumer sentiment and political will.

Association-Led Campaigns

• ACP's PowerVotes — A nationwide grassroots-style movement mobilizing clean energy advocates. Supporters contact lawmakers on permitting reform, workforce development, and reliable clean power. Key message: "Clean energy = American jobs, energy independence, and innovation."
• ACP's America Builds Power — Highlights how clean power is the fastest-growing U.S. energy source, driving domestic manufacturing (new factories, supply chains) and requiring stable policy (tax credits). Uses reports and fact sheets to show economic wins.
• ACP Reports as Public Education Tools — "The Cost of No New Clean Power in PJM" (projected $3,000–$8,500 extra household electricity costs over a decade without new projects) and analyses of offshore wind halts (higher bills, more gas reliance). Widely shared with media and the public.
• SEIA Media & Public Outreach — Explicitly committed to informing "the American public" about solar's economic benefits (jobs, grid reliability, cost savings). Runs ongoing solar market insight reports, press briefings, and campaigns tying solar/storage to lower energy bills and manufacturing resurgence.
• Safety First Workforce Campaign (ACP) — Annual October push providing safety training/resources for clean energy workers; positions the industry as responsible and job-creating.

Company and Coalition Campaigns

• Tesla's Sustainable Energy Mission & Master Plan Part 3 — Ongoing public campaign via impact reports, Master Plan documents, and product launches. Shows how EVs + solar + storage can enable a fully sustainable global energy economy (technically feasible, lower material needs than status quo). Public impact stats (e.g., customers avoided ~32 million metric tons CO₂e in 2024) shared widely; leverages Elon Musk's communications and events for massive reach.
• NextEra Energy / Florida Power & Light — "Take Charge" and similar conservation awareness campaigns (community projects + daily green lifestyle tips). Also funds Renewable Energy Training (RET) programs in schools/communities with hands-on STEM demos on clean power careers.
• RE100 (Business-Led Coalition) — Over 400 major companies (including many green-tech firms) publicly commit to 100% renewable electricity by 2050. Uses collective advocacy and disclosure to signal massive corporate demand for clean power.
• Fossil to Clean (We Mean Business Coalition) — Global business movement urging shift from fossil fuels to clean solutions; runs media toolkits, policy pushes, and campaigns covered in billions of impressions.

These efforts are sophisticated: they combine lobbying, economic data, consumer-facing messaging ("cheaper bills," "American jobs," "reliable power"), and grassroots mobilization to grow the market. The industry recognizes that public support translates directly into policy wins and revenue growth.

----

We are being influenced by this huge industry and so many people don't even know it. But it is there, and the money is massive. They need to buy politicians to keep the cash flowing.

Money buys politicians, and our politicians have too much power. If anyone thinks only one side is influenced by lobbyist money, they need a serious re-education.

 

[skyguyscott]

What I know is that scientists for decades have been figuratively shouting, and sounding the alarm about climate change and the need to limit greenhouse gas emissions.

Among uncounted news articles about how Big Oil launched an unprecedented PR blitz, Frontline reported that Exxon ignored it's own research as far back as 1977 and rather than lead the change needed, they instead purposefully decided to mount a campaign modeled after the tobacco industry's tactics on the smoking-causes-lung cancer crisis to deny the science, delay any remedial action and sow doubt in the public square, and defend their business model -- long before there ever was anything that might be called "the Green Industry" The oil industry has been wildly successful with their efforts in the United States, less so around the rest of the world.

Indeed, it seems the rest of the world is moving faster than the US in transitioning to EVs and away from Fossil Fuels.

It is because I understood the chemistry of greenhouse gasses, and how quickly the planet is warming that I wanted to buy an EV when it was time to replace my ICE vehicle, I knew I could not, in good conscience, purchase another ICE if I could afford otherwise.

While the free market is a powerful force, it has no incentive, nor responsibility, nor the levers necessary to effect the scale of change needed in time to avert profound consequences. Once the antarctic glaciers that have been frozen for millennia melt there is no turning back in my or my great grandchildren's lifetimes. Collapse of sea life and the food it provides, changes in ocean currents and wind patterns will last for centuries. How is any of this the role of markets to prevent or correct?

We live in interesting times where we actually have the power to save or destroy life on a planetary scale, by force or neglect. Yet we are at the same time unable to agree on what is true, or collectively marshal our efforts. While some are oblivious, some are in denial, most know the city is ablaze somewhere, but we're arguing about which fire to fight first and how and who gets to be fire chief, who deserves rescue, who gets credit, and who is going to pay for it. (Meanwhile, the guys who sell the gasoline that started the fires deny any culpability, keep selling the gas, and have bought the Mayor and run city council)

 

[mkhuffman]

What I know is that scientists for decades have been figuratively shouting, and sounding the alarm about climate change and the need to limit greenhouse gas emissions.

Among uncounted news articles about how Big Oil launched an unprecedented PR blitz, Frontline reported that Exxon ignored it's own research as far back as 1977 and rather than lead the change needed, they instead purposefully decided to mount a campaign modeled after the tobacco industry's tactics on the smoking-causes-lung cancer crisis to deny the science, delay any remedial action and sow doubt in the public square, and defend their business model -- long before there ever was anything that might be called "the Green Industry" The oil industry has been wildly successful with their efforts in the United States, less so around the rest of the world.

Indeed, it seems the rest of the world is moving faster than the US in transitioning to EVs and away from Fossil Fuels.

It is because I understood the chemistry of greenhouse gasses, and how quickly the planet is warming that I wanted to buy an EV when it was time to replace my ICE vehicle, I knew I could not, in good conscience, purchase another ICE if I could afford otherwise.

While the free market is a powerful force, it has no incentive, nor responsibility, nor the levers necessary to effect the scale of change needed in time to avert profound consequences. Once the antarctic glaciers that have been frozen for millennia melt there is no turning back in my or my great grandchildren's lifetimes. Collapse of sea life and the food it provides, changes in ocean currents and wind patterns will last for centuries. How is any of this the role of markets to prevent or correct?

We live in interesting times where we actually have the power to save or destroy life on a planetary scale, by force or neglect. Yet we are at the same time unable to agree on what is true, or collectively marshal our efforts. While some are oblivious, some are in denial, most know the city is ablaze somewhere, but we're arguing about which fire to fight first and how and who gets to be fire chief, who deserves rescue, who gets credit, and who is going to pay for it. (Meanwhile, the guys who sell the gasoline that started the fires deny any culpability, keep selling the gas, and have bought the Mayor and run city council)

Per my favorite AI bot:

----

• The broader Pleistocene Ice Age (or Quaternary glaciation) began about 2.58 million years ago and featured many glacial (cold) and interglacial (warm) cycles.
• The Last Glacial Period specifically ran from around 115,000 years ago to about 11,700 years ago.
• The peak of cold conditions during this period was the Last Glacial Maximum (LGM), when ice sheets reached their greatest extent, roughly between 26,000 and 19,000–20,000 years ago.
• After the LGM, warming began gradually, with major deglaciation (melting of ice sheets) occurring over thousands of years.
• A brief final cold snap called the Younger Dryas (around 12,800 to 11,700 years ago) delayed full warming, but its end around 11,700 years ago is the official boundary for the start of the Holocene (and the end of the last glacial period).

This timing is based on evidence from ice cores (e.g., Greenland and Antarctica), sediment records, sea-level changes, and other paleoclimate data. The International Commission on Stratigraphy defines the Holocene's onset at approximately 11,700 years before 2000 CE (or about 9700 BCE).

Note that Earth is technically still in a larger "ice age" era (with permanent ice caps in Greenland and Antarctica), but the intense glacial phase most people mean by "the last ice age" ended with the Holocene's start. We're currently in a warm interglacial period within that longer cycle.

Timeline of the Little Ice Age

• Start: Estimates vary, but it generally began between around 1300 and 1400 CE (some sources pinpoint an abrupt onset around 1275–1300 due to volcanic activity and other factors). It followed the warmer Medieval Warm Period.
• Duration: Roughly 400–600 years, with the most intense cold phases in the 17th century.
• Key cold intervals:
  • Early phase: Around 1300–1400.
  • Peak cold: Mid-1600s to early 1700s (including the Maunder Minimum, a period of extremely low solar activity from ~1645–1715, which coincided with some of the coldest years).
  • Later phase: Around 1770 and into the 1800s.
• End: Most sources place the end in the latter half of the 19th century (around 1850–1860), with some extending it into the early 20th century. This marks the transition to the modern warming trend that began in the mid-to-late 1800s.

Northern Hemisphere temperatures during the LIA were about 0.6°C (1.1°F) cooler on average compared to long-term baselines, though some regions saw drops of 1–2°C (1.8–3.6°F) during peak episodes. It was characterized by:

• Expanded mountain glaciers (e.g., in the Alps, Alaska, New Zealand, and the Andes).
• More frequent freezing of rivers and canals (e.g., the Thames River in London hosted "frost fairs").
• Crop failures, famines, and societal disruptions in Europe and North America.
• Advances in sea ice and harsher winters.

The Maunder Minimum (low sunspot activity) contributed to the coldest stretch but wasn't the sole cause—volcanic eruptions (which injected cooling aerosols into the atmosphere) and natural climate variability played larger roles.

 

[savethemanual]

@mkhuffman

Can you use your own words, what are you trying to say with these AI queries?

There is no doubt the planet has gone through many natural cycles of change well before us Humans have been around (which is a blip on the timeline). The very smart people that study this type of thing for a living because they're passionate about climate and science have overwhelmingly stated, the rate of change is happening at a level not seen before....and it's because of Anthropogenic activity.

 

[Ralph]

@mkhuffman

Can you use your own words, what are you trying to say with these AI queries?

There is no doubt the planet has gone through many natural cycles of change well before us Humans have been around (which is a blip on the timeline). The very smart people that study this type of thing for a living because they're passionate about climate and science have stated, the rate of change is happening a level not seen before....and it's because of Anthropogenic activity.

It is interesting that the data used to refute there is problem, as regurgitated by the bot above, was studied and compiled by the very same scientists that some refuse to believe when those scientist state that there is indeed a progressively serious problem.

 

[mkhuffman]

@mkhuffman

Can you use your own words, what are you trying to say with these AI queries?

There is no doubt the planet has gone through many natural cycles of change well before us Humans have been around (which is a blip on the timeline). The very smart people that study this type of thing for a living because they're passionate about climate and science have overwhelmingly stated, the rate of change is happening at a level not seen before....and it's because of Anthropogenic activity.

I am trying to keep from getting political, so using AI helps. And certainly summarizing all that information about how the climate has changed over thousands of years is not something I want to manually do.

In my own words: the climate has been changing since the earth was formed. It will continue to change, just as it always has.

In addition, global cooling is MUCH worse than global warming. Much. You cannot grow crops on a glacier. So, if we are helping the planet exit the last ice age, that works for me. If we get another mini-ice age, we are in huge trouble.

On a side note, "passion" is not a trait I want to see in a scientist. I want to see facts, not passion. I do not trust passionate scientists, because their bias is too high.

And you know there is bias in science, and definitely there is bias in global warming science. On both sides, I know. Hopefully you can agree with that.

Once you recognize there is bias, then you don't just accept everything you are told. I don't. And if we have learned anything since the COVID shutdowns, scientists lie and scientists are often wrong. And definitely the news media lies.

 

[impulsoren]

“In my own words: the climate has been changing since the earth was formed. It will continue to change, just as it always has”

That is true, and I have heard that statement made before as if it were the definitive description of our current situation. However, as has been pointed out a couple times already, the problem is the current unprecedented rate of climate change.

 

[savethemanual]

I am trying to keep from getting political, so using AI helps. And certainly summarizing all that information about how the climate has changed over thousands of years is not something I want to manually do.

In my own words: the climate has been changing since the earth was formed. It will continue to change, just as it always has.

In addition, global cooling is MUCH worse than global warming. Much. You cannot grow crops on a glacier. So, if we are helping the planet exit the last ice age, that works for me. If we get another mini-ice age, we are in huge trouble.

On a side note, "passion" is not a trait I want to see in a scientist. I want to see facts, not passion. I do not trust passionate scientists, because their bias is too high.

And you know there is bias in science, and definitely there is bias in global warming science. On both sides, I know. Hopefully you can agree with that.

Once you recognize there is bias, then you don't just accept everything you are told. I don't. And if we have learned anything since the COVID shutdowns, scientists lie and scientists are often wrong. And definitely the news media lies.

Thanks for your response putting your perspective of this topic out there.

As I stated earlier, absolutely Earth's climate has been changing since the beginning. The issue is how FAST it's changing because of Humans and the exploitation of fossil fuels and mass consumption/growth.

Of course I don't believe everything I'm told and yes, I agree, there is always going to be bias out there....especially because of $. But your comment that Scientists who are passionate about what they do should not trusted is just silly to me. There are always going to be outliers, but I will 100 percent take the word of a professional who is passionate about what they pursue in life as a career and put in the work, a PASSIONATE Scientist will adhere to the scientific method of objective observation of data/facts.
To use your approach of regurgitating AI queries....here is one.

Yes, there is an overwhelming scientific consensus (over 97-99.9%) that climate change is happening and primarily caused by human activities, a conclusion supported by major scientific bodies worldwide, with detailed evidence coming from extensive peer-reviewed studies and observations. While scientists debate specifics like the precise pace or regional effects, the core finding that human-emitted greenhouse gases are warming the planet is firmly established.

 

[Dave Cundiff]

Dave, you are one of the people who makes this forum great. So glad you are here!

I am a lazy man, and why do the hard work of researching to answer your great questions when I have Grok to do it for me?

---

The renewable energy and clean tech sector (the core of the "green economy") maintains a robust network of industry-specific trade associations and corporate-backed groups that lobby aggressively on behalf of companies generating the bulk of that ~$7.9 trillion in annual revenue. These groups focus on tax credits (e.g., from the Inflation Reduction Act), permitting reform, grid infrastructure, domestic manufacturing incentives, and protection against policy rollbacks—distinct from the environmental NGOs I mentioned previously, which often align with them but prioritize broader conservation.

[details redacted]

These efforts are sophisticated: they combine lobbying, economic data, consumer-facing messaging ("cheaper bills," "American jobs," "reliable power"), and grassroots mobilization to grow the market. The industry recognizes that public support translates directly into policy wins and revenue growth.

----

We are being influenced by this huge industry and so many people don't even know it. But it is there, and the money is massive. They need to buy politicians to keep the cash flowing.

Money buys politicians, and our politicians have too much power. If anyone thinks only one side is influenced by lobbyist money, they need a serious re-education.

First, Mike, thanks for the kind words. Back at you, man!

Also, thanks for clearly labeling which words are AI-suggested and which words are fully your own work.

***

Second, you seem to be conflating "lobbying" with "industry-funded research."

Citizen lobbying is essential to democracy -- have you seen how many bills are considered in your state's legislature every session?

Citizen lobbying focuses on the public interest, at least as the citizen perceives it. Corporate lobbying has a profit objective and can distort the public interest severely.

Both forms of lobbying are different from industry-funded "research," which is generally used to corrupt the scientific dialogue about something where an industry feels knowledge of the full truth would reduce its profits. Climate is far from the only example. The cigarette industry's "research" agenda was even more crass, and possibly even more lethal. The alcohol industry and much of the food industry has also been guilty of misusing research to thwart the public interest. Prior examples, now much weakened, included the lead industry and the asbestos industry. Every research-based public health hero that I know of has faced industry misuse of "research" to cast doubt on their work and often to defame their character.

***

Whatever research tool you choose to use, consider asking about the magnitude, reach, and influence of "green industry" lobbying as compared to fossil-fuel lobbying. That should tell us a lot.

Very best wishes!

 

[schwartz83]

I am trying to keep from getting political, so using AI helps. And certainly summarizing all that information about how the climate has changed over thousands of years is not something I want to manually do.

In my own words: the climate has been changing since the earth was formed. It will continue to change, just as it always has.

In addition, global cooling is MUCH worse than global warming. Much. You cannot grow crops on a glacier. So, if we are helping the planet exit the last ice age, that works for me. If we get another mini-ice age, we are in huge trouble.

On a side note, "passion" is not a trait I want to see in a scientist. I want to see facts, not passion. I do not trust passionate scientists, because their bias is too high.

And you know there is bias in science, and definitely there is bias in global warming science. On both sides, I know. Hopefully you can agree with that.

Once you recognize there is bias, then you don't just accept everything you are told. I don't. And if we have learned anything since the COVID shutdowns, scientists lie and scientists are often wrong. And definitely the news media lies.

My understanding is that the issue isn't necessarily that climate is changing - as it doubtless has changed in the past. Rather, it's the speed at which it is changing. Which means we, other life, and systems aren't able to adapt. Also, while climate change has happened in the past, this time around we know about it and have some ability to mitigate it reducing the impact. This is no more than my garage logic and I have no studies to link to.

 

[Dave Cundiff]

BTW, @mkhuffman, in response to your comment that, "Money buys politicians, and our politicians have too much power."

I agree 100% that the USA makes it too easy to translate economic power into political power (which can then be used to generate more economic power, creating a malignant spiral where too few have too much power over too many).

Politicians may have too much power, or they may have too little. I think a more important question is, "how to serve the public interest?"

Power must be aggregated SOMEWHERE for purposes such as winning wars, safeguarding children, or protecting the global climate. Efficient and non-monopolized markets, operating within recognized standards (which can be voluntary), are often the best way to assure that power is exercised responsibly. You are probably aware, though of the many ways in which "real-world" markets can't or don't function as libertarians envision.

And, as the author of the Christian book of I Timothy wrote, "The love of money is a root of all kinds of evil...." (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1 Timothy 6:10&version=NRSVUE)....

Very best wishes!

Sponsored