Climate Change
Yesterday brought us an executive order rolling back much of the (meager) progress we’ve made reducing the US’ reliance on carbon energy and the resulting impact on climate change.
The New York Times has a good editorial piece today on this and other moves this administration has made in its short tenure to protect the carbon energy industry.
I am of two minds on this. On one hand, I am pissed off, annoyed, irritated, upset, and dismayed that we have such a luddite in the White House that he can’t see what carbon energy has done, is doing, and will do to our planet. But on the other hand, I am well aware of the progress that wind and solar and other clean energy technologies have made in the last couple decades and I believe that market forces are on the side of our planet and against the carbon fuel industry and that these market forces are getting stronger every day.
Among other things, we will be doing our monthly match this weekend for a climate change focused non-profit and I hope you all will join us to raise money for climate change and stand up against these outrageous acts.
We are considering the following organizations:
Natural Resource Defense Counsel
Earth Justice
Sierra Club
Nature Conservancy
Environmental Defense Fund
We may add others to this list. If you have any thoughts on these organizations or want to propose others, please do that in the comments.
Comments (Archived):
Hey Fred.Clueless about the most efficient org as their charters are a bit different. I will participate this month as I have the past two.Yes to progress on the business side–I agree.Pissed off–and no it is not ok for leadership to be idiots on this. Leadership and positioning matters.
I never cease to get amazed by the richness in US non-governmental institutions that have diverse missions to influence policy and issues outside of what government can do.
We’re having a de Tocqueville moment, and if it’s not too late, it will be just in the nick of time. “Americans of all ages, all conditions, all minds constantly unite. Not only do they have commercial and industrial associations in which all take part, but they also have a thousand other kinds: religious, moral, grave, futile, very general and very particular, immense and very small; Americans use associations to give fêtes, to found seminaries, to build inns, to raise churches, to distribute books, to send missionaries to the antipodes; in this manner they create hospitals, prisons, schools. Finally, if it is a question of bringing to light a truth or developing a sentiment with the support of a great example, they associate. Everywhere that, at the head of a new undertaking, you see the government in France and a great lord in England, count on it that you will perceive an association in the United States.”
This is a good point. But we have to fight back – because the “global warming” phenomenon is being used as a political tool by the UN and others to siphon money from the US to the rest of the world. Obama was a big fan of wealth redistribution. This is wealth redistribution on a global scale.
It’s all part of the secret plan to establish a one world government ruled by the banking elite right? These are just ridiculous conspiracy theories.The reality is we’re spending billions right now dealing with the effects of climate change. The developed world has much more to lose in terms of real infrastructure than the developing world. It’s in everyone’s interest to work together on this.Unfortunately some people has this strange notion that diplomacy and international cooperation equals wealth re-distribution or ceding our national sovereignty.
You mean override the democratic process and treasonously support the enemies of the United States? (HINT: Most “global warming” NGOs get quite a bit of funding from Russian and Saudi oil tycoons who don’t like US energy independence.)
It’s a checks and balances thing . There are some good NGOs, no?
Not when they attempt to assert powers that the federal government does not have.
You know, I think the percentage is insanely small.
I find that claim interesting. Isn’t Exxon in the middle of a lawsuit over climate change denial?[1]Imperial was a subsidiary of Exxon, and this is one of their internal research documents from circa 1978. Exxon worked with the Saudis then, and has since worked with the Russianshttps://en.wikipedia.org/wi…https://www.documentcloud.o…There is no doubt that increases in fossil fuel usage and decreases in forest cover are aggravating thepotential problem of increased CO2 in the atmosphere. Tech no logy exists to remove CO2 from stack gases but removal of only 50% of the CO2 would double the cost of power generation. Page 6 of said documentThen they funded the Heartland Institute to deny climate change.Where do the Russians and the Saudis fit into this?[1] https://www.bloomberg.com/n… Ah, yes, NY, MA, and TX are in the middle of suing Exxon for securities fraud and consumer protection rules by hiding and denying their internal researcb.
Yeah… They can sue all they want. They are trying to exercise authority they do not have.As far as I am concerned, people who waste a court’s time with this “climate change” myth need to be thrown out on their backsides.
That doesn’t address this document’s of Exxon’s. This documents says “Hey we should worry about climate change” before I was born.It also isn’t the only document in this category. There are apparently hundreds of them, and there are going to be even more shortly, because of said lawsuit.(it is also how we found out that Rex Tillerson is Wayne Tracker)As for a lawsuit:I’m a resident of NYState. I pay taxes to the state, and they use part of that money for pension funds, which as a fund, among many categories of investments, do invest in stocks. Exxon is a blue chip stock, and I would not be shocked if Exxon stock at various points in time over the past 40 years have been part of the pension fund’s holdings.They also use that money to keep the beaches where I grew up ok. This is a never-ending task, and according to local news, it has been getting significantly worse, especially after I left for college, every single time there is a very bad rainstorm with wing. Growing up, they rarely hauled sand to these beaches. The reason NYState hauls sand: those particular beaches are part of a barrier island system, and if those go away, a much bigger area, including JFK, would become a target for flooding all the time.It is not cheap to continually increase the amount of sand you haul to a barrier island, especially knowing it is going to be washed away. Reasonable people are thinking about longer term solutions, because at some point, hauling sand to a beach stops making financial sense.For the sake of discussion: let’s just pretend we agree climate change is real, and we are all finally agreeing about this fact now, as opposed to 30 years ago.Would NYState invest in Exxon for its pension funds, if it knew it would have to spend ridiculous amounts of money with tasks like hauling sand that is going to be washed into the ocean because of that investment.No. NYState wouldn’t. That’s just stupid. Taxpayers would have thought it was a scandal to invest when I was born if all of the knowledge about what exxon knew was out in the open.It is as stupid as you investing in the stock of a machine that gives you great returns for 30 years, and on the 30th year, every 2-3 years causes a new form of 10k+ damages to your home, including ever growing cracks in the foundation of your home. The only way you would definitely invest is if you didn’t know the extent of the damage you’d be getting.And that is why the suit has legs. I don’t want NY State to haul Sand forever to a beach. And if oil companies knew that Ny State was going to waste money hauling sand, I would like them to pay, not me.
Too bad it’s not their problem. Natural erosion is a thing. Quite frankly, the world would be better off if NYC fell into the Atlantic. I would sit back and chuckle.
i am going to take down this comment unless you edit it in the next 24 hoursusing language like “taken out into the street and shot” is not welcome here at AVCwe are polite and use language that is decent hereif you don’t want to do that, please don’t come here
So what exact penalty do you think is appropriate for seditious traitors working as a third column to destroy the United States?
first of all they are not seditious traitors, they are heroes and we are funding them today on AVC and around the web.
I think the tens of millions of Americans they want to leave jobless would disagree.
Dude, you are ridiculous and way out of line. Maybe you could learn how best debate a point of view before unloading vitriol on those who do not agree with you.
we know.
Betcha I can convict at least a dozen “eco” groups under RICO. Simple fact is that the “green” movement has been coopted by communists and globalists. Now that they don’t have REAL problems to fight, they demand billions of tax dollars to fund advocacy research and defraud thousands of people of their hard earned money.The Sierra Club is a particularly blatant example. Only two years ago, they were ordered to pay 6.4 MILLION dollars in legal fees for a frivolous lawsuit and were then able to extort the victim out of their money by threatening yet more litigation.
[CITATION NEEDED] to pretend to be you, unless you would prefer to be more polite?List of citations needed:1)What makes an organization globalist or communist2)what makes the problem not real3)prove that it satifies the criteria of RICO4) prove fraud5) cite the relevant legal case vis a vis the Sierra Club.Your citations should not be overly partisan, not extremely leftwards, not extremely rightwards. Ideally they should be an academic source, and ideally they should cite original data.IE: You earlier listed a link with a video of a nobel prizewinner in physics who does not like climate change. At the same time, you also ignore the nobel prize winners in physics (alongside other scientists) who came out the same day of said same speech to sign the Mainau Declaration.http://www.mainaudeclaratio…To say that one nobel prize winner says x while currently 76 nobel prize winners disagree is partisan and also an effective way of lying about what scientists in a field believe. Do not do that.Additionally, no more use of terms like “seditious” or “get in the helicopter”. Just because someone disagrees with you politically doesn’t mean they are an immoral person. It means they have a different point of view about the world.If you don’t change the comments that have this type of language, I second what @fredwilson:disqus says. 24 hours or they get deleted. If you want to stay and have a conversation, then behave like you want to have one – otherwise go.
The fact that the Sierra Club managed to extort its way out of paying the damages for what the court ruled was a frivolous lawsuit is a matter of public record. Five minutes on Google will find you all the sources you could want. The person they owed money to waived the payment in exchange for the withdrawal of yet more litigation. Somehow I doubt the Sierra Club would have agreed to this if they expected the suits involved to stand on their merit.This is the definition of racketeering and why several “green” groups have been taken to court over their actions… and lost.The premise of this post is that the Trump administration is somehow “setting back” ecological protections. It cites nothing on point other than the appointment of an EPA head that does not believe (correctly I might add) that the EPA has the authority to expand its own power outside the clear legislative intent that created it.As for the globalist and socialist influences. Look no further than the clown show that is the modern Greanpeace organization. Go read some of their literature. Go look at how some of their founding members have come out against their current tactics and policies.
I’m the moderator here, you are not. In this community, you come up with the proof when you use the language you do, because the burden of proof is on you.so[CITATION NEEDED]still standsalongside the 24 hour notice for ALL of the comments on this post. Kapish?
If you think that threat of censorship is an argument, you are sorely mistaken. But please, feel free to shore up your little echo chamber in a blind panic. It’s addorable, really.Here’s the fun part. By deleting my comments you admit that you have lost and have no further arguments to make. In fact, by going against the first freedom guaranteed by our society, you prove that everything I said was 100% right.Even if nobody else sees this coment, you will. Enjoy decades of political and social Irrelevance. This sort of arrogance is why Hillary got her corrrupt teeth kicked in. Kapish?
Oh, and before I forget.#freekekistanReeeeeeeeeeeeeToodles.
How do you even make claims like this without citing even a shred of a credible source? Next we’ll find that the aliens who put Obama and Putin in power want to shift our diets to vegan / vegetarian before they start harvesting humans…Seriously dude, cite some links or something. This is total conspiracy theory nonsense.
Yeah… Sorry bro, but the Russian oil sector’s link to American eco-terrorists is far better documented than anything Trump allegedly did.
So if this is really well documented, how about sharing a credible source, like a newspaper or article showing this? I’ve never heard of any Russian link to eco-terrorists.
Google is your friend.
You’re pissed off? Think how the planet feels. It’s being pissed on 24/7.
The dinosaurs pissed on the planet for a million years, and the planet survived. It is humanity that won’t survive if we continue being stupid and dumb. Give the planet and nature one hundred thousand years and it will shake off and wipe any vestige of our presence and replace it with, hopefully, a better form of life.
Agree. Dinosaurs existed on earth for about 175 million years and it took the K-T mass extinction event for them to die out…an event in which ~ 75% of species on earth at that time went extinct.Sapiens has been around for barely 200,000 years, and another thousand years is looking difficult.
I missed by just 174 million years.. that’s bad. Apologies for the dinosaurs.To be fair with our human race and to cheer up, your comment reminds me about that we supposedly carry genes from some of the 25% creatures that made it that time. So if challenged, we can probably do it again, hide in caves for a few seasons.
Yup, lived in the period between 240 million and 65 million years ago. Give or take a few million, but who’s counting…
The K-T event disrupted life earth for between a few hundred to a few thousand years – possibly as much as 10,000. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wi…. Thats more than just a few seasons…
Maybe I was being sarcastic. 🙂
But they didn’t drive cars, need to charge smartphones, or drink from plastic bottles. We are killing ourselves. They did not.
Great list! I personally work for an off-shoot of EDF called Moms Clean Air Force. We have grown quickly in 5 years to over 1 million members with a focus on the health impacts of climate change.
So… What’s your group doing about the largest polluters on the planet? (HINT: The US isn’t even in the top 20.)
US is number 2.https://wri.org/blog/2014/1…
#NotAnArgument CO2 is not a pollutant. Putting it on the same chart as China ignores the fact that China produces orders of magnitude more toxic pollutants.
Except the rest of the world does think that CO2 is a pollutant, so you asserting that it isn’t, doesn’t really matter.And they are right to categorize it as such, because it’s making our climate less stable and has more effects across international boundaries than many other such pollutants.
Too bad that they have no authority over the United States and the federal government of the United States has no constitutional authority to impose any such restrictions on the citizenry.
The US Gov’t (EPA) has labeled CO2 as a pollutant. And the Supreme Court has ruled that to be constitutional. So I have no idea what you are talking about.
Yeah… The EPA has no authority to do so. Sorry bro, but there is no mention of CO2 in the clean air act. In addition, there is no SCotUS case on point. You’re delusional.
I’ve been following Moms Clean Air Force for a while and like the messaging and information they put out. Groups like that help people who wouldn’t ordinarily be concerned with climate change move from neutral to advocates to activists. The health impact of climate change is a really important piece of the message.
Thank you!
See your working in perfect harmony. Trump and the voters that elected him get their way and the opponent’s push huge donations at alternative energy producers.
I am a big fan of 350.org for their ability to mobilize direct action. They are also local, based in Brooklyn.
Based in Brooklyn, founded in Vermont. Great organization. No one has done more to fight climate change over the past 30 years than Bill McKibben.
I would say that orgs that have been around for 30 plus years may have done a little more 🙂 Orgs like EDF which were there at the founding of the EPA.But Bill has done and continues to do great work.
i’m in this fan club too.
I support my good friend and fellow CB6 board member Joanna on this one – 350.org would be a great choice.
I stopped giving to Sierra Club when they continued mailing large plastic binders with only a few pages out all the ‘good’ they do. Serious, plastic binders via physical mail.I’m in for match. Based on comments will check out 350.org.
These are all great and worthy of additional support. If you have to choose one or a few, I would suggest 350.org due to their connection with people of all ages, but in particular the powerful millennial and GenZ generations.
-1 for citing nyt. so thoroughly discredited, mockingbird media still in recent history. even if they do somehow report something occasionally decent there are better outlets to cite, especially in the age of the internet, especially amongst internet people.as for carbon, even if you accept the highly contested with science notion that carbon emissions must be reduced, any regulation needs to be implemented at a global level, since the primary polluters are outside the US. moreover, if solar and wind are seen as the solutions, folks should think long and hard about the scalability, or lack thereof, of those solutions. they ultimately will require a reduction in global energy consumption which means less innovation and a lower standard of living for all.the real solution is nuclear power: scalable, carbon-reduced, abundant.
You are right about wind — wind power is a joke of a solution. It’s impossible to realistically look at the figures and conclude otherwise.However I disagree with you on solar. Solar has absolutely enormous potential, more than all other sources combined, including fossil fuels. When you combine the massive amount of solar energy falling on us with the cratering costs of solar panels (the trend over time is tremendous – it’s like youre looking at Moore’s law) then it seems inevitable that solar will dominate new power plant construction in future years for purely economic reasons, regardless of governmental policies.I think the solutions that make the most sense over the long term are a combination of nuclear and solar. (Which as a bonus correlate nicely with base load and peak)
Except for little things like the fact that most energy usage in the US takes place during times when the sun is not available. There’s a reason why solar plants are going out of business even with massive government subsidies. Their production numbers just don’t justify the costs.
Yes you have to have storage for night time and ideally rely on traditional sources (including nuclear) for base load including night time.The cost of solar is changing so rapidly that it’s hard to look at a failure at a solar plant that was built as recently as a few years ago and believe that it will have much economic insight for plants that will be built a few years from now. See image below, shown in log scale. Even if solar weren’t economical now, it would become so, dramatically so, 10 years from now, assuming current pricing trends continue. (The trend has been that prices fall in half every ~5 years, on average)At any rate, the plants that have been failing lately are typically the solar thermal plants in the desert, which used to have a big cost advantage vs. PV panels, but this advantage has disappeared thanks to the plummeting cost of PV. (Seems to be a case of investors seeing the trend line in the graph below but not really understanding what it means about their plant’s future.)https://uploads.disquscdn.c…
Until you show a solar plant being economically viable without massive tax payer subsidies, you don’t really have an argument to make.
There are lots of examples of profitable solar plants, both in countries that offer subsidies and in countries that don’t.But that’s irrelevant to the point I’m making. I’m not arguing that they are a good investment today, or that subsidies are a good idea. My point is all about the future. My point is that, if solar costs continue to fall at the rate they’ve been falling over the past 40 years, it will eventually become extraordinarily cheap vs. other sources of energy.No other energy source has seen cost reductions remotely similar to solar. Chalk it up to another victory for capitalism & markets. If the trend continues long enough, it will eventually overwhelm all other economic factors in the energy markets.
Or Chinese dumping of solar panels produced in pollution spewing plants. The panels are hardly the only cost to setting up and maintaining a solar plant.But please. Cite one example.
If you’re really interested in energy cost comparison, one of best sources is Lazard’s annual levelized cost of energy analysis. Let’s see if Disqus will allow me to include the link:https://www.lazard.com/medi…I don’t know why you keep asking about currently profitable plants, since that was not my argument. My argument is about the FUTURE, about solar generation that will be built in the decades to come, which should become increasingly profitable due to long-standing cost trends.
Those “long standing” cost trends are artificially influenced by first the EU and US massively subsidizing the industry and then China dumping panels on the market to undercut US and EU competition. This is a well known fact. Just look at the abject failure of Solyndra for an excellent example.Basing long term projections on these trends is absurd.That doesn’t even go into the fact that the manufacturing process for PV panels produces far more and far more toxic pollution than their use to generate electricity prevents. A gas plant emits water and CO2. That’s it. The US has enough natural gas to meet our energy needs for centuries. A solar plant may not emit anything, but the production of PV panels is far more toxic per unit energy produced than natural gas or even oil powered plants. The only fossil fuel that comes close to their pollution footprint is unfiltered coal.
Here’s a thread where I recently worked out the numbers for an actual solar install on a 2KW system. The other person on the thread basically agreed with final numbers…If you have the patience and actually read through the entire thing, you can easily see that solar for distributed power makes complete sense:https://www.reddit.com/r/Fu…
You have no idea how solar plants work against home installs, do you? Go home sachmo, you’re drunk.Though I do love how your math assumes technologies that don’t exist and ignores basic thermodynamics. (Oh, and FYI, PV panels have a service life, you might want to look it up and do the math again.)
Maybe you didn’t understand the thread. It’s for a solar panel install on a roof. Try reading it again, taking out a calculator and doing some basic math.I’m sorry, but I don’t think you know a thing about thermodynamics, not that it even relates to the calculations we discussed. The power outputs on 2KW systems are taken from existing direct measurements…. did you understand that part?That means, they aren’t theoretical, they are fully realized generated power from panels on homes today. As are the ones producing electricity well past the manufacturer warranty period (which you refer to as ‘service’ life). Did you understand that when the warranty expires, the PV panel still produces electricity?If you did, then that’s a step towards understanding that these panels basically pay for themselves in any area that gets 2500+ hours of sunlight which is a massive swath of the US.Read through the thread again, you might actually learn something.
You’re talking about 100% efficient storage genius. The output is irrelevant if you have NO WAY TO STORE THE POWER.
we don’t block links (usually – but if you post like 5 you might get caught in spam)
In most parts of the US that get 2500+ hours of sunlight annually, solar makes complete sense — especially if you have basic home DIY skills. If you can do the installation yourself, most panels will pay for themselves within about 10 years. If you contract out the installation, then maybe it takes 20 years… The panels themselves though keep producing electricity well beyond this.Solar as an industry is growing, not shrinking. You really need to get in the habit of linking real sources and not just repeating hearsay — which is often false.
I work in the industrial automation industry. Solar in the US is hardly growing. Without subsidies, it would be dead.
I thought you were a lawyer?
Patent law.
There is more installed solar capacity each year than any other form of electrical power — meaning when any electric generation joins there’s a larger than 50% chance it’s solar. In 2016 alone, the installed solar capacity in the US doubled. That’s tremendous growth, there is no other source of energy growing that fast. Whatever field you work in, you are completely ignorant when it comes to solar.
Do you have any idea where those panels are coming from? Do you know WHY they are being installed at a higher rate? You’re delusional.
the big challenge with solar is density, or how much land it will require to generate the amount of power desired. can we put solar panels on all roads, buildings, and spare land? solar also requires rare earth minerals and other supplies that may act as additional constraints to scalability.
See image below showing the surface area that would be required if we converted all power generation in the world to solar.If solar panel & battery prices continue to fall at the rates they’ve been falling, it will eventually become laughably silly for anyone not to put solar on their roof. Not sure what % of the total required surface area that would represent – my guess is about half, based on some estimates I’ve seen. https://uploads.disquscdn.c…
Wow. This could explain a lot of the whining of the oil industry cartels. What % of gas and oil production fuel power plants today?
https://uploads.disquscdn.c…
6 years ago. Too old. The 2008/2009 crisis dent is impressive. We need to zoom in the last two or three years.
https://uploads.disquscdn.c…
Different TW scale? But there it is, renewable vs coal. Oil and gas are unaffected.
wouldn’t many oil areas do well with solar once they figure out how to transport the power? Shouldn’t they stop kvetching?
Couple problems: 1-storage and transport, as you identified. You can’t just fill up a tanker with solar power and ship it across the ocean. You basically have to transport it across power lines. Hard to export. Storage is very difficult. 2- no significant advantage for some regions to exploit. Yes, some areas get more sun, but after you factor in the cost of transporting over power lines (and the losses incurred thereby) which you will have to build, it becomes cheaper to just build the solar plants close to where they are needed rather than importing electricity from sunny countries.So when you add it up, oil countries will no longer be sitting on a gold mine after the switch to solar.
this assumes you could store and transport that power without loss. when loss of storage and transportation is figured in, you end up needing to put panels everywhere and connect them via transmission lines — an endeavor that would be expensive and a legal headache given the claims of property owners. vaclav smil discusses this in good detail (specifically p57, 2nd paragraph).
I think people will put panels on their homes and businesses for their own consumption (coupled with battery storage), not for resale, but then as their energy needs rise they will also purchase energy from the existing grid, which will over time become increasingly powered by solar power plants. Very little add’l transmission lines needed.
Check out sunfarmer.org. Recent Y Combinator non-profit using solar to improve energy access/address energy poverty in developing countries.
The NYT The Daily podcast has a quick recap on Trump’s new executive order:The Daily: Wednesday, March 29, 2017 https://overcast.fm/+H9d4u4LQY
I’ve heard good things about 350.org. I also agree with you that market forces are what will ultimately (and hopefully) prevail. Seems most of these roll backs favor coal, but with natural gas being so cheap, it will have little impact on the short term. The worse thing that could happen is that the administration pulls out of the Paris Accords, as that will have a much greater diplomatic impact today and for the foreseeable future. Thanks for being a positive voice.
Just returned from Delhi. If you want direct experience of what happens when you ignore environmental impact, just look there. I agree that market forces will move us in the right direction (see Friedman’s NYT column today https://www.nytimes.com/201…, but the idea that we will cede leadership in such an important area also pisses me off. SAD! 😉
Fred and I both live in the flood plains of the Hudson on different parts of the island and trust me, we know.
Sorry – but a flood plain is not the result of “global warming.” It is a result of poor urban planning and irresponsible development.
Disagree.Rising level of a warming ocean and the increase in the frequency and intensity of storms is.
But you have to assume that man-made activity is causing them. I refer to my other posts (above). The sea level around NYC was as much as 6 inches higher in the past before there were any humans or any cars. I understand the frustration – but please don’t misplace your anger and your money.
The sea level has been perhaps 200 feet higher before there were humans… what exactly is your point?
Exactly. The point is that it is statistically impossible to correlate local sea level changes and even global temperature change to human activities. The sample size is simply too small.
Your argument doesn’t even make sense.What sample size is too small? CO2 content of atmosphere? temperature data? local sea level?We can easily take atmospheric samples of CO2 all around the planet, in fact we have automated stations that do this all day. Same for temperature. We have tidal gauges all across the planet, on every major continent taking data. We have satellites orbiting the earth, dedicated to measuring sea level.The samples sizes of all of the above are incredibly large. What are you talking about?
The oceans are not rising. There is no scientific evidence of this. The good news is you can relax and sleep well knowing your investment is sound.
Um…. no, there are actually tidal gauges and dedicated satellites orbiting the earth whose sole purpose is to measure local sea levels (for reasons other than just climate change). You can see a summary of aggregate measurements here:https://sealevel.nasa.gov/There is a TON of scientific evidence that mean sea level is rising. It’s amazing that people even make claims like this.
Amazing? Well it depends on what you are reading and how anxious you are to draw conclusions from it. For all their technology, NASA is no longer a trusted authority on climate change. Climate scientist, Judith Curry, disagrees on how we should interpret sea level data when taking in the effects of recent La Ninas. https://judithcurry.com/201… So called authorities of the climate movement have been chasing billions in grant funding. As funding sources dry up so will the corruption pursuing it.
You can pick 1 study out of 100 to support an outlandish claim, but the reality is that an overwhelming percentage of scientists say sea levels are raising because of climate change caused by human driven green house gas emissions.Now, if you are smart, you would want to listen to the majority. Heck, even if it were the minority opinion, it is better to side with it, because it will be the better way to manage outsize risk.Putting your head in the sand is not an incredibly bright move. And you may think you are a “rebel”, but it is an incredibly stupid position to take.
The same can be said of people who adopt an orthodoxy based on pseudo-science and are not open to the possibility of being wrong.
My point is that even if climate science is somehow wrong, notwithstanding the vast majority of scientific opinion, it would be reckless to not plan for the possibility that it might be right. What you are suggesting (ignore it or dismiss it completely) is irresponsible.The downsides in one case are immeasurably higher than the downsides in the other.
“For all their technology, NASA is no longer a trusted authority on climate change.”What on earth are you talking about? NASA takes more direct atmospheric measurements than any other agency or organization – now or at any time in human history.And from arguing that sea level isn’t rising, when confronted with direct satellite measurements of it rising, your answer is “La Nina” caused it? La Nina is a ocean current / temperature cycle, it may have localized effects in the pacific, but it would cause a net mass transfer of water raising the global average sea level.We have DIRECT measurements from satellites showing that it’s rising… quantifying the rise year over year. Independent tidal gauges set up by other agencies largely also show global sea level rise.On what basis are you claiming the tidal gauges or satellites are wrong?
There is no discernible evidence of increasing frequency and intensity of storms, only anecdotal, hardly scientific. Authoritative climate scientists of no less stature than, Judith Curry, are calling attention to my point.
I disagree.
I have a vague idea where they live, (also as a NY-er). They weren’t on the “I definitely need insurance” floodplain 10 years before Sandy. (a lot of local people were very shocked about how much the floodplain changed from the Army Corp’s estimates after the storm due to climate change)
I understand, except there is absolutely no way to positively link what happens in a given storm surge (in a local area) to global climate change. It is a nice thought, but scientifically impossible. (Same happened here in Hurricane Ike and New Orleans) If you can find someone who has tried to link local NYC flooding to global climate change I am interested to read it.
http://www.nyc.gov/html/sir…NYC felt that climate change, FEMA’s inability to get out updated flood plain maps, and the fact that those maps are backwards looking, put the city at risk, post Sandy, and is therefore using Swiss Re’s modeling for a variety of climate related disaster scenarios, including localized forward looking flood maps, areas of interest for overheating (due to Manhattan being so dense), huge rainstorms, and a number of other issues (that they discuss in this report). http://www.nyc.gov/html/pla…They also mention it in this report. Which also has these mapshttps://www.arcgis.com/home…Made with NOAA, FEMA, the department of commerce, the US Army Corp of Engineers, the United States Global Change Research Program, and the Council on Environmental Quality. Sandy for some people was that much of an “Oh F******ck” moment (why not New Orleans, I don’t know)They did this because it is now a line item in the Local and state budget for risk management. And it had to be done, nyc is that much of an economic engine that insuring it against the climate was considered non-negolatibale by stakeholders. Pieces of the US economy could collapse if too much of NYC goes down (for example, US bonds can’t be trades in NYC proper or in any of the backup facilities in NJ through their primary brokers, then what?)
You purchased property in a floodplain and now you want my (our) tax dollars to what…protect your investment?
I have no idea what you are referring to or really talking about.
Fair enough, awaldstein, I made a thoughtless assumption. My bad and I beg your pardon.
Elections have real consequences. It is a shame that 62m people did not understand that. The job of the presidency is to understand long term trends and navigate the ocean liner in the right direction. This is anything but that. But only a fool would have expected anything less from the current occupant.But Yeah, the Clinton Presidency would have been far worse with all the email scandals…
I first realized the severity of climate abuse when I went to the dominican republic in 2007/2008. It was crazy to me to see so much garbage everywhere.I consider myself a huge liberal + climate change advocate.That said, the sad reality is if you’re worried about shelter, food, health, and clothing — you don’t have the luxury of worrying about things that may not really have severe negative consequences for 5, 10, or 25 years. The equally sad reality is people worrying about basic needs still makes up the majority of the world.
https://midwestenergynews.c… Better to invest in a company that is trying to solve problems at the edges than give to NGOs that just make noise! This one is pretty cool.
I’ll check it out as you know this interests me,Don’t agree though that that option is as good though.
It’s a super cool company no matter how you feel about climate. Set up an SPV that uses a YCombinator SAFE to invest in one of these things with the orgs you want to promote as the beneficiary. Impact investing! : )
I’ll check them out–thanks!
NGOs do a lot more than just ”make noise”. They help refine and focus the larger voice of concerned citizens, create awareness and shape policy. Technology/products are just another part of the larger mechanism of change. We need both. Respectfully.
Many do. I know a lot that don’t and just supply salaries for people. Not casting dispersions here, but there are an awful lot of them.
That is very true. For every 1 really well-managed NGO, I find a dozen that are mediocre, at best.
If the intent is to support climate change, I’d go for 350.org as well.I am an Env Engineer that works in industry (to help change the world!) and as you can imagine, I am as big of a tree hugger as you will find.However I had to drop my Sierra Club membership because I just found them way, way too radical. Not all industry is bad, but their communications to membership always felt so militant towards any capitalist entity. Many, many companies are getting the message and doing the right thing (and not always the cheapest!). Sierra Club is out of touch with the real world.
That is my impression as well
Last night I heard Bill Nye reference http://thesolutionsproject…. (this is the organization that Mark Ruffalo, Leonardo di Caprio and Elon Musk are involved in).And on the topic of solving the problem of clean energy production and saving the planet and all humanity:My father, Dr. Dieter Gruen (http://hycsos.com/), is a leading solar scientist, who began a highly distinguished career by separating uranium 235 at Oak Ridge on the Manhattan Project.He served as Senior Scientist at Argonne National Laboratory for 65 years. Upon his retirement 4 years ago, he created several groundbreaking ideas in CSP (concentrated solar power) which have received several patents. If implemented, these ideas will *double* the power from solar electricity. To quote my dad: “We are situated in a solar orbit popularly called the “Goldilocks Position”. Because of this fortunate circumstance we receive enough sunshine in one hour to satisfy the energy needs of everyone on earth for a year.An important reason why most of our electricity is not made using the sun’s energy is that solar electricity is today still too expensive to compete with electricity made using fossil or nuclear fuels.HYCSOS, the proprietary Hybrid Conversion Solar System, is being developed to make solar electricity affordable and competitive by converting sunlight to electricity much more efficiently than has ever before been possible. In common with the Hybrid Conversion Solar System, Hybrid Automobiles also have economically and environmentally beneficial impacts. The former makes much more efficient use of its solar fuel while the latter aims to increase the miles/gallon of gasoline.The patented HYCSOS approach has the potential of rapidly allowing our sun to assume its rightful place as the sustainable, environmentally benign global energy source. The developers of HYCSOS seek to encourage participants worldwide to share in this endeavor thus giving them an unparalleled opportunity to benefit from the growing global electricity market valued today at two trillion dollars a year.”I’m happy to provide more information on my father’s patents and plans for implementation.
The notion of “climate change” as presented above is a complete falsehood designed to manipulate people and markets. I happen to be a “luddite” with a degree in Earth and Planetary Sciences from MIT. I studied climate modeling in grad school with one of the leaders at the time (Lorenz). Climate models are so complex – with so many variables – that we can barely predict the path of a hurricane for two days. The notion that we can predict the impact of carbon activities 50 years in the future is complete fantasy. And yet that is the “evidence” being used to bully people into submission.It is amazing to me that people who otherwise rely on common sense and hard data are so willing to buy into this idea. And the fact that all intellectual opposition is immediately made fun of and labeled (“denier”) is the sure sign that I am correct.
What do you mean when you say ‘as presented above’? I honestly don’t see much on ‘climate change’ being presented above, other than ‘US’ reliance on carbon energy and the resulting impact on climate change.’ Is that what you mean? Is that the ‘complete falsehood designed to manipulate people and markets’ ?
Most of the argument and activism around this subject is based on the fundamental premise that negative climate change (used to be global warming but that didn’t work) is the result of man’s use of carbon. I fundamentally disagree with this premise. (Did that clarify?)
http://www.vox.com/2016/9/1…
Great. So you will listen to a comic instead of person with an MS in Earth and Planetary Science? That’s pretty much says it all.
Happy to listen to a comic when the data they are using is sourced from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 🙂
DavidI respect your academic background and it should indeed to taken seriously on this topic. I am not remotely as well qualified. But your qualifications were taken a long time ago (approximately 30 years) and it seems you haven’t been working professionally in this area for decades. Is it possible that today’s climate scientists are better informed than you? Or is it that whilst you respect the fact that they may have more current data, you feel that there are overriding ‘structural’ reasons why their conclusions can’t be trusted Eg the model complexity argument you raised in one of your comments? Forgive me but without more detail is is hard to weigh the opinion of a person long inactive in the field with an apparent consensus of a raft of current practitioners.
I understand. Let’s just agree to disagree. This is a long and complex topic and I wish I had more time…
Indeed it is. It makes it very difficult for ‘ordinary’ people to reach a reasonable assessment.
there is a lot of disagreement amongst even contemporary scientists.1. for instance, should temperature data recorded be adjusted for variety of factors, and how should those adjustments be done? depending on your view, one could say no adjustments hsould be made, and in that case, warming is NOT occurring — or at least is on a hiatus of around 20 years and counting. http://reason.com/blog/2017…2. here is a study, drafted by a university professor, that puts forth the thesis that temperature fluctuations have not been consistent nor definitively beyond the variation produced by natural cycles. http://www.thegwpf.org/cont…
Agree Kid, there’s disagreement, there is uncertainty and the issue is complex.But, in edge cases and where the effects are massively asymmetric, being certain about what is happening is different from having a point of view on how to proceed.On this issue I tend to agree with the precautionary principle as described in the attached statement -“..That is, we should ask “what would be the correct policy if we had no reliable models?” We have only one planet. This fact radically constrains the kinds of risks that are appropriate to take at a largescale. Even a risk with a very low probability becomes unacceptable when it affects all of us – there is no reversing mistakes of that magnitude..”http://www.fooledbyrandomne…Flipping the uncertainty/disagreement point on its head – Does uncertainty and complexity undermine the case of climate change, or does it constitute the case for precaution ?”It is the degree of opacity and uncertainty in a system, as well as asymmetry in effect, rather than specific model predictions, that should drive the precautionary measures. Push a complex system too far and it will not come back. The popular belief that uncertainty undermines the case for taking seriously the ’climate crisis’ that scientists tell us we face is the opposite of the truth. Properly understood, as driving the case for precaution, uncertainty radically underscores that case, and may even constitute it.”
Science will always have disagreement. That is part of the process and is healthy.But I was of the impression that notwithstanding that sociological reality there was an overwhelming consensus amongst appropriately qualified scientists that carbon omissions have led to a significant acceleration in warming and climate change. Is this impression mistaken?
i honestly don’t know if there is a consensus among scientists. i know there is a consensus amongst media that reports on science.
It seems there really is a scientific consensus and that the media reports are simply reflecting that consensus.e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wi…
well that’s part of the challenge with the internet…..you have that wikipedia article on one hand, and then you have this one from forbes…..who’s telling the truth?
I’m not competent to say.
Yes, thank you.What do you feel explains the apparently widespread consensus that there is carbon related climate change?
Science doesn’t care about “consensus” coming from a lefty funded echo chamber that only exists so long as they have a “problem” to scream their heads off about.
So you feel there is a disagreement between the scientific consensus and the consensus of a lefty funded echo chamber?
Given the number of Nobel laureates calling BS? Yes.
Interesting.Could you please provide me with a link to a credible source on this. I truly would like to review such criticism.
I’ll do you one better. Here’s a complete lecture.https://youtu.be/TCy_UOjEir0
That’s great, thanks. I’ll check it out.
Here’s a well thought out rebuttal to Ivar’s speech above that goes into far more depth than I can on this blog. The short of it, is that a 1 degree change across the Earth’s surface is a massive amount of energy difference, and not a trifling amount. Also he cherry picks local weather station data.https://pressingwax.wordpre…
I’m going to go with the nobel laureate rather than the eco-terrorist scumbag. Oh, and FYI, absolute energy differences don’t matter. 300J is not a lot of energy, until you put it in a bullet.
I doubt you even skimmed the article. The author is not an eco-terrorist. Nor is the laureate’s area of expertise have anything to climate science.
There is no such thing as “climate science”.
I checked it out in reasonable detail. It appears that whilst he is a highly accomplished physicist he is not a climate scientist and indeed had practically no experience or interest in the topic.””I am not really terribly interested in global warming. Like most physicists I don’t think much about it. But in 2008 I was in a panel here about global warming and I had to learn something about it. And I spent a day or so – half a day maybe on Google, and I was horrified by what I learned. And I’m going to try to explain to you why that was the case.”Half a day on Google was evidently enough to concern him but my basic research suggests that there have been many thorough debunkings of his objections. They all appear to revolve around the fact that (unsurprisingly) he just doesn’t know the topic and has made what are literally beginner mistakes e.g. wrt the earth’s surface temperature.
I’m going to go with the Nobel laureate rather than a bunch of eco-terrorist funded fake scientists in a field that has no scientific basis.
I respect your faith in Nobel laureates.However…Please bear in mind that at the meeting where he gave the speech you referenced there were 34 other such laureates who all disagreed with him.
“Peace” Nobels don’t count. It’s basically a participation trophy.
So you believe the other Nobel Laureates weren’t scientists and that’s why you disregard them? Sure about that?
No, I listened to the guy’s lecture and it makes perfect sense. Some of my undergraduate degrees were in mechanical and aerospace engineering. The fact that a Nobel laureate physicist can pick apart the “climate change” hoax in less than a day tells me everything I need to know.
The question is not whether his questions make ‘perfect sense’ as a first approximation to someone who is not a climate scientist isn’t a fair assessment of his analysis. The fact that climate scientists find his unashamedly shallowly researched opinion unconvincing and naive should surely be disturbing to you? And when you say ” The fact that a Nobel laureate physicist can pick apart the “climate change” hoax in less than a day” aren’t you assuming that this is a fact? To be honest your comments sound very much as if, for some reason, you have determined it is a hoax and are looking for someone to buttress that opinion. It doesn’t sound as if you have researched the consensus.
I don’t really care what “climate scientists” think. Their diplomas aren’t worth the paper they are printed on. The entire field is one gigantic left wing echo chamber.
What would the left wing stand to gain from this? I truly don’t get it.
Power over the economy. When you get to dictate who is and is not taxed, you can eliminate industries that don’t tow the party line.Here’s another good short video highlighting the panic mongering the radical left uses as a stick to beat people.https://youtu.be/6s_RzGUKb7g
But what on earth makes you feel that the power industry isn’t towing some sort of party line? (which party line?)
The issue isn’t the power industry itself. It’s all about the ancillary industries dependent on cheap power. Go take a look at how the implementation of the carbon tax in Alberta has made entire industries economically unviable.
But how does making such industries economically unviable advantage the left? I’ve never seen a party line that suggests that would be a good thing?
More people on government handouts. They expand their captive voter base. In the 21st century. The middle class very rarely votes left.
I see. You think the left’s strategy is to disrupt and dislocate the economy to force more people out of the workforce onto ‘handouts’ so that they will become a captive voting block with an interest in maintaining those handouts and hence voting for anyone who promises to keep them?But is this really the history of the left’s historic strategy? I don’t think so. But do you mean that is this a new strategy in an age of automation and globalization with resultant growing unemployment?
Yes… Globalization being yet another one of the left’s cornerstones. (see: EU)Oh, and welfare slavery has been a leftist strategy since the “Great Society”.
What do you mean when you say globalization is one of the left’s cornerstones?
As I said, see EU.
I don’t understand. You mean that the EU is the result of a leftist program of some kind?
The EU is the end result of a leftist program to eliminate national sovereignty and the democratic process. Note the fact that the entirety of EU regulations have to be proposed by un-elected eurocrats rather than democratically elected representatives of the member states. I would also point out that the advent of the EU has also corresponded with massive increases in both unemployment and welfare spending.
On a point of detail, I think the eurocrats are Euro MPs aren’t they? And as such they are elected. No?
You’re thinking of the European Parliament . They are elected, but have no power to introduce legislation. All legislation must be introduced by the European Commission.
“When it comes to the legislation process the commission is the one to introduce proposals, however the laws are then passed by the Council ‘and’ the parliament. The Council can sometimes act alone, however this is only done in some areas, and the Parliament needs to be consulted most of the times”https://www.lawteacher.net/…
You are correct. However, in order for the parliament to pass a law, it must first be introduced. While passing laws is entirely their discretion, it’s a meaningless one as they do not have the authority to introduce them. In effect, all they have is a very weak veto. That’s hardly democratic when the commission is no way answerable to the voters.
Surely they have a strong veto but weak powers to themselves propose legislation.”Each Commissioner is first nominated by their member state in consultation with the Commission President.”The Commissioners swear an oath to uphold the interest of the European Union. Is this so very different from US officials who are appointed by the President rather than elected to that specific office. Such officials have huge power but were never elected. Such power without direct accountability by voters isn’t that unusual in many forms of representative government.
Except that those officials only have powers that originally belonged to the president and were then delegated. They don’t have the authority to write new law or to prevent any new laws from being written.
Hi DJL, thanks for the input. Pointing to complexity when nearly all climate scientists are agreed on the impact of human’s on the climate is wasting time and trying to confuse people. Curious when you graduated from MIT and if there are any active climate scientists you speak with regularly?
I don’t know you personally, Russel. So i won’t try to challenge your qualification to have an opinion. “Nearly all climate scientists agree” is simply not true. You might find that on some Liberal blog, but this is just a way to shut down argument – like you are attempting to do.
Um, no it is true. Why not actually start linking to sources when you make claims like this.https://uploads.disquscdn.c…
Let me translate: 97% of climate scientists agree that “the climate is changing and human activity is contributing to the change.”However, 97% of scientists do NOT believe uniformly that “global warming is sure to be catastrophic for both humanity and the environment, and therefore we must immediately take drastic action regardless of the cost to ourselves and to developing nations.”The first claim is not controversial among scientists. The second claim is controversial and disputed. The second claim wants to be discussed and further analyzed. Skeptics have problems with the second claim and get frustrated when people respond to their concerns by falling back on appeals to authority about the first claim.
We agree on something. There is a clear consensus on climate change being real and and largely driven by human activities. Others on this thread do not acknowledge that.I think you need to define catastrophic — but it’s a fair point that some scientists dispute the fully realized consequences of climate change.But on that point, I think some common sense is in order. Temperature changes as fast as the ones predicted (which the trend lines for temperature at various CO2 scenarios are largely agreed upon) are associated with mass extinction events in every other situation where they happened so fast.Mass extinction as in 50% or more of species on the planet going extinct. All it would take is a very low lying organism, such as plankton having a population collapse to have chain effects all across the food pyramid.I think humans are remarkably resilient and would adapt, but I think consequences like food shortages aren’t crazy. I also think that to keep our very high standards of life we would burden ourselves with a huge debt for things like irrigation projects, sea walls, desalination plants, etc. It’s already occurring now, as municipalities across the US are dealing with the random localized effects such as depleted aquifers from drought. We don’t hear about it, b/c most people don’t follow muni bond issues.The issue is we either spend a little bit of money on prevention, or a lot of money later on, in the form of infrastructure projects to adapt. Way better to spend a little now.Policy geared towards solving climate change is about saving money in the long run.
Because the “sources” are bogus pseudo-science created by Liberals. This 97% has been debunked many times. Let’s move on.
I just cited 7 different papers that conducted surveys of climate scientists, and all you can say is ‘it’s debunked, let’s move on’?Let’s not move on. There are 7 published reports showing widespread consensus among climate scientists. Go on sciencedirect and google the papers. When confronted with the actual surveys, on what basis are you claiming they are false?Do you even have one published survey in a journal that shows climate scientists disagree?When all the evidence refutes your point, maybe it’s time to re-examine your beliefs regarding scientific consensus on this issue.
1) There is evidence on both sides: As quoted by others:https://www.forbes.com/site…https://www.forbes.com/site…2) I understand enough about statistics to know you can lie with statistics VERY easily.3. Let’s move on means we are never going to convince each other.4. Even if there IS man-made warming, i don’t think the government is the place to decide how it should be fixed. A fundamental difference between Liberals and Conservatives.
“Climate scientists” are about as scientific as eugenicists. They have a conclusion, and then tweak their data and “models” until it fits their predetermined conclusion. The fact that dozens of people outside of their “field” have looked at their process and called them on their bull is evidence enough that they are nothing that propagandists masquerading as “scientists”.
Even if climate change and the role of carbon and carbon fuels were entirely false, could we not agree that the air quality issues alone are reasons to go another way. Surely we can all agree that no one wants to live in the smog conditions that are now common in places like Delhi or the cities of China?
Agree 100%. I am just in the camp that there are better ways to solve this serious problem that “activism”. Unfortunately, this makes me the opposition.
The air quality in the US is better today than at any point in the past century. It makes no sense to commit economic suicide while the major polluters on the planet (like China) completely ignore any semblance of standards and laugh a us for our stupidity.
There are simple ways to proceed that make financial sense without knowing who is right. As was mentioned, if solar pv can reach an unsubsidized 7 year payback it wins – no need for policy hijinks. The Chevy Volt is a low cost hedge that pays itself back literally within 7 years at 17k miles per year. I don’t have to know which point of view is correct. I just make good financial decision. I own a volt. I will buy solar on or before 2019. Next.
All 3 of my kids play competitive chess and one in particular is pretty good. What I have learned by watching them play is positioning for the future, to anticipate what’s coming and leave multiple paths forward open.I can’t look at this without coming away that the right move is less reliance on carbon fuels and carbon, even if client change and carbon’s role in it were not real things. Sometimes there are right moves for both the outcome you expect and multiple other lines on the board at the same time.
I am all for clean air etc. As Kid Mercury said, why aren’t we investing in nuclear power, big? Solves the global warming issue, and clean air issue.
regulation towards nuclear.
Why aren’t we? There has long been a perfect storm of extreme public pressure against nuclear:- misperception of risk regardless of data, similar to the way flying “feels” more dangerous than driving, because any problems are always front page news and scary-sounding even when no one is injured. (quick- guess how many people died from radiation poisoning during the 3-mile island incident + fukushima daiichi incident + literally every other nuclear reactor meltdown *combined* since Chernobyl? Did you guess 0? How many people have died from coal energy during the same period?)- environmental lobbies have been 100% dead-set against it as something that seems extremely unnatural which therefore couldn’t possibly be good for the environment right?- extreme NIMBY attitudes in every neighborhood everywhere- regulatory mindset generally biased against it (“if there are ever any problems, my department will be on the front page questioned why we allowed this to happen, regardless of severity or cause of problem”). Greater regulatory burden = increased cost to satisfy it.As a result, we’ve gone through a 40-year drought of building new nuclear power plants (I’m ignoring the Watts Bar plant since its construction started back in 1973). [1]Many environmental lobbies are now coming around to recognizing the benefits and acknowledging the data indicating it’s the safest form of power we have. Unfortunately we have 4 decades of propaganda and public attitudes to overcome. So it’s not so easy to just flip that switch and reverse the public perception.[1] Obama announced a federal loan to finance a couple new nuclear plants in 2010, though they’re not finished yet. I look forward to updating the record when they are.
Yes, as horrible as Fukushima was, and despite the serious different issues nuclear has overall with waste, nuclear has to be be on the table if we’re serious about alternatives to carbon based fuels.
also, randomly, when you posted this, westinghouse went bankrupt because the numbers for nuclear power didn’t work for them
Predicting the path of a hurricane would be a weather model, not a climate model. This comparison is a distraction to the practice of climate science, a common crutch of climate change deniers.You’re right that climate models are complex. But the math that directionally connects a rise in GHGs in the atmosphere to a rise in surface temperature is a lot simpler, starting with the Stefan-Boltzman law (an approximation, I know).
There is no such thing as “climate science” the entire field is leftist propaganda funded by activists inside the government and foreign interests to destroy the US economy. Every “climate change” activist needs to be thrown in prison for sedition.
Amen, brother.
The most ironic thing is that the very small changes we would need to make to limit CO2 would cost our economy almost nothing. In reality a few key interests continue to funnel money to political campaigns and hacks to spread propaganda the other way. Of course you could easily learn this for yourself if you ever took a browse thru sciencedirect and maybe looked at some actual papers on the topic.
I don’t object to discussion. But I do object to terms like “climate change deniers”. I understand that you’ve already made up your mind and don’t want to be confused by the facts.
I have made up my mind, siding with the facts and 97%+ of climate scientists.And with all due respect, I’m not responding with the objective of debating you or changing your mind, but to stop the propagation of your mistaken equivalence between weather models and climate models – which is convenient for your argument, but fundamentally incorrect.
Anyone who quote the 97% number instantly loses all credibility, as it simply does not mean what you, and 97% of people who use it, thinks it means.https://www.forbes.com/site…http://climatechangedispatc…
Uh, from the Forbes article you linked:”If you look at the literature, the specific meaning of the 97% claim is: 97 percent of climate scientists agree that there is a global warming trend and that human beings are the main cause–that is, that we are over 50% responsible.”That’s all I was saying.
Actually dude, there have been at least 7 meta studies done in the scientific community regarding consensus on climate change. I’ve linked the graphic here. 97% is about right.Also, see this reddit thread:https://www.reddit.com/r/sc… https://uploads.disquscdn.c…
Just because a model is complex doesn’t mean it doesn’t have predictive power.The scientists have gotten the big picture right for at least 20+ years:https://www.theguardian.com…
Presumably had you chosen to go to law school instead you would have realized that positioning yourself as a potential victim isn’t an argument on the merits of climate change, that a degree from MIT does not mean you weren’t asleep during the part of stats class where they discussed Bayes, and that hurricanes are weather and not climate. After World War 2 ended there will still some Japanese soldiers fighting the war because they were in the middle of the forest while the rest of the world had moved forward.
I have no idea what you just said. I think it was an attempt at being insulting. Hopefully you are not a lawyer.
The organizations you referenced are primarily advocacy groups. Nothing against that but if you want to support an organization doing more tangible work then I’d recommend https://carbonfund.org/.Another advocacy group in particular I support is the work Charles Komanoff is doing at the Carbon Tax Center: https://www.carbontax.org/
I like your general direction – support work rather than activism. But carbon tax has been tried in Europe and was a complete failure.
A revenue neutral Carbon Fee and Dividend (like that proposed by the Citizen’s Climate Lobby – http://citizensclimatelobby… is very different from the Cap and Trade program in Europe (although by adding a price floor to the cap and trade program, the UK’s implementation has been very effective: https://www.carbonbrief.org…A carbon tax is currently in place in Canada and was previously shown to be very effective in Australia before Turnbull’s government overturned it to support the coal industry.Putting a price on carbon is the single most effective thing we can do to incentivize change on a macro level.
“Incentivize change” is code for “getting people to behave the way we want” Investments in clean coal and natural gas are by far the best ways to reduce carbon emissions TODAY. No need to tax people into submission.
I don’t think you’re reading any of the things I’m sharing… I’m happy to have a reasoned debate with you but you need to be willing to listen to my argument and read the links I share. A revenue-neutral carbon fee and dividend offsets tax increases on carbon-producing activities (with the fee captured at source, though presumably passed on to consumers with increased prices passed on) with corresponding decreases in other taxes or an explicit dividend repaid to taxpayers. No taxing anybody into submission.That said, if you want to talk about skewed incentives, the estimated global subsidies for fossil fuels are at 6.5% of global GDP, led by China but also with insane levels of subsidy by the US. The subsidies for clean energy that rile people of a certain mindset up so much are a fraction of the subsidies afforded to fossil fuel producers in the US and globally.http://www.sciencedirect.co…
I’m glad you are pointing these potential solutions out—will read. The more tangible solutions the better IMO. It’s a large problem—one that needs multiple, large and far reaching solutions. Thank you.
Have you been paying attention to the massive impact of the “carbon tax” in Canada that is driving entire industries out of the country?It’s not rocket science. CO2 is a natural carbon cycle byproduct. It is self-regulating. There’s a reason why numerous farming regions are seeing record yields.Oh, and FYI, the US Federal Government has no constitutional authority to “regulate” or “incentivize” carbon in any way.
http://www.economist.com/bl… << The Carbon Tax in Canada was expanded nationwide after the successful roll out in BC.
Yeah… Sounds like you’ve been listening to NDP propaganda again.
The Economist?
Go look at Rebel Media’s coverage of the “carbon tax” and its real world impact. Calling it a “success” is a bold faced lie.
You can still find media that considers Obamacare a ‘success’ even though it failed by almost any measure.
What a joke. There are 20 million more insured people today due to Obamacare. You can’t get dropped from coverage if you get a chronic illness such as cancer (you could before). You can’t be denied insurance for pre-existing conditions. It made meaningful changes to our healthcare system.At least cite valid criticisms, such as cost. Not a blanket dismissal of everything.
I have no idea what you mean by self regulating. Yes, CO2 is created from known chemical reactions with stoichiometric ratios, that doesn’t mean that we can emit as much CO2 as we want and not face real consequences.
Yes, it does. It’s called a feedback cycle. More CO2 means more green plants, more green plants mean less CO2. It’s why crop yields are setting records.
If it were self regulating, the CO2 ppm would have remained the same… Dude, even a cursory google search will show that CO2 is not ‘self-regulating’. The parts per million has nearly doubled since the industrial revolution.Crop yields are trending up due to improvements in technology. They aren’t directly correlated with CO2. And they have crashed badly in recent years too – i.e. 2011.
You have no idea what you’re talking about.
The argument about subsidies to fossil fuels is misleading, though often repeated. When you drill down to investigate these “subsidies” you find they are actually referring to the negative externalities of carbon production that “ought” to be taxed in order to be on par carbon-wise with green energy, but aren’t. “Subsidies” sounds like the gov’t taking your income taxes and handing them over to Exxon, which is not an accurate picture.
Valid point. While the magnitude is much smaller than 6.5% global GDP, however, there are also direct subsidies (in the form of tax deduction items) specific to fossil fuel producers in the US e.g. the ability to expense “intangible drilling costs” (lowering taxable income). A list of the subsidies have been identified by the Treasury here: https://www.treasury.gov/op…
The government does basically hand them money by allowing them to drill / explore for oil & gas on federal land.The gulf of Mexico is all federal waters. Who do you think leases the mineral rights to the fossil fuel industry?If those plots of land were privately owned, what would those companies actually be paying?The most straight forward reason the companies are in fact subsidized is that we LEASE them mineral rights for almost nothing.Second, there SHOULD be a cost associated with producing carbon – because our municipalities are certainly taking out bonds paying for the costs of climate change. Sea walls, aquifer and ground water projects, drought planning, etc — our cities at the muni level are spending billions right now dealing with the effects of climate change. If the same energy were produced via nuclear or renewable energy, they wouldn’t be spending as much. There is a cost associated with that, that is being subsidized.
Yes, that’s what the government does. It rewards behavior it wants and taxes behavior it does want. That’s the premise behind things like retirement plans (tax savings if you put away income, penalties if you withdraw early) and just about every other policy the government does.If carbon sequestration actually works (there is only one plant they’ve tried it on in the US, and it was not effective in reducing carbon emissions at an operating cost that made economic sense), then it should be a part of the solution.But if carbon sequestration doesn’t work, then we should acknowledge that and move on to other ways to fix the problem.
Europe did a cap and trade system. They did not implement a straight carbon tax. Big difference. If you tax something, you reduce the incentive to buy it. It’s simple and it would work.
I’ve worked with several of these, and 350.org and NRDC are particular favorites from working to mobilize and get it done. Another good org is Oceana (if sea change is of concern).
Just curious. Are you aware that in the past (before people and carbon) the sea level of the earth changed by as much as a foot in either direction? New York would have been completely submerged.
Your point here is spot on — and why I’m so skeptical of climate change claims. I get it: pollution sucks. Places like China and India have major problems and a reduction is pollution would be a good thing. But the sweeping claim of “climate change” falls statistically short by my eye. Especially when put into the context of the short window of time in which all of this supposed change is occurring. Let’s take CA for example, where I live. We’ve just had a monster drought. Years upon years of “climate change” hit pieces about how the state is now doomed and turning back into a dessert. Well, cough, what do you know?: it’s raining here again and the drought is over. Furthermore, the drought event was perfectly within range of normal — but that does not fit the narrative of “climate change”. We have had numerous droughts of this magnitude. Nothing has changed folks.
Yes. What was science has turned into a political weapon. And you can tell by the way people react to the opposing viewpoint – name calling and dismissal.The sad result is that now people (even in this community) are sending their money to political organizations – not groups trying to solve problems using a consensus approach.
I applaud the support for climate change focused non-profits. I have and will continue to make donations to similar organizations. Another option for those looking to support clean energy with their wallets is to invest directly into solar, wind and other clean energy projects via platforms like CleanCapital (http://www.cleancapital.com/). Fred is correct in saying the “market forces are getting stronger every day.” By investing in these clean energy assets, you can feel good about combating climate change while making a return on your money.
Reposted
A “Luddite” is a shaming term. Last time I checked, meaningful dialog does not occur when one party is called names (“idiot”) or shamed or blamed.
Can you be a Luddite and own a private jet, Can you be an environmentalist and ride a private jet?
Chemistry should be a mandatory course to graduate high school. And maybe a mandatory course to drive a car! Why we use words like global warming and Luddite to try teach people the effects of carbon has always been baffling to me. Why not talk a about things that people can relate to? Like ocean and lake acidification? https://uploads.disquscdn.c…
One minor point – the impact of our food consumption on climate change. Dramatically reducing our consumption of meat would probably have a bigger impact on the environment. #meatfreemonday is a start
Our Children’s Trust is an organization helping some kids fight against climate change through the courts, worth a look as well.
Yes… Let’s continue to commit economic suicide by outsourcing our manufacturing to China and the rest of the third world who blatantly ignore even the most basic of pollution standards. That will end well.
I agree. I don’t know if we need to block our borders to “free trade” but I think at as a country we have specific moral ideals about how we treat people and the planet as such we enact laws to enforce them. We shouldn’t let that stop at the border. If you want to be a trading partner to the US you should have the environmental protections and human rights (i.e. no child labor laws) as the US and they should be enforced.
Simple fact is that in terms of REAL pollution, the US is a world leader. (HINT: CO2 is NOT a “pollutant”) Until the rest of the world catches up to where we already are, it makes no sense to destroy our economy so that our enemies can take our money and laugh at us.
1) CO2 is a pollutant. It is a pollutant b/c it traps heat in the atmosphere and creates various other feedback loops which could eventually lead to runaway greenhouse condition on our planet.2) There is a huge pervasive myth that cutting our CO2 emissions would destroy our economy. Forget about renewables, if we even replaced our existing coal fired plants with nuclear plants – that are just as cheap per KW, that would go a tremendous way towards meeting our Paris commitments.Even taking existing coal plants and forcing them to develop and use carbon capture technology might only cost on the order of $5billion up front, and 1 cent per KW. Source:https://www.gsb.stanford.ed…That’s frankly almost nothing compared to US GDP. We lose more money on medicare fraud and unnecessary bloated defense contracts that we would ‘lose’ on limiting CO2.3) On the flip side, our government, at the municipal level, is spending billions right now putting up seawalls, tapping new aquifers, redirecting rivers, drought planning, etc etc on dealing with the CURRENT effects of climate change.The fact is, it’s a situation where you spend a little up front and save money, or you wait until the situation gets bad, and all of your money is going to damage control. We’re ALREADY spending money on damage control, just at the muni level so you don’t hear about it as much.This kind of thinking that we can’t afford to spend money on climate change initiatives gets it totally backwards. We can’t afford NOT to spend money on climate change initiatives. It’s short sighted and is costing us money in the present.
1) And yet, CO2 concentrations have been orders of magnitude higher and no such effect took place.2) I don’t care about our Paris commitments. The federal government has no constitutional authority to enact any such regulations.3) Yeah… and I bet that they are stocking up for the annual yeti hunt. Doesn’t mean that it’s a rational response to a real problem.
1) See the image below — there has never been a period in the history of the Earth (after it’s atmosphere stabilized) that CO2 and temperature were not directly related.2) The gov’t absolutely does have the constitutional authority to sign binding treaties with other nations… It’s uh, in the constitution.3) How is drought planning not a serious problem? Or dealing with overflowing levees (sea level rise)? These local projects are all direct manifestations of climate change. We’re spending money on this now. We’d be smarter to stop the CO2 getting into the atmosphere in the first place. https://uploads.disquscdn.c…
1) Oh really? Go back more than 500,000 years. You’re looking at an ice age smart one.2) Not when those treaties attempt to grant powers to government that it doesn’t already have. Sorry bro. You can’t write a treaty giving you extra powers.3) Yeah, only if you’re an idiot. CO2 concentrations have no impact on global temperature. I’d point out that your own graph shows it to be a TRAILING indicator, not a LEADING one.
This issue is a perfect example of why I dropped off FB. Such a post on FB would have drawn all sorts of quite vitriolic commenting, typically from people who don’t know anything more about the issue than those they are accusing of being wrong on it.Its also a perfect example of how Trump won. The NY Times and your blog comments are an echo chamber. Noone who has a differing opinion will comment here because of the obvious opinion that you have seeded with your views on the subject. While this is probably exactly what you are looking for in this case, since you’re soliciting donations, my point is its probably not representative of the wider opinion across the Trump voters. They I think are quite skeptical of the “science” because they see it being tainted by political opinions. (I did not vote for Trump btw)
We got that here too.
thanks and agreed. another organization to consider is ceres.org, which is focused on working with institutional investors and large companies to push for better market signals (disclosure, legislation, renewable finance) to allow for better decision-making
FRED:”I am pissed off, annoyed, irritated, upset, and dismayed that we have such a luddite in the White House that he can’t see what carbon energy has done, is doing, and will do to our planet.”Multipy that times 50% for us.We are #UNEQUIVOCALLYUNAPOLOGETICALLYINDEPENDENT and we for the life of us refuse to understand the defense of the indefensible by POTUS (Trumps) surrogates.And this blog post is the reason we embrace your views on acts of kindness and sense of humanity. We all should be inspired by those acts.We continue to hold the view as before the election. We always knew who POTUS was/is. He is way over his head dealing with the superior intellect of Steve Bannon. POTUS (Trump) is essential a Manchurian POTUS.
Alex Epstein’s book THE MORAL CASE FOR FOSSIL FUELS debunks a lot of the hype around “clean” energy and the overstated negative impact of fossil fuels. Anyone high concerned about this issue should consider that book, as I found it a huge relief in terms of exposing real severity of the issue.If you *really* believe that “market forces” are moving to clean energy and that they can muster on their own efficiencies, then the solution is *free* up the market so that can happen — which is what these policies presumably do.
I would like to accelerate and amplify these market forces which is what the old policies did
Isn’t that a contradiction in terms? “Accelerate” [free] market forces with …. force?
no. A totally free market means pirates/gangs and very law/recourse. (aka Somalia)I am terrified of Marauding Pirates.
This is a huge point. Most people (even mean capitalists like me) want to reduce pollution and save the environment. What we object to is the current political climate that overstates facts and resorts to name-calling when anyone disagrees.The Left does not understand this fact. But if you present a case and appeal to peoples natural desire to help, they will get involved. But if you call them names (“denier” “luddite” “idiot” all used just today on AVC) then how can that possibly help? This is the politics of division and it has never, ever produced anything meaningful.
Why does the executive order exist?
The man has a pen.. Jason.
Off topic: I had an emergency come up and cannot attend tomorrows event for stocktwitsI will give my ticket free of charge to an avc comentor or somebody that you know can’t afford.I’d love and give preference to a student or disadvantaged person
Oops email me at my name at the gmail service
Instead of donating to a environmental organization, I think deploying capital is better way to solve this problem. I’ve been looking to invest in Wunder Capital or something similar. (A little difficult since I’m Canadian.)https://www.wundercapital.com
http://www.celfeducation.org….worth considering?
CONTRIBUTORS:OFF TOPIC ALERT!Another repeal by Republicans that weakens your information ISP can’t sell.https://www.fcc.gov/documen…Kiss net neutrality goodbye next. Now expect the defense of the indefensible.http://www.npr.org/sections…No outrage. Can hear a pin drop.
CONTRIBUTORS:OFF TOPIC ALERT:Who amoung us intends on purchasing the Samsung S8 or S8+ phones?Why? Are you a first adopter on most new electronics? Do for an upgrade? You just have it like that?
I’m reading this simply as a sign that the top politicians have judged that it’s not in the interests of USA to actively fight climate change.Regardless of the position on climate change itself, I believe that all sides could agree that if USA would choose to act meaningfully, it would be a very large investment of resources from USA itself; and the costs and drawbacks of unmitigated climate change will fall primarily on other countries. While I have seen some return on investment calculations, they all rely on assumption that reducing damage (both capital and human) in e.g. Bangladesh count as “return” on economic impact that first world countries choose to take. That is a very sketchy assumption, especially given the current political climate. If you *don’t* assume a global position but a national one (e.g. concept of “America First”), then I doubt if there is a valid *local* return on investment on preventing climate change; as USA can mitigate any local effects by some local (re)construction effort (=jobs) in coastal areas, and the impact of global effects by a strict immigration policy and literally building a wall, leaving those places most affected by climate change to fend for themselves.In that sense, a politican saying that they don’t believe in climate change is actually only saying “it would be better for the interests of my constituents if we didn’t act on that issue”. For example, you’d expect Australian politicians to argue that coal power has no impact on global warming and shouldn’t be restricted – and that’s their job to do so, given the importance of coal to their economy. If saying that the sky is pink would be good for their economy, you’d expect the same politicians to argue in all kind of ways that the sky is pink, no matter what they think themselves.
Who in this thread are the real thought leaders? Some of the greatest scientific minds in this country are refuting the global warming alarmists. I was hoping to see Fred and the others here express more doubt and encourage patience. I am very disappointed in the tone of Fred’s message.
name a leading climatologist who agrees with you.
I’d recommend NRDC or EDF. When I worked on The Hill, they were two of the most thoughtful and effective organizations in the space
Imagine if coal and oil burning did not exist – and never had. The world is powered by solar, wind, etc. And then a group walks into Fred’s office:Entrepreneurs: “We have a cool ten slide deck all about a great new way to produce power!”Fred: “Awesome – does it have a social component?”E: “No, er, um, yes… um, wait till you hear more…”F: “Go ahead…”E: “Well, we dig this stuff up from the ground, employing thousands of people, it’s heavy, and dirty. We ship it over municipally subsidized transportation systems. Then, it gets burned and releases all kinds of pollution and poison.”F: “Why?”E: That’s the cool part! We build really expensive plants all over the country that burn the stuff, heat water, produce steam and generate electricity!”F: “And that’s better than solar, how?”E: “Jobs!” Drops mike….
Suggestion:Donate to Cornell Ag Labs/Seed breeding alongside Bill Gates to specifically subsidize open access seeds and open seed programs around low fertilizer usage/local seed programs.Growing food is VERY carbon dependent, especially as one moved up the food chain and/or uses non-organic fertilizer. A lot of seed, including/especially GMO seed, is patented. (though Non-GMO seed is patented as well. Unlike a lot of people, I don’t have a problem per say with GMO as a process, I do have a problem with some of the ways it has been used currently). Creating ways that people, especially not-the-wealthiest among us, can grow food easily in their local areas given climate change, and not only that, allow them to hack those seeds via their own local breeding programs, is a critical infrastructure need right now.#justsaying
+1 for the Sierra Club
https://uploads.disquscdn.c…Fred — Please consider adding our organization, 2020 or Bust, to your list.Climate change is often viewed as too complex, too big, something “out there” for scientists, governments or other institutions to deal with, something we can deal with later, all of which leaves people in a kind of trance of hope, gestures, best efforts and business as usual.2020 or Bust is a global initiative to wake people from that trance, bringing to the world the reality of what it will take to end the crisis and the opportunity for everyone to take action to make that happen.We’re NOT on track to end the climate crisis, and If we don’t radically impact the situation in the next four years, it is unlikely we will be able to end it in time. This is our make-it-or-break-it window of opportunity, and once that window closes it won’t re-open.The mission of “2020 or Bust” is to mobilize the world to end the climate crisis, and to rally humanity around the next four years as our make-it-or-break-it window of opportunity in making that happen.2020 or Bust is clearly not a political campaign. It is a campaign out to not only end the climate crisis but also to bring into existence a new kind of conversation, a conversation not of any ideology (political or otherwise) but a conversation for responsibility, for critical thinking, for leadership that comes from the stand that one takes, rather than from following some ideological leader “out there.”Ending the climate crisis requires a whole new way of thinking and acting. For the past three years, the 2020 or Bust team, in partnership with scientists, civil society activists, UNDP, UNEP, UNICEF, along with NGO partners has developed the science, models and action scenarios that make ending the climate crisis not only achievable but achievable through the actions of individuals.2020 or Bust is about mobilizing individual action! This has many realizations, starting with our mobile app available in the app stores under the name “2020 or Bust”.
Definitely include 2020 or Bust! ENDING the crisis, not mitigating, adapting, progressing studying or debating. And doing it through collective individual action. This campaign makes the government irrelevant. Not some pipe dream, the science and models have all been worked out, and the app makes it accessible to everyone. We have 4 years to make this happen. ACTION NOW!
Please consider 2020 or Bust! Its mission is to takeadvantage of a still-open but brief window of opportunity to slow globalemissions so we don’t zoom past the point of no return. It’s based oncollective yet individual action – with enough people choosing to lower theirpersonal emissions, the curve on the emissions graph can be bent down. It isSUCH an opportunity but time is flying past.We have an app to enroll people and offer them choices on how to participate, from planting trees (for a dollar a pop!) to buying an electric vehicle. The really cool part is how it aggregates individuals’ carbon savings into a global total, so people can see that they really are making a difference. It now needs the talents of professionals to boost it into viral status.The above is my quick, short, non-expert attempt to put it all in a nutshell. We have real experts and great partners. I’ve volunteered at 2020 or Bust for almost two years—it’s virtually an all-volunteer org at this point—and it’s agonizing to see time flying by when time is of the essence.Please, take a look at this presentation https://vimeo. com/195228495at COP22 by founder Laughlin Artz, or visit our website http://www.2020orbust.org.Whatever your choice in the end, thank you for your commitment to making a difference in this supremely critical matter.Best regards, Suzie ElliottP.S. I’m struggling with this interface a bit and added some spaces after vimeo. to keep a big graphic from popping up.
ResponseThis post is an effort to be a responsible citizen to help rational citizens understand the truth and not be misled.In brief, for the US’ reliance on carbon energy and the resulting impact on climate change. there is no even reasonably credible evidence that “carbon energy” has had any significant or measurable “impact” on temperature or climate change in the past or present or will have any such impact in any realistic future.Stone Age BloodAll the claims that CO2 from human activities have had, are having, or will have a significant effect on temperature or climate are no better founded than those of the stone age Mayan charlatans who killed people to pour their blood on a rock to keep the sun moving across the sky as inhttp://books.google.com/boo…from page 76 ofSusan Milbrath, ‘Star Gods of the Maya: Astronomy in Art, Folklore, and Calendars (The Linda Schele Series in Maya and Pre-Columbian Studies)’, ISBN-13 978-0292752269, University of Texas Press, 2000. withIndeed, blood sacrifice is required for the sun to move, according to Aztec cosmology (Durian 1971:179; Sahaguin 1950 – 1982, 7:8).Pissed offForI am of two minds on this. On one hand, I am pissed off, annoyed, irritated, upset, and dismayed that we have such a luddite in the White House that he can’t see what carbon energy has done, is doing, and will do to our planet. You are profoundly misled and misinformed. Trump has done nothing wrong and, instead, with his recent energy, coal, and EPA actions is doing the US a LOT of long needed great good.Instead of beingpissed off, annoyed, irritated, upset, and dismayed you should just read and think a little and then relax and praise Trump’s really good judgment.Read and Think Just a LittleRead and think? Okay, it doesn’t have to be either long or complicated. Here is some quite solid rationality all just here, all quite simple, in just seven simple points:(1) CO2Yes, CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Since we can’t see it, it does not absorb visible light. It does absorb infrared in three narrow bands, one for each of bending, twisting, and stretching of the molecule.In practice, the infrared is supposedly mostly from Planck black body radiation from the surface of the earth warmed by sunlight.Due to the astounding complexity of the atmosphere and oceans of the earth, and also our ignorance about the current state and candidate dynamics of both, interactions with the solar wind, etc., saying in solid terms from first principles of physics and chemistry — which is the only theoretical foundation we do trust — what the effect of reasonably likely concentrations of CO2 is on the temperature of earth is for now essentially impossible. E.g., we would have to consider fluid flows in both the atmosphere and oceans; that would take us into the Navier-Stokes equations, and on the temperature of the earth we wouldn’t get anywhere with those equations, either analytically or numerically.(2) Flows of CO2We do not have even decent first cut information on the flows, that is, the sources and sinks, of CO2.On land, biology is likely a significant sink, and we don’t have even a weak little hollow hint of a tiny clue just how that works. First principles of physics and chemistry are too distant from the biology to say what the biology will do, and we don’t have any comparably effective, useful first principles of biology.Another big sink is likely the oceans, and supposedly they absorb more CO2 when the water is cooler and less when it is warmer — that is, warmer water expels CO2.For sources, again we are in the dark, especially for CO2 from volcanoes.(3) Modeling EffortsOver the past 20-30 years, there have been many efforts to model the effect of CO2 on global temperature. There were dozens of modeling efforts that made temperature predictions.By now we can compare the predictions with real temperatures. What we see is that nearly all the models predicted temperatures wildly higher than the real temperatures.Some good details are athttp://www.energyadvocate.c…So, the models failed.In science, when models fail that badly, we junk the models.(4) HistorySince we can’t use first principles or the models to say what the effects of CO2 are, we have to retreat to empirical data.From ice cores, tree rings, etc., we have a lot of history, going back at least 800,000 years, on both temperature and CO2 concentrations.Both temperature and CO2 concentrations varied significantly.Net, we see two results:First, there was no time when significantly lower temperatures were closely preceded by significantly lower CO2 concentrations. So, when temperature fell, the cause was not CO2.Second, there were nearly no times when significantly higher temperatures were closely preceded by significantly higher CO2 concentrations. So, when we got higher temperatures, the cause was never or nearly never higher concentrations of CO2.While there have been several significant changes in temperature, so far there is no credible evidence that changes in CO2 concentrations have led to significant changes in temperature. Or, net it appears that CO2 has essentially nothing to do with temperature changes of the earth; the causes of the temperature changes are elsewhere.(5) Main Recent ChangeThe main recent significant change in temperature, lower and then higher, was the Little Ice Age. There is no even hint that lower CO2 concentrations got us into the Little Ice Age. Instead, the main, nearly obvious, cause of the start of the Little Ice Age was some years of especially few sun spots. For coming out of the Little Ice Age, the obvious cause was a return to more sun spots, not CO2 from the Industrial Revolution.(6) Recent Data.There really was some measurable global cooling from 1940 to 1970, but likely CO2 concentrations from industrial activity and WWII were increasing then — so, we got more CO2 from human activity and likely more CO2 in total from whatever sources, but we got cooling instead of warming. So, really, CO2 did not cause warming or stop the cooling and was not the cause of the cooling; something else was.Next, for the last 20 years or so, for the claimed relatively high concentrations of CO2, we have seen no significant or meaningfully measurable increase in temperature. So, CO2 now is doing nothing, zip, zilch, and zero, to temperature.Net on CO2Net, for the effect of CO2, from humans or anything else on the earth, just f’get about it.The Real SituationFrom all I can see, the interest in CO2 has nothing to do with temperature or climate change. And evidence about CO2 is 100% irrelevant to that interest.Instead, the interest is some curious group dynamics, some political positive feedback loop, all based on the desire of people to be part of an in-group, fad, movement, especially the liberal Democrats in the biggest cities in both the US and Europe. NYC is a good candidate for the most intense center of that in-group.The amplification link in the feedback loop of the group dynamics depends heavily and crucially on billions of dollars a year from the US Federal Government, and now with Trump that money is about to be gone with the wind, dry up like a dead snake in Death Valley.That dry up will be the end of 99+% of the whole carbon, CO2, global warming, and climate change movement. Dawn is on the way; then the all night in-group party will be OVER; and all the A-list people and snowflakes in NYC and LA will drop the movement like a bad fad and be on to the next new thing, e.g., maybe something much more meaningful such as outrageous, home-made hats, home made wine, anything but clothes (ABC) parties (e.g., dresses from bubble wrap), synthetic jewels glued to fingernails, a secret language only for the in-group, new drinks based on exotic fruit juices, maybe even just a new dance step.Sickeningly Ugly ResultsBut a problem is, the efforts to date to restrict CO2 emissions from human activity, besides shooting the US economy and national security in the gut, have hurt a lot of people on the low end of the economic scale, yes, in the US, also in Europe, but, really, to a gut wrenching extent, in parts of Africa.Net, the anti-CO2 movement is really ugly, disgusting, despicable, destructive, dangerous stuff.War on TrumpFor President Trump, there are some anti-Trump people who are just totally and bitterly opposed to him and right along, about once a week, come up with outrageous, cooked up, “fake” issues, really like lobbing artillery shells in a war. The attacks are fully as bitter as in a war. On the anti-Trump side, it’s just war.On the anti-Trump side, there is no rationality and only “fake” issues, e.g., human sources of CO2 causing global warming and/or climate change, but there is an ocean of genuine, fuming, total hatred.Maybe “haters going’a hate”, but they stand to look even more foolish than they did predicting that Trump would never run, never file his financial statement, never get the nomination, and never but never win.There is no law against looking foolish.Trump in RealityAs is plenty easy to see, Trump is a quite decent guy, with a big heart, fully sensitive to the suffering of people in the US, not really a conservative at all. Pursuing a war with President of the United States Trump instead of working with him, bringing honest and solid criticisms and better ideas, etc., is now seriously hurting the US.Trump has not stopped campaigning, including with rallies. He has some quite impressive Oval Office photo-ops several times a week. He puts up his signed executive orders, the folders open, for all to see.People can easily see that he’s darned serious and respect and follow him for that; e.g., he won’t go to the Correspondents’ Dinner and won’t throw out the baseball.Quite generally for a long time, and much better in the last two years, he’s darned good at publicity and getting followers. He’s successfully going directly to the people and avoiding the distortion, etc. of the mainstream media.Net, he’s not easy to stop or even seriously slow down.Losing the War on TrumpAs nearly everyone can easily see, Trump is getting good stuff done, right along, and the anti-Trump people and the war against Trump are not really stopping him. Trump’s popularity stands to rise.Right along, Gorsuch will be confirmed; the law suits blocking Trump’s executive orders will lose totally and decisively; the wall will start crawling across the southern border; DHS will keep slowing the illegal immigration and deporting the bad illegal immigrants; Trump, likely with no real role for Speaker Ryan, if he remains Speaker, will get a good health care bill, plenty compassionate, not really cheap, a bill the conservatives think is too expensive; will cut some good trade deals; will cut taxes, etc. and give the economy one heck of a shot of caffeine; will keep growing jobs as now but with the better economy much faster; will keep cutting unnecessary regulations; will trim the size of the Federal Government (EPA, State, Department of Education, etc.); will fire ineffective bureaucrats; IMHO will suddenly announce one day soon that ISIS has been defeated with al Baghdadi and his lieutenants dead; will scare 40 pounds of ugly fat from that wack-o in North Korea; etc.If the anti-Trump people and the Democrats keep up this war on Trump, they stand to lose, badly, and in 2018 may find themselves beaten “like a rented mule” and just out’a any power at all.In-Group Having FunApparently the in-group is having a lot of fun. Inside the group, they get smiles, praise, friends, support, approval, and, hence, a sense of power and security.So, the in-group is a lot of climate change alarmists.They fully realize that they are fully free just to ignore or laugh at any evidence, arguments, science, etc. No matter what anyone else says, they are free to ignore or just say “I disagree.”. They are under no obligation to consider anything but what they want.So, for the alarmist in-group, it’s fun: Inside their group, they get lots of support. Outside their group, they get to watch others be rational, careful, more and more clear, and get frustrated as the alarmists just ignore the outside.The alarmists feel powerful like they are winning against rationalism.Sure, the in-group alarmists are back in the stone age with the Mayan charlatans and on rationality just total drooling idiots and even self-destructive fools, but with their support from their in-group, they don’t care.It’s an old trick: In grade school, a girl said that my hand writing was illegible. So, I wrote more clearly; she glanced at the result and repeated illegible. We went through this several times, and even when I wrote in carefully drawn block letters she still just glanced and pronounced illegible.Really, she was showing that she was lying or unable to read. But she was having fun lying and, then, seeing me get frustrated because I had no way to make her be rational. And she didn’t care what I thought of her, that is, had fun insulting me.It was just a grade school girl manipulative social game, one, that, really, net she lost from lying and being irrational.I was trying to regard her as a fellow student — we were in the came class eight hours a day — worth communicating with; she wasn’t.So it is with the climate change alarmist in-group.There was no point in writing more clearly for that nasty grade school girl, and there is no point responding more clearly to the climate change alarmist in-group.Or, from George Bernard Shaw, as athttps://beamingnotes.com/20…is for irrational, destructive people, pigs, “luddites,” and idiotsNever wrestle with a pig. All you get is dirty, and the pig likes it. SimilarlyNever argue with a pig. It just frustrates you and irritates the pig.Never argue with an idiot: they will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience. But for rational citizens, maybe this post is the responsible thing to do.SummaryI supported Trump and believed in his chances early after his announcement, and I was correct.It’s easy, legal, maybe for some people sometimes great fun to be wildly wrong, but it’s a curious and often destructive goal.
We can all have a much better discussion and in turn, much better solutions when we all start from an understanding rooted in reality.First, no one on this planet denies that the climate changes. It has since it’s formation. If you’ve chosen to use ‘climate change’ in place of ‘man-made global warming’ then you’ve chosen to be intellectually dishonest.Next, there is ZERO reproducible scientific evidence that man is causing a global warming crisis. If you understand the Scientific Method, even in the most basic of terms, you’ll understand that this is not up for debate.3rd, we all need to understand that evironmentalism is destructive while conservationism is productive AND protective. I’m a conservationist, I believe in being stewards of this awesome planet. Environmentalists pretend they are to advance an economic ideology.If we start a foundation based on what I addressed above only then can we start doing well.
Another thing to do is to think about how the private sector, whether foundations or tech companies, might help this situation which is a victim of Trump — deletion of data.https://www.theguardian.com…
This is what Obama did for 8 years. Remember Solyndra? This is nothing more than corporate bullying by well funded activists. Trump is now trying to reverse some of what he did – which is why he was elected.
Let’s keep it on topic. It has nothing to do with “greenhouse gases” or “global warming”. It has to do with dealing with REAL pollutants, not imagined ones.
I agree. But I do object to groups pushing institutions to invest according to a philosophy as you propose. Once you do – you lose half of the donors. I donate money to MIT – and I don’t want them pulling and pushing dollars based on social causes. Their job is to create a return to keep the money rolling.
Do you have any data to support your thesis? I for one would stop donating to anyone who became “activist” investors. You are just assuming that everyone would react the way you do. You could be right – but I wouldn’t bet millions of dollars on it without some data.
Of course I don’t (nobody does – which is my point.) The reason I care is that moving money around is picking winners and losers. Just ask the coal miners if they feel like they deserve to lose their jobs and homes because some weenie in Washington decided they were bad for the environment.
You might want to grow up a bit here, Charlie. I have nothing to do with the coal industry. It is not “my coal.” And you don’t need to insult me by saying “thanks for promoting poisons in the water.” (Remember Fred’s new rules.?) I have two children and am just as concerned with their future as you are.I am simply trying to illustrate a concept: It is easy to be a Liberal when it doesn’t impact you personally. If the government decided that whatever you do for a living was suddenly bad for everyone – and wanted to put you our of business personally – you might have a different response.