- Joined
- Jan 28, 2013
- Messages
- 94,823
- Reaction score
- 28,342
- Location
- Williamsburg, Virginia
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
Not really a surprise that AGW activists' solutions will make things worse. Talleyrand once advised: "Above all, not too much zeal." We could use some of that restraint.
Is much of our effort to combat global warming actually making things worse?
Posted on May 23, 2016 | 16 comments
by Judith Curry
Humanity is owed a serious investigation of how we have gone so far with the decarbonization project without a serious challenge in terms of engineering reality. – Michael Kelly
Continue reading →
Humanity is owed a serious investigation of how we have gone so far with the decarbonization project without a serious challenge in terms of engineering reality. – Michael Kelly
Michael Kelly has published an important new paper in MRS Energy & Sustainability: A Review Journal [link to abstract]:
Lessons from technology development for energy and sustainability
There are lessons from recent history of technology introductions which should not be forgotten when considering alternative energy technologies for carbon dioxide emission reductions. The growth of the ecological footprint of a human population about to increase from 7B now to 9B in 2050 raises serious concerns about how to live both more efficiently and with less permanent impacts on the finite world. One present focus is the future of our climate, where the level of concern has prompted actions across the world in mitigation of the emissions of CO2. An examination of successful and failed introductions of technology over the last 200 years generates several lessons that should be kept in mind as we proceed to 80% decarbonize the world economy by 2050. I will argue that all the actions taken together until now to reduce our emissions of carbon dioxide will not achieve a serious reduction, and in some cases, they will actually make matters worse. In practice, the scale and the different specific engineering challenges of the decarbonization project are without precedent in human history. This means that any new technology introductions need to be able to meet the huge implied capabilities. An altogether more sophisticated public debate is urgently needed on appropriate actions that (i) considers the full range of threats to humanity, and (ii) weighs more carefully both the upsides and downsides of taking any action, and of not taking that action. . . .
Well, why am I not surprised! See, just like pointing out racism makes racism worse, and helping the poor makes poor people even poorer, doing something about AGW makes AGW worse!
I guess we should keep our kids out of school then, because following the same pattern as above, more education must make us have less education!
Well, why am I not surprised! See, just like pointing out racism makes racism worse, and helping the poor makes poor people even poorer, doing something about AGW makes AGW worse!
I guess we should keep our kids out of school then, because following the same pattern as above, more education must make us have less education!
Try reading the link first.
Did you read it? Because you mostly just seem to be an RSS feed for JC and Watts
Apart from that, AGW is an imagined problem anyway, because the small amount of warming since 1850 has brought the temperature of the northern hemisphere back to what it was before the LIA.The link and thread titles suggest that current efforts to reduce AGW are, present tense, making things worse. Surprising because there aren't any current efforts to speak of. The article, however, is just another prediction.
Apart from that, AGW is an imagined problem anyway, because the small amount of warming since 1850 has brought the temperature of the northern hemisphere back to what it was before the LIA.
When you find out, let me know, but never forget that the cash cow may be involved.Suggesting global temperatures then are known and that arctic ice was increased during the little ice age and what is happening now is only a return to former levels. If it's that simple why is the science "imagining" something else?
When you find out, let me know, but never forget that the cash cow may be involved.
There is no finical incentive for the oil companies to hold a position on AGW!It's your theory, not mine. The cash cow can't compete with the cash herd on the other side of the fence.
There is no finical incentive for the oil companies to hold a position on AGW!
When you look at it, calling them oil companies is not even accurate, they do not sell oil,
but use it as a feedstock for their manufacturing of energy and other related products.
Whatever taxes are imposed on products from organic oil, will simply be passed on the consumer,
who has little choice about their purchase.
The Government has a very large incentive for AGW to be both true and catastrophic,
as it is a vehicle for increasing taxes and regulations.
Kindly explain how their bottom line would be effected?Excellent argument, the first part, second part is nonsense. Kindly explain it to the Koch brothers and the many fossil fuel interests that were all over the Paris climate summit in efforts to limit the future damage, so they believed, to their bottom lines.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?