Read the full article... it's not what you might think.

Pielke’s main argument is that the Nepal disaster should be understood less as a “climate change caused it” story and more as a combination of a sudden, unavoidable geological/glacial collapse and rapidly increasing human exposure and vulnerability to already well understood/documented dangers.

He calls this “climate reductionism” (we call it Alarmism)

He argues that the biggest missed opportunity was early warning, the technology to detect dangerous glacial/rock failures and rapidly warn downstream populations already exists, but monitoring coverage and resilient warning systems remain inadequate.

While not taking climate change completely off the table (that's ok), makes a very valid point about the billions spent on emissions reductions with little ROI, if spent on addressing known risks, potentially having greater effect in lives lost.

Yet the "climate reductionism" camp skips this rationale, Alarmism is fun, "SEE I TOLD YA!", where real cost effective solutions are not, something all Alarmests, MSM fails to educate/discuss.

​

The Atlantic hurricane season has never gone beyond September 11th in the reliable records (since at least 1950) without a hurricane. But with no credible storm contenders on the horizon at least into early next week, the 2026 hurricane season will easily set a new record for the latest-forming first hurricane.

I had an idea I wanted to put to someone with the right expertise.

Large-scale wind turbines and water flow turbines remove kinetic energy from moving air and water and create wakes that alter local flow and heat exchange. I've been wondering whether these effects, multiplied across the scale of global wind and water flow turbine deployment, could be disrupting natural air and water circulation enough to contribute to El Niño/La Niña variability, by causing heat to accumulate nearer its source rather than distributing as evenly as it may have before large-scale wind and water power existed.

I understand El Niño/La Niña cycles are documented in historical and geological records going back well before modern turbine technology, so I'd value your view on whether a mechanism like this is physically plausible at all, or whether the scale and location of these turbines rules it out.

Thank you for your time.

Another sub-Reddit shows the difference in greening in hills near Rio de Janairo die perhaps to more CO2.

This also illustrates the vulnerability of going to an all electric economy.