The reliability of the climate change consensus and where to go from there

[Masterhawk]

This is part 2 of climate change denial PRATTS. I had to split it into two parts because of the 5,000 character limit.

Ok, so maybe the world is getting warmer, what harm is there in a little heat?

Our ecosystems are very delicate. A change in temperature change by just a few degrees can have drastic consequences. It can reduce our crop yields and lead to more heatwaves. Rising sea levels will cause trouble for those living close to sea level. Climate change has also been linked to more severe storms and droughts.
The Effects of Climate Change (Effects | Facts – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet).

C’mon, we can’t make a decision until we get more data.

How much more data do we need? The overwhelming majority of climate scientists agree that the earth is warming due to manmade emissions.
Isn't there a lot of disagreement among climate scientists about global warming? (Isn't there a lot of disagreement among climate scientists about global warming? | NOAA Climate.gov)

That couldn’t have anything to do with them getting research grants could it? They have an incentive to say that the world is getting warmer to keep their jobs.

The problem with your assessment is that it’s actually pretty difficult to maintain conspiracies. You see, a secret is like a chain, the weakest link breaks and the whole thing goes down with it. Anthropogenic global warming is accepted by many reputable organizations such as NASA, the EU, the UN, the IPCC and many more. Denialism tends to thrive in the US, Canada, and Australia. European politicians (aside from right wing populist ones) don’t seem to have an issue with accepting the consensus.

Keeping America less competitive with China?

Even China is stepping in. And they’re doing so by a greater extent than the US.
The East Is Green: China’s Global Leadership in Renewable Energy (The East Is Green: China’s Global Leadership in Renewable Energy | Center for Strategic and International Studies)
Renewable energy in China - Wikipedia (Renewable energy in China - Wikipedia)

But Climategate proved there was fraud.

Climategate was a manufactroversy. For those who don’t know, in November 2009, someone hacked into the servers of the climate research unit of the Unviersity of Angela, copied thousands of documents, and leaked 95% of them to the public. Some parts appeared to be suspicious but were either quote mined or just taken out of context.
Potholer54 has two videos on this subject. If there really was a conspiracy, the conservative media should have probably been able to find more damning evidence such as them admitting that they’re only doing this for the research grants or them disclosing their source of revenue.


In 2011, the remaining documents were leaked with similar effect


In wake of the controversy, several major organizations did an investigation and found no foul play.
Climatic Research Unit email controversy - Wikipedia

But climate change solutions would have a detrimental effect on the poor

First of all, climate change will have a disproportionately negative effect on the poor so your point is kinda moot. Secondly, this is why the Kyoto protocol and Paris agreement was more lenient towards less developed nations, and conservatives criticized this aspect.

Please tell me that you don’t support the green new deal, that’s socialist

I never said I did. You don’t need a bunch of new government programs to solve this issue. It can easily be solved by a carbon tax. By putting a price on carbon dioxide, it discourages companies and people from polluting. The great thing about this solution is that it’s flexible (you can easily raise it if it turns out that we need to be reducing emissions at a quicker pace and lower it if it’s doing too much damage to the economy) and it doesn’t require additional spending. Ideally, the revenue from the tax would go towards research and development of alternative energies. By the way, I’m not against nuclear power. I happen to think that nuclear power is a misunderstood energy source. The real problem is that constructing these plants is very expensive.

 

[Batcat]

One thing that might help convince the doubters is if the global warming advocates stopped making predictions that simply don’t come true.

For example 20 years from now when we are all still here and there still are blizzards in Ohio people will remember AOC’s prediction that we only had 12 years to save the planet.

It would also help if China and India were forced to reduce their pollution. We can reduce our level to zero and the level of CO2 in the atmosphere will still be increasing. Of course there is little chance if that ever happening. China would engineer and “accidentally” release another virus before they would curb their use of fossil fuel.

What will curb global warming is the development of fusion power plants.

Fusion Energy Is Coming, and Maybe Sooner Than You Think
Fusion Energy Is Coming, and Maybe Sooner Than You Think

 

[Jack Hays]

This is part 2 of climate change denial PRATTS. I had to split it into two parts because of the 5,000 character limit. . . .

So many words, to so little avail.

[h=2]How Climate Change Pseudoscience Became Publicly Accepted[/h]

 

[Masterhawk]

One thing that might help convince the doubters is if the global warming advocates stopped making predictions that simply don’t come true.

For example 20 years from now when we are all still here and there still are blizzards in Ohio people will remember AOC’s prediction that we only had 12 years to save the planet.

It would also help if China and India were forced to reduce their pollution. We can reduce our level to zero and the level of CO2 in the atmosphere will still be increasing. Of course there is little chance if that ever happening. China would engineer and “accidentally” release another virus before they would curb their use of fossil fuel.

What will curb global warming is the development of fusion power plants.

Fusion Energy Is Coming, and Maybe Sooner Than You Think
Fusion Energy Is Coming, and Maybe Sooner Than You Think

What you're probably thinking of is models from the 80s when scientists thought that the climate was more sensitive.

Also, AOC is not a scientist, what she's referring to is the amount of time before the earth becomes 1.5 degrees warmer (which the Paris accords were to prevent). People like you complain that climate solutions would have a detrimental effect on developing countries, yet here you are complaining that China and India aren't contributing their fair share. I don't know about India but China has been making progress on clean energy (like I said in the OP). Nuclear fusion has the potential to be a really good power source. The problem is that it won't come soon enough to meet our climate goals.

 

[Masterhawk]

So many words, to so little avail.

[h=2]How Climate Change Pseudoscience Became Publicly Accepted[/h]

Again with the blogpost.

 

[Jack Hays]

What you're probably thinking of is models from the 80s when scientists thought that the climate was more sensitive.

Also, AOC is not a scientist, what she's referring to is the amount of time before the earth becomes 1.5 degrees warmer (which the Paris accords were to prevent). People like you complain that climate solutions would have a detrimental effect on developing countries, yet here you are complaining that China and India aren't contributing their fair share. I don't know about India but China has been making progress on clean energy (like I said in the OP). Nuclear fusion has the potential to be a really good power source. The problem is that it won't come soon enough to meet our climate goals.

[h=3]China coal mine approvals surge despite climate pledges[/h][FONT=&quot]SHANGHAI/BEIJING (Reuters) - Approvals for new coal mine construction in China have surged in 2019, government documents ... Long-term cuts in coal consumption are a key part of China’s energy, environment and climate[/FONT]

 

[Jack Hays]

What you're probably thinking of is models from the 80s when scientists thought that the climate was more sensitive.

Also, AOC is not a scientist, what she's referring to is the amount of time before the earth becomes 1.5 degrees warmer (which the Paris accords were to prevent). People like you complain that climate solutions would have a detrimental effect on developing countries, yet here you are complaining that China and India aren't contributing their fair share. I don't know about India but China has been making progress on clean energy (like I said in the OP). Nuclear fusion has the potential to be a really good power source. The problem is that it won't come soon enough to meet our climate goals.

[h=3]Sorry Greta, India needs more coal to power growth[/h][FONT=&quot]created the oil and coal industries. ... She will be appalled by the plea of India’s coal secretary, Subhash ... From The Times of India ... October 13, 2019, 2:00 am IST SA Aiyar in Swaminomics | India | TOI[/FONT]

 

[Jack Hays]

Again with the blogpost.

The author of the blog post, btw, is the Chairman of the Racah Center for Physics at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and an Einstein IBM Fellow at the Institute for Advanced Study.

This thread may interest you.

►The Test and Failure of the AGW Paradigm

 

[longview]

What you're probably thinking of is models from the 80s when scientists thought that the climate was more sensitive.

Also, AOC is not a scientist, what she's referring to is the amount of time before the earth becomes 1.5 degrees warmer (which the Paris accords were to prevent). People like you complain that climate solutions would have a detrimental effect on developing countries, yet here you are complaining that China and India aren't contributing their fair share. I don't know about India but China has been making progress on clean energy (like I said in the OP). Nuclear fusion has the potential to be a really good power source. The problem is that it won't come soon enough to meet our climate goals.

You say people are complaining about climate solutions, I want to know what you think the climate solution is?
Simply cutting emissions by making our energy use more efficient, will not get us where we need to go.
We, Humanity, has an energy problem, and oil based fuels, cannot solve it, but neither can conservation.
We simply do not have enough energy in the ground, to allow everyone alive, to live a first world lifestyle if they choose to.
Solar is a possible option, but the energy is too low density, and the duty cycle is poor.
Man made carbon neutral hydrocarbon fuels, would allows us to store and accumulate solar energy,
into the dense energy packages we currently get from oil.
The only delay, is that the fuels will not be economically viable, until oil hits about $90 a barrel.
We also need the government so address and solve the net metering problem it created.

 

[Batcat]

What you're probably thinking of is models from the 80s when scientists thought that the climate was more sensitive.

Also, AOC is not a scientist, what she's referring to is the amount of time before the earth becomes 1.5 degrees warmer (which the Paris accords were to prevent). People like you complain that climate solutions would have a detrimental effect on developing countries, yet here you are complaining that China and India aren't contributing their fair share. I don't know about India but China has been making progress on clean energy (like I said in the OP). Nuclear fusion has the potential to be a really good power source. The problem is that it won't come soon enough to meet our climate goals.

I personally feel if globally warming is as serious a problem as the global warming advocates suggest that nations like China and India should be required to stop their use of fossil fuel in a reasonable time frame. If they refuse or delay implementation any and all exports from those nations should be boycotted or banned. All imports of fossil fuel to those nations should be stopped.

The fact that this approach hasn’t even been discussed to my knowledge indicates to me that Global Warming is not as big a problem as suggested.

Global Warming experts tell me that civilization is doomed and the world as we know it will end unless we act now. Fine. Then it would make sense to actually make an honest effort to stop the major polluters.

 

[Masterhawk]

You say people are complaining about climate solutions, I want to know what you think the climate solution is?
Simply cutting emissions by making our energy use more efficient, will not get us where we need to go.
We, Humanity, has an energy problem, and oil based fuels, cannot solve it, but neither can conservation.
We simply do not have enough energy in the ground, to allow everyone alive, to live a first world lifestyle if they choose to.
Solar is a possible option, but the energy is too low density, and the duty cycle is poor.
Man made carbon neutral hydrocarbon fuels, would allows us to store and accumulate solar energy,
into the dense energy packages we currently get from oil.
The only delay, is that the fuels will not be economically viable, until oil hits about $90 a barrel.
We also need the government so address and solve the net metering problem it created.

Electric cars are increasing quickly. Although solar may be low density, it can literally be anywhere (except roadways).

 

[iguanaman]

One thing that might help convince the doubters is if the global warming advocates stopped making predictions that simply don’t come true.

For example 20 years from now when we are all still here and there still are blizzards in Ohio people will remember AOC’s prediction that we only had 12 years to save the planet.

It would also help if China and India were forced to reduce their pollution. We can reduce our level to zero and the level of CO2 in the atmosphere will still be increasing. Of course there is little chance if that ever happening. China would engineer and “accidentally” release another virus before they would curb their use of fossil fuel.

What will curb global warming is the development of fusion power plants.

Fusion Energy Is Coming, and Maybe Sooner Than You Think
Fusion Energy Is Coming, and Maybe Sooner Than You Think

You think that global warming means it won't get cold in winter? That is just not true. We produce far more CO2 per citizen than China. How do you think we should measure CO2 output? The best hope for a energy source from fusion is the ITER fusion reactor. It will have taken nearly 20 years to build when it is done in 2025. The cost is $50 billion + and no one really knows if it will work. Fusion only works at the temperature of the Sun and no material can tolerate those temperatures so the reaction must take place within a magnetic field. The huge circular structure below holds the coils that produce that field. It is not meant to be a working power plant and is only trying to prove that they can make a fusion reactor that makes more power than it consumes. Simply put... controlled fusion is a real bitch to do and finding some magic bullet to change that is doubtful. We will need every other alternate energy source if we are to wean ourselves from fossil fuels before we melt our ice caps and flood much of our land. You do know that that is the end game in this race...waterworld. We will all be long dead but do you want the people of the future to curse our selfishness and stupidity?

UPDATED: Panel backs ITER fusion project’s new schedule, but balks at cost | Science | AAAS

 

[longview]

Electric cars are increasing quickly. Although solar may be low density, it can literally be anywhere (except roadways).

The point is that for solar to be viable, it MUST have viable storage, (not conventional batteries).
The storage must be massive and capable of moving Fall and Spring surplus, to Winter and Summer demands.
Storing the surplus as hydrocarbons has the added advantage, of producing carbon neutral transport fuels.
Imagine a Boeing or Airbus jet, crossing the ocean, with zero net CO2 emissions?
Or the entire global fleet of ground vehicles having zero net CO2 emissions?
The impact of emissions would be far greater that waiting for everyone to get a electric car, and quicker as well.
Parts of Europe could do this today, by waving the excessive fuel tax on carbon neutral fuels.

 

[KLATTU]

Th

In wake of the controversy, several major organizations did an investigation and found no foul play.

Hey as long as they said they did a full hard-hitting investigation, I guess it's ok!

{Smirk}

 

[COTO]

First of all, climate change will have a disproportionately negative effect on the poor so your point is kinda moot. ...

You don’t need a bunch of new government programs to solve this issue. It can easily be solved by a carbon tax. By putting a price on carbon dioxide, it discourages companies and people from polluting.

By putting a price on carbon dioxide, companies and people are discouraged from producing carbon dioxide, not pollution. (The regrettable fact is that many proposals to reduce other forms of pollution, such as outfitting smokestacks in nickel plants with heavy metal scrubbers, have been scrapped in favour of technologies to reduce CO2 output specifically.)

What do companies and people do to produce carbon dioxide? Hundreds of things. Foods, fuels, plastics, electronics, chemicals, HVAC, travel, and all manner of consumer goods generate carbon dioxide when produced, consumed, or both.

How are companies and people "discouraged" from producing carbon dioxide through a program of taxation? By raising prices of foods, fuels, plastics, electronics, chemicals, HVAC, travel, and all manner of consumer goods until people can no longer afford to consume them.

Who suffers the most dramatic decline in quality of life as a result of price raising to starve consumers of their ability to consume? Obviously, the poor. The wealthy can afford to pay the carbon taxes and consume as much as they currently do. Poor people cannot. To make matters worse, the success of the carbon tax is inextricably linked to the degree to which the taxes can diminish the ability of the lower classes to consume anything.

Hence while "climate change will have a disproportionately negative effect on the poor", so too will your proposed solution, presuming it has any effectiveness whatsoever.

 

[Masterhawk]

By putting a price on carbon dioxide, companies and people are discouraged from producing carbon dioxide, not pollution. (The regrettable fact is that many proposals to reduce other forms of pollution, such as outfitting smokestacks in nickel plants with heavy metal scrubbers, have been scrapped in favour of technologies to reduce CO2 output specifically.)

What do companies and people do to produce carbon dioxide? Hundreds of things. Foods, fuels, plastics, electronics, chemicals, HVAC, travel, and all manner of consumer goods generate carbon dioxide when produced, consumed, or both.

How are companies and people "discouraged" from producing carbon dioxide through a program of taxation? By raising prices of foods, fuels, plastics, electronics, chemicals, HVAC, travel, and all manner of consumer goods until people can no longer afford to consume them.

Who suffers the most dramatic decline in quality of life as a result of price raising to starve consumers of their ability to consume? Obviously, the poor. The wealthy can afford to pay the carbon taxes and consume as much as they currently do. Poor people cannot. To make matters worse, the success of the carbon tax is inextricably linked to the degree to which the taxes can diminish the ability of the lower classes to consume anything.

Hence while "climate change will have a disproportionately negative effect on the poor", so too will your proposed solution, presuming it has any effectiveness whatsoever.

The carbon tax could be structured in a way to incentivize carbon capture

 

[Jack Hays]

Prominent Meteorologist Admits Climate Debate Is About ‘Justice’

[FONT=Muli !important]ALARMIST MESSENGERS/CLAIMS SEPTEMBER 3, 2020

[/FONT]Prominent climate activist and meteorologist Eric Holthaus has admitted that climate change activism is not about climate science, but really about “justice.” Holthaus’ admission is merely the latest in a long line of ‘scientists’ and others admitting that leftist political radicalism is the true goal of the asserted climate crisis.
With a Tweet, Holthaus joined a long line of climate alarmists on the left now fully admitting that the climate “crisis” or “emergency” is not about the science after all. . . .

 

[COTO]

The carbon tax could be structured in a way to incentivize carbon capture

If you're proposing a light tax that doesn't starve consumers of the ability to consume but instead subsidizes carbon capture, this is a different beast.

Having said this, I don't know how recently you've read the IPCC reports, but they have no use for carbon capture. They condemn it as a feeble half-measure at best, pseudoscience at worst. Before you take this to heart, however, I should point out that this has been their reaction to any proposal that aims to address climate change by means other than supranational regulation and drastic (I do not use this term lightly) reduction in global consumption.

Even for citizens who trust the AGW hypothesis is true and accurate, and who don't doubt the remarkable coincidence that the window to act has neither passed by nor is ahead but is upon us this very moment, I should hope the IPCC's reflexive hostility to any means of recourse not involving these two elements---supranational regulatory power, and centralized resource management for drastic reduction of global consumption---gives at least a few people pause for consideration.

 

[Lord of Planar]

One thing that might help convince the doubters is if the global warming advocates stopped making predictions that simply don’t come true.

For example 20 years from now when we are all still here and there still are blizzards in Ohio people will remember AOC’s prediction that we only had 12 years to save the planet.

It would also help if China and India were forced to reduce their pollution. We can reduce our level to zero and the level of CO2 in the atmosphere will still be increasing. Of course there is little chance if that ever happening. China would engineer and “accidentally” release another virus before they would curb their use of fossil fuel.

What will curb global warming is the development of fusion power plants.

Fusion Energy Is Coming, and Maybe Sooner Than You Think
Fusion Energy Is Coming, and Maybe Sooner Than You Think

Yep.

They have lost their credibility, because of their outrageous claims.

And I agree. What are we not looking at now in the world and politics because we are focused on Covid-19?

 

[Lord of Planar]

Electric cars are increasing quickly. Although solar may be low density, it can literally be anywhere (except roadways).

Yep.

Plug your car into an infrastructure that is mostly coal powered, instead of burning gasoline that burns clean....

 

[Lord of Planar]

The point is that for solar to be viable, it MUST have viable storage, (not conventional batteries).
The storage must be massive and capable of moving Fall and Spring surplus, to Winter and Summer demands.
Storing the surplus as hydrocarbons has the added advantage, of producing carbon neutral transport fuels.
Imagine a Boeing or Airbus jet, crossing the ocean, with zero net CO2 emissions?
Or the entire global fleet of ground vehicles having zero net CO2 emissions?
The impact of emissions would be far greater that waiting for everyone to get a electric car, and quicker as well.
Parts of Europe could do this today, by waving the excessive fuel tax on carbon neutral fuels.

Actually, I recently read that there are people working on a way to make lead-acid batteries more dense and last longer. I meant to post the link some days ago, but got cuaght up in other things and forgot.

Anyway, the idea is because they can be made cheaper, recycled easier, and don't use rare earth elements. We don't need the densest batteries for fixed energy storage. That's why I have been an advocate for using nickle-iron batteries.

 

[Lord of Planar]

By putting a price on carbon dioxide, companies and people are discouraged from producing carbon dioxide, not pollution. (The regrettable fact is that many proposals to reduce other forms of pollution, such as outfitting smokestacks in nickel plants with heavy metal scrubbers, have been scrapped in favour of technologies to reduce CO2 output specifically.)

What do companies and people do to produce carbon dioxide? Hundreds of things. Foods, fuels, plastics, electronics, chemicals, HVAC, travel, and all manner of consumer goods generate carbon dioxide when produced, consumed, or both.

How are companies and people "discouraged" from producing carbon dioxide through a program of taxation? By raising prices of foods, fuels, plastics, electronics, chemicals, HVAC, travel, and all manner of consumer goods until people can no longer afford to consume them.

Who suffers the most dramatic decline in quality of life as a result of price raising to starve consumers of their ability to consume? Obviously, the poor. The wealthy can afford to pay the carbon taxes and consume as much as they currently do. Poor people cannot. To make matters worse, the success of the carbon tax is inextricably linked to the degree to which the taxes can diminish the ability of the lower classes to consume anything.

Hence while "climate change will have a disproportionately negative effect on the poor", so too will your proposed solution, presuming it has any effectiveness whatsoever.

Yep.

We need to tax pollution. Not CO2.

 

[Lord of Planar]

The carbon tax could be structured in a way to incentivize carbon capture

Maybe put a tax on CO2 after we reach 600 ppm.

 

[Masterhawk]

Yep.

Plug your car into an infrastructure that is mostly coal powered, instead of burning gasoline that burns clean....

Wind and solar are on the rise

 

[Masterhawk]

Yep.

We need to tax pollution. Not CO2.

CO2 may not be a pollutant but it's warming the earth