The reason I didn’t reply is that I didn’t see this comment. As for not seeking a consensus but rather embracing an authoritarian approach, well that’s self-evidently bollocks. I’m reporting the scientific consensus (see eg. WAIS instability, above).

We’ve reached that point. The vast majority of (non rightwing nutter) folk agree that too much carbon is damaging for the environment.

I didn’t see your question – which you could easily have answered yourself by, you know, Googling it. But since this is apparently beyond you, then I will tell you. The West and East Antarctic ice sheets are on land. Both have outflow glaciers which are partially impeded at their snouts by floating ice shelves.

There is something very special about the WAIS though, which you need to research in order to understand why it is so unstable: although it is resting on rock, it is properly called a marine ice sheet because the land it is sitting on is below sea level. Worse still from the point of view of potential ice sheet instability, the rock beneath the WAIS slopes downward the further inland you go (because the land is depressed by the weight of the ice sheet itself. This ‘retrograde grounding slope’ is inherently vulnerable to water intrusion beneath the ice sheet and means that once a combination of warming subsurface waters and sea level rise start to float the leading edges of the outflow glaciers, they will drain with rapidly increasing speed, potentially leading to a full or partial collapse of the entire ice sheet and multimeter sea level rise.

In other words, he is part and parcel of police power and the
power of the state. All the hallmark of leftwing radicals and
their ways in finding solutions.

He like so many of this site are cut and paste experts, who consider
quotation marks an inconvenience truth.

No one has answered my question, of how much of
the ice shelve on the south pole is on land and water?

Where are all the AGW geniuses? Where is K9dean?

Idiocy.

Just as the fruitcakes whom propagated the red scare of Peak Oil,
the same is happening with roof ex-changers and bird shredders.

Peak green energy is here.

Carbon good, without it you die.

Ok, I think I AM pushing a political agenda. It is an agenda to build and deploy all the RE we need and do it as fast as possible – fast enough to avoid a 3C increase of average temperature.

I go to places like cleantechnica, DeSmog blog; Electrek, Dave Roberts, Climate Denial Crock of the Week, Climate Progress, And then there’s Physics, and a whole lot more.

I have been doing this for the past ten years. I have yet to see more than one article calling for a national RE mandate or a national RE utility system. I have seen hundreds of articles about the patriotic freedom of rooftop solar, the evils of the grid, the evils of monopolies. Hundreds of articles and thousands of comments which do not concern themselves with the role of government to fix this existential problem, but instead always frame the issue as one best solved by market solutions.

Can you imagine if Dwight Eisenhower had the same position on how best to finance the Interstate Highway system? We would have driveway pavers responsible for paving a hundred feet of interstate at a time. :>D

I see at least 90% of the commentariat even at the above environmental websites arguing for the end of RE subsidies on general principle; for the end of RE subsidies along with an end of FF subsidies as if that will “level the playing field”; for the end of BEV subsidies for cars that cost more than some arbitrary figure.

I see enormous support for a carbon tax, whatever that means and I can tell you it means many different things, even though in the U.S., the Republicans have made it crystal clear that they will only pass a carbon tax bill if that bill ends all RE subsidies immediately.

I can see how you might think I am a troll spreading FUD. I have some views contrary to to the status quo. It’s just that I have been thinking and reading about AGW and the tech needed to fight it for a long time. And I am not a huge fan of the privatization of our publicly-owned electrical sector, not a huge fan of rooftop solar as public policy (in exactly the same way I would not be a huge fan of people drilling their own water wells instead of supporting their already-existing city water system. Or people who want school vouchers for their kids but don’t like spending money on public education.), and I have huge (and I believe well-founded) reservations about the wisdom of a ‘carbon tax’ as opposed to sticking to, and hopefully expanding, targeted RE subsidies.

I believe AGW is the most formidable danger and challenge humanity has ever faced. I believe we can solve it with RE technology. And I believe that we can solve it egalitarianly and at low cost as a commons project. But we have to do it fast enough. And we have wasted about 25 years arguing with charlatans and scoundrels over facts instead of getting our government to do its job.

Well, if you only go to where the rooftop marketers are, that probably is the only message that gets discussed. That is like a framing statement, and it is not backed up with any facts to support it. I had asked earlier who or what you represent, because your message is filled with a lot of ideas that seem to be meant to create uncertainty and doubt, just like a FUD propagandist. It really feels like you are pushing a political agenda. Just curious as to what that is, and who funds/supports/or inspires you to do so.

Poleward not homeward.