100 ft high? Honestly doesn’t sound safe and in today’s world it could be a challenge to find an engineer to sign off on it, insurance company willing to ensure it, money to pay trades to build it….We live in a very different world than 100 years ago.
1. If the ice castles of old were “very anglophonic” and the modern world is much more diverse, how much has recent anti-White sentiment had an effect on the scale of construction of these ephemeral structures?
2. WHY were they constructed 100 years ago, and at what cost? How does that compare to present day costs of construction given inflation versus ROI?
3. Is it not reasonable to assume that people 150, 100, or even 50 years ago were not hyper focused on labeling all things in terms of climate change? Were they not more likely to just consider it to be weather related, transitory in nature, or even cyclical?
4. What effect of spreading across every corner of the globe (and growing from ~1 billion people to the current ~8+ billion) had not just on the spatial but also temporal records of our climate?
Northern Hemisphere winters from 100 years ago were long and harsh. Events like seeing massive ice palaces helped to break up the boredom and monotony of cold winter nights that lacked radio, TV, gaming consoles, mobile phones, and the internet. Those distractions today compete with the more mundane appreciation of a castle built entirely from ice. I also don’t think enough consideration is given to the loss of the giant unbroken stands of white pine and American chestnut forests that modulate local and regional climatic conditions—everything from evaporative transpiration to rainfall to drought and temperatures alike. Have we mucked with the climate? Sure, but a more temperate climate has been, on the whole, much more beneficial than detrimental to the planet. Most negative effects can be traced to two things that have nothing to do with carbon emissions: the introduction of invasive species, whether intentional or not, and the loss of habitat. And nothing about going net zero has anything to do with addressing those two things, so I would posit that we should still appreciate our past but recognize that it’s not going to return, no matter how much we hold out hope for it to do so.
Thanks for the shout out, Lloyd.
100 ft high? Honestly doesn’t sound safe and in today’s world it could be a challenge to find an engineer to sign off on it, insurance company willing to ensure it, money to pay trades to build it….We live in a very different world than 100 years ago.
Few things I’m curious about:
1. If the ice castles of old were “very anglophonic” and the modern world is much more diverse, how much has recent anti-White sentiment had an effect on the scale of construction of these ephemeral structures?
2. WHY were they constructed 100 years ago, and at what cost? How does that compare to present day costs of construction given inflation versus ROI?
3. Is it not reasonable to assume that people 150, 100, or even 50 years ago were not hyper focused on labeling all things in terms of climate change? Were they not more likely to just consider it to be weather related, transitory in nature, or even cyclical?
4. What effect of spreading across every corner of the globe (and growing from ~1 billion people to the current ~8+ billion) had not just on the spatial but also temporal records of our climate?
Northern Hemisphere winters from 100 years ago were long and harsh. Events like seeing massive ice palaces helped to break up the boredom and monotony of cold winter nights that lacked radio, TV, gaming consoles, mobile phones, and the internet. Those distractions today compete with the more mundane appreciation of a castle built entirely from ice. I also don’t think enough consideration is given to the loss of the giant unbroken stands of white pine and American chestnut forests that modulate local and regional climatic conditions—everything from evaporative transpiration to rainfall to drought and temperatures alike. Have we mucked with the climate? Sure, but a more temperate climate has been, on the whole, much more beneficial than detrimental to the planet. Most negative effects can be traced to two things that have nothing to do with carbon emissions: the introduction of invasive species, whether intentional or not, and the loss of habitat. And nothing about going net zero has anything to do with addressing those two things, so I would posit that we should still appreciate our past but recognize that it’s not going to return, no matter how much we hold out hope for it to do so.