Freedom Gas!

[DJQuag]

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-renewables/chinas-2018-renewable-power-capacity-up-12-percent-on-year-idUSKCN1PM0HM

China: 2018 renewable power up 12% in one year. Outspending the US in renewables 3:1
US: Put tariffs on Chinese solar exports making it less viable.

Yup, China is the problem. 

China is seeking energy independence, and is now trying to transition to a cleaner infrastructure which doesn't create a brown cloud. Renewables have reached a price point where it is cost-competitive with other options. So once again, do not confuse China's use of renewables with China actually being concerned about climate change.

Likewise, China is aware enough that the rest of the developed world is concerned enough about it that they're willing to spend Billions upon Billions of dollars on things that they think will mitigate it. Further, they're willing to hamper their own economies in the name of mitigating this perceived gigantic risk. While China is not going to consider doing so themselves.

Why wouldn't China try to get ahead of the curve on the R&D side of that in the interest of selling those things to other nations? It helps them gain prestige internationally, even if they don't actually give a ____ about it. It helps them generate more revenue to spur further economic growth domestically. It helps further hamper their competition as well. So again, why wouldn't China be trying to be at the head of the pack on much of this?

It also has benefits in helping them in their current war on their domestic brown cloud problem, without needing to rely on assistance from other nations.

China is doing what China is doing because China sees benefit to China, and harm to others, by doing so. China also is "buying in" on Nuclear in a big way, because they're being starkly rational about things. Unlike much of the western world, the state of the Nuclear Power industry in the West is pathetic at this point, China is either about to surpass, or already has surpassed on that front as well. Because NIMBY rules over here.

If China is leading the globe in development, production, and use of renewable energy sources I have to say I don't really care why they're doing it.

[TheDeamon]

Until they refuse to stop using Carbon later on.

[DJQuag]

Until they refuse to stop using Carbon later on.

Except if they keep on course, carbon sources will be less viable. Not only politically but economically. In what scenario do you see China throwing billions into developing renewable energy and then marrying itself to carbon once the technology pans out?

[TheDeamon]

Until they refuse to stop using Carbon later on.

Except if they keep on course, carbon sources will be less viable. Not only politically but economically. In what scenario do you see China throwing billions into developing renewable energy and then marrying itself to carbon once the technology pans out?

They're also continuing to develop carbon tech. They can also operate on multiple tracks at once. "Clean coal" is likely on their work list also. They have plenty of coal, they just haven't bothered with making sure it doesn't pollute(that and the stuff they have isn't very clean burning to start with).

As it stands, they're hungry for energy in general, so anything that can make more of it and can be deployed quickly is a winner in their books right now.

Stuff that can make energy without needing a large logistics chain is even better(where wind/solar is strong). Stuff that makes energy without needing to rely on foreign sources for fuel is even better.

Cost isn't very important to them right now. How quickly they can build it is more important. You can also count on them not going all in on renewables once they're no longer trying to catch up to demand.

[TheDeamon]

They're also continuing to develop carbon tech. They can also operate on multiple tracks at once. "Clean coal" is likely on their work list also. They have plenty of coal, they just haven't previously bothered with making sure it doesn't pollute(that and the stuff they have isn't very clean burning to start with).

Fixing an omission.

[Seriati]

So we're playing counter factuals?  A country that doesn't care about pollution at all, China, that is pursuing clean tech for the same reason its pursuing a monopoly on steel, 5G, and just about every other high tech or strategic market is the hero?  Just because they are a "leader" in output of clean tech - better not ask if they were clean in the production of their clean tech or the extraction of the heavy metals that they're using, no seriously better not ask if you want to play the counter factual game.

Meanwhile the country that has an actual history of self imposing economically damaging pollution controls is the bad guy.  The country that actual developed the intellectual property that China for the most part just stole is the bad guy. 

[TheDrake]

In 2017, renewable energy comprised 36.6% of China’s total installed electric power capacity, and 26.4% of total power generation

Renewable energy accounted for 12.2 % of total primary energy consumption[3] and 14.94 % of the domestically produced electricity in the United States in 2016

Keep trying to demonize China, the numbers just don't support it. Did they recklessly install dirty carbon energy in the past? Yes, they did. But now they are manufacturing and deploying clean power generation.

[Seriati]

So you're going to continue with counterfactuals, and narrow focus:

https://climateactiontracker.org/countries/china/

China has promised to keep increasing carbon production until 2030 and then slow down.  They are building new coal plants, and those plants are no where near as clean as a US or EU coal plant.  So keep patting yourself on the back because you can point to a "green" statistic in a regime that is single handedly the biggest polluter and on pace to single handedly reversing any amount of cuts that the US and EU could produce.

Or how about this:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/rrapier/2018/07/01/china-emits-more-carbon-dioxide-than-the-u-s-and-eu-combined/#38adad8c628c

Note the trend lines.  China's is a skyrocket, the US and the EU lines are both declining, but hey sure China's the real hero here.

[D.W.]

Since when has science said, "Well, we don't really think the way you went about your research is ethical enough for our standards.  We're going to ignore and shun the fruits of your labor and urge everyone else to do so as well."  ?   

[TheDrake]

https://climateactiontracker.org/countries/usa/

Note that the US is listed as critically insufficient compared to China's highly insufficient.

I never said China was a hero, I'm just saying it is a pot-kettle situation. It's like dumping toxic waste into a river for decades, then getting mad at the new guy on the block for following your example.

Perhaps you've heard of leading by example, the way that the EU countries are doing. And yeah, I don't give 2 **** if that means we take a hit in GDP growth.

[Seriati]

Lol, yep, if the US went to net zero it would be a step in the right direction.  I can't make you see reality.  The fact is the US was the world's biggest polluter and that was bad for the whole world.  This is not however a situation where we can afford, China, then India, then Indonesia, then the African countries all decided to take the same road the US did.

It's not a matter of fairness.  If the environmental panic is correct, it's just a done deal.  China's policies, if the world is really in crisis, will literally kill the world.  Making excuses for it because the US did it first is not science it's politics.

[D.W.]

And all that leads to...

Develop "green tech" as fast as possible, and sacrifice here, in the US to get it done.  Then see to it we are providing it, when they don't themselves, so they DON'T take our path.   

Ideally selling it and recouping our expenses and maybe profiting.  Also improving our own circumstances at home. 

[TheDrake]

Of course it is politics, that's what's always stood in the way of doing one darn thing about the situation. In politics, there is give and take. A good agreement is one that every participant grumbles about being unfair. Past agreements recognize that it is a non-starter to force developing nations to bear the brunt of dealing with the crisis. What we could offer is drastic reductions in our use in exchange for holding steady in China, as one idea. There are other options as well. You could take the forcing route, and sanction China while unilaterally reducing at home.

At least you acknowledge that we were primarily responsible for creating this mess, I appreciate the intellectual honesty.

[Seriati]

And all that leads to...

Develop "green tech" as fast as possible, and sacrifice here, in the US to get it done.

Sacrifice?  No, it leads to encouraging production where ever it happens to be cleanest to put polluters out of business. 

It's really simple, the people of the world want/need stuff.  You can either kill them all off, put them under repressive governments that deny them stuff, or build the stuff in the cleanest manner possible.  Any other decision is not based on saving the environment - because it won't.

Then see to it we are providing it, when they don't themselves, so they DON'T take our path.   

Ideally selling it and recouping our expenses and maybe profiting.  Also improving our own circumstances at home.

The fact is these policies are grossly warped by liberal guilt and a desparate need for economic redistribution.  They are not about the environment.

[D.W.]

I've said before.  I'm a terrible environmentalist.  I'm... IDK a techno purist?  Anything to keep the innovation ball rolling in the right direction.

[TheDeamon]

Perhaps you've heard of leading by example, the way that the EU countries are doing. And yeah, I don't give 2 **** if that means we take a hit in GDP growth.

And THAT is why China is "all in" on clean energy tech and the production companies they can snap up. Because they know the EU and the United States will knowingly pay a premium for use of that tech, and pay a premium for the opportunity to do so, even when they have numerous other more economical options available to them.

[Pete at Home]

I've got to ask, is this kind of measurement commonly used? Can people argue that cutting corporate taxes is good without nailing down the precise perfect number? Or is it just an axiom that cutting them is fantastic, and the more the better?

Taxes, is that science? No, it's politics. You're not making a reasonable comparison.

But yeah, you can talk to people and ask them what taxes should be and often get a number. In fact, we set what we think is the perfect number all the time. Sometimes people disagree and there's a debate, taxes get changed to another very precise number. Have you ever done your income taxes? Did they have a precise number for you? You bet they did.

If you check a university class list, Mathematics is a Science, and taxation is mathematics.

Climate change is science but climate change policy and climate change disinformation are political.

[Crunch]

June 29, 1989, Associated Press, (link).

UNITED NATIONS (AP) _ A senior U.N. environmental official says entire nations could be wiped off the face of the Earth by rising sea levels if the global warming trend is not reversed by the year 2000.

Coastal flooding and crop failures would create an exodus of ″eco- refugees,′ ′ threatening political chaos, said Noel Brown, director of the New York office of the U.N. Environment Program, or UNEP.

He said governments have a 10-year window of opportunity to solve the greenhouse effect before it goes beyond human control.

As the warming melts polar icecaps, ocean levels will rise by up to three feet, enough to cover the Maldives and other flat island nations, Brown told The Associated Press in an interview on Wednesday.

Coastal regions will be inundated; one-sixth of Bangladesh could be flooded, displacing a fourth of its 90 million people. A fifth of Egypt’s arable land in the Nile Delta would be flooded, cutting off its food supply, according to a joint UNEP and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency study.

″Ecological refugees will become a major concern, and what’s worse is you may find that people can move to drier ground, but the soils and the natural resources may not support life. Africa doesn’t have to worry about land, but would you want to live in the Sahara?″ he said.

UNEP estimates it would cost the United States at least $100 billion to protect its east coast alone.

Shifting climate patterns would bring back 1930s Dust Bowl conditions to Canadian and U.S. wheatlands, while the Soviet Union could reap bumper crops if it adapts its agriculture in time, according to a study by UNEP and the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis.

Excess carbon dioxide is pouring into the atmosphere because of humanity’s use of fossil fuels and burning of rain forests, the study says. The atmosphere is retaining more heat than it radiates, much like a greenhouse.

The whole global warming movement, full of *censored* for 30 years.

[D.W.]

All causes/parties have their nutjobs.  That is a good find though.  "senior U.N. environmental official"  I mean, it was probably their "job" to get people worked up to change policy / hand over money, but still. 

Alarmist almost never help their cause, even if the sky IS falling.  (which it almost never is..) 

[TheDrake]

Crunch is wrong again. Detailed description of what the 1989 report actually predicted follows.

https://www.truthorfiction.com/is-a-1989-u-n-predicts-disaster-if-global-warming-not-checked-article-authentic/

[D.W.]

That sounded like a quote, rather than a report.  FWIW

[D.W.]

Claim
A 1989 Associated Press article predicted disaster if "global warming" went unchecked.
Rating
True

From your link.  You could agree or expand on the link saying he's (also) trying to mischaracterize it, but even the link says it's factually accurate.

[ScottF]

You guys are being obtuse. Back then it wasn’t settled science. Today it is.

[Crunch]

Crunch is wrong again. Detailed description of what the 1989 report actually predicted follows.

https://www.truthorfiction.com/is-a-1989-u-n-predicts-disaster-if-global-warming-not-checked-article-authentic/

Very top of your link:

Claim

A 1989 Associated Press article predicted disaster if "global warming" went unchecked.

Rating

True

That actually confirms my point. 

[TheDrake]

Binary crunch. Can't read past 140 characters. The true part was that those words were published. The next several thousand describe why the conclusion is wrong.

[Fenring]

Binary crunch. Can't read past 140 characters. The true part was that those words were published. The next several thousand describe why the conclusion is wrong.

Honestly the article reads like a bunch of double-talk to me. It knows it has to say the content is true even while going out of its way to show how it's really not true anyhow. And their analysis is a goalpost shift anyhow. If a scientist's claim in 1988 is that temperatures will increase by 1-7 degrees in 30 years, and that if it goes badly this *could* mean trouble by the year 2000, he shouldn't sensationalize his own circumspection by throwing in the comment that by the year 2000 it will go "beyond human control". It's the old motte and bailey once again, where a doomsday prediction is backed up by "oh well I only said that it *could* happen..."

[TheDrake]

You are presuming that the scientist is the sensationalist. Isn't it more likely that the ap reporter plucked the most outrageous line from a 15 minute interview?

[D.W.]

I think what we're saying is, Crunch's assertions may miss the larger point, but he's not wrong, there ARE doomsayers out there making a mess of things, and have been for awhile.  Your own link demonstrates that.   

Claiming that's not the case simply compounds the problems those sensationalists are making towards achieving real advancements.  It ain't easy to motivate skeptics or the selfish, particularly if you squander credibility.

[TheDrake]

That is not how I read his assertions. He says that the science is wrong because of many failed predictions.

[Crunch]

I say the science is suspect. Anytime a theory is put forth and empirical data contradicts it then the theory is flawed. But warmists don’t see it that way. Instead, you delete or disregard conflicting data until you can torture it into a pseudoscience argument for AGW (as you link demonstrates)  or simply memory hole it (like the medieval warming period).

That’s not science. What global warming advocates are doing is as far from science as it gets.

[D.W.]

Well, maybe not the furthest from science you can get... 

[Seriati]

Not sure Crunch is wrong.  I think computer based modelling and prediction may not actually be science.  It may be something new and different.  I mean does it really follow the Scientific method?

[The scientific method] involves careful observation, applying rigorous skepticism about what is observed, given that cognitive assumptions can distort how one interprets the observation. It involves formulating hypotheses, via induction, based on such observations; experimental and measurement-based testing of deductions drawn from the hypotheses; and refinement (or elimination) of the hypotheses based on the experimental findings.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

How much "rigorous skepticism" is permitted in a field with a "consensus" where critics and doubters are routinely labelled as "deniers" and extremists, that are even ostracized and occasionally forced out of positions and/or lose grants.  In a field where data (ie observations) is routinely adjusted, which potentially inserts cognitive assumption risk rather than eliminate it.

There is no real experiment and testing, that's why they added computer modelling - to pretend there were real tests and experiments.  This to me is the real crux of the problem.  If the model is a real proxy for the actual environment you could get good results, but if it's wrong in any way (which given the hundreds of thousands of, if not millions, of aggregated inputs, is far more likely), you would only get a relevant result by coincidence.

I think Crunch would argue that the refinement (or elimination) step is also lacking, particularly where it appears that the data gets changed if it doesn't support the hypothesis, and the hypothesis gets "backwards modified" to match the data (ie they revise the projections from a point in the past rather than going forward).

Honestly, the "models" should be seen as a hypothesis, and there is no real experiment running.  I guess I don't think it really is Science just based on Science.  It's an application of science but that doesn't mean it's false or won't end up with a predictive power.  I do find the way things are presented and represented about the past (and the way the past keeps changing) to be a material impediment to trusting their predictions about the future.

[D.W.]

First, one would expect things to be adjusted (with new data).
Second, the "experiment and testing" with computer models comes when they correctly or incorrectly predict actual events down the road.  Some models are obviously wrong, as Crunch points out.  To me at least, that doesn't throw the whole field out as "not science"...

That said, all of your points is why I tend to focus on expanding our capabilities to manipulate our environment as we see fit instead of just accepting that we will do SOME harm if we want to maintain the comforts and way of life we've become accustom to.  (and that others are still trying to attain.)  I don't like sucking down exhaust fumes in a traffic jam.  I like clear blue skies (when they happen around here...)  I like clean water.  Those green growy things are OK too when I go outside.   

I prefer putting effort into improving those things I like without telling me I need to tear down my city and rebuild into archologies and ration power and take shorter showers...  I don't much care that the weatherman gets it wrong.  Be it a 7 day forecast or a 20 year prediction. 

[Fenring]

How much "rigorous skepticism" is permitted in a field with a "consensus" where critics and doubters are routinely labelled as "deniers" and extremists

To be fair this is more or less what Kuhn describes as science in normal times, where the majority adopts a model and those who reject it are "fringe scientists" or worse.

that are even ostracized and occasionally forced out of positions and/or lose grants.

This isn't so much about how the science is done as how the business of science is done. Although I agree that an extensive study about the connectin between the business model and the actual work would be interesting. Maybe someone's done it, but I haven't ever made it my priority to check on this, predominantly because I don't follow journals closely.

There is no real experiment and testing, that's why they added computer modelling - to pretend there were real tests and experiments.  This to me is the really crux of the problem.

Although I sort of agree with you I'll play devil's advocate for a moment, because this objection could be levied towards several areas in physics which for the last 40-50 years have stirred controversy for being untestable thought experiments. I suppose the fundamental difference is that these areas of physics have been devoid of experiment mostly due to deficiencies in our engineering technology, rather than due to the innate nature of the methodology.

I think Crunch would argue that the refinement (or elimination) step is also lacking, particularly where it appears that the data gets changed if it doesn't support the hypothesis, and the hypothesis gets "backwards modified" to match the data (ie they revise the projections from a point in the past rather than going forward).

I don't even think this is so bad, *if* it means moving any possible pieces on the board to see where your theory has gone wrong. But what you're getting at is that this is a deliberate means of avoiding being honest and fudging the numbers, then I agree that's pseudoscience.

[Seriati]

First, one would expect things to be adjusted (with new data).

One would expect them to refine or discard the hypothesis, not to adjust the data.  Certainly not to rerun their "past" predictions to make them match the new results.  If someone did any of that in a real science their work would be discredited.

Second, the "experiment and testing" with computer models comes when they correctly or incorrectly predict actual events down the road.

I'm sorry, that's neither an experiment or a test.  What was the variable they manipulated?  There isn't one.  How did they control for other variables?  They didn't.  What was the "experiment"?

Is a successful stock picker engaging in science just cause they were correct in their prediction?  The fact is there are more unsuccessful pickers, but our bias draws us to the ones that were correct.  But give them enough time and they almost always come to an environment where they return to average or even lose. 

Prediction is a complicated business, and it is based on science, but that doesn't make the predictions an experiment or science.

Some models are obviously wrong, as Crunch points out.  To me at least, that doesn't throw the whole field out as "not science"...

I'm not "throwing it out," I just don't think it is Science.  Predictive analytics sounds like a better fit.

That said, all of your points is why I tend to focus on expanding our capabilities to manipulate our environment as we see fit instead of just accepting that we will do SOME harm if we want to maintain the comforts and way of life we've become accustom to.  (and that others are still trying to attain.)  I don't like sucking down exhaust fumes in a traffic jam.  I like clear blue skies (when they happen around here...)  I like clean water.  Those green growy things are OK too when I go outside.   

I agree with this.  I think the agenda gets confused because on the "green" side you have a very vocal portion that rejects preserving modern life - the "liberal guilt" faction that believes we are bad wardens and hates corporate America.  For them a "solution" that involves adapting to or modifying our environment without hardship and cuts is a failure, same as doing nothing.

[D.W.]

so...
Environment-ologists not Ennviornment-icists


You cannot measure ice caps melting or atmospheric trapping of heat or solar ray penetration levels or ocean currents and temperature gradients sufficiently in a lab so lets not bother studying it at all? 

I get that data can be abused to fit politics, but what point are you trying to get at?  I'm all for getting bad science out of politics.  I think that part of it is rather uncontroversial.  But just calling it "not science" seems to go beyond that into the realm of, "Lets ignore it all and do what we want."

And we ARE bad wardens... but I like modern life.  I'd make a sad renaissance peasant and drafting by oil lamp with T-squares and boards to design much less ambitious projects would take some serious adjustments...  I suppose my doctor would like that I was getting more exercise, as long as I didn't need any of those silly industrially produced prescriptions or energy wasting diagnostics. 

Politics gets a lot easier when you ignore the kooks on the fringe.  But damn do they get loud at times.

[rightleft22]

I agree with this.  I think the agenda gets confused because on the "green" side you have a very vocal portion that rejects preserving modern life - the "liberal guilt" faction that believes we are bad wardens and hates corporate America.  For them a "solution" that involves adapting to or modifying our environment without hardship and cuts is a failure, same as doing nothing.

Is this true?

Its true that the extreme voices are always the loudest and the ones we tend to forces on if only to maintain our own positions - by pointing to the extreme of the "other" side the argument seems to that gives permission to throw out the baby with the bath water = do nothing.

I personally don't know anyone that holds the above position.

[D.W.]

Is this true?

It's a matter of degree.  I don't know anyone who fits that exactly... 
But let's just say that if there was a magical button that would turn the clock back on modern life, there are a couple people I'd make sure never got near it.  Just in case. 

Mostly the people I know slant heavily towards the nerd spectrum.  We needsis our precious electricity!

Then again, oddly those who seem most vocal are also heavily invested into social media... where would one do their posturing with all that communication and shallow reinforcement stripped away?   

[Seriati]

You cannot measure ice caps melting or atmospheric trapping of heat or solar ray penetration levels or ocean currents and temperature gradients sufficiently in a lab so lets not bother studying it at all?

Show me anywhere I've ever said that.

I get that data can be abused to fit politics, but what point are you trying to get at?  I'm all for getting bad science out of politics.  I think that part of it is rather uncontroversial.  But just calling it "not science" seems to go beyond that into the realm of, "Lets ignore it all and do what we want."

No.  My unstated point is that I'm concerned about appeals to authority (where there isn't authority) and the religious-ation of Science.  You should be persuaded by science because it's objectively demonstrable not because it's SCIENCE.

In this case, 95% of the arguementers on climate change don't actually understand how the conclusions they are repeating were reached.  They don't understand that this "Science" is non-experimental and is built on computer models that incorporate massive amounts of assumption.  They hear "Science" and they think it's the same as an experimental science.

This is not the only branch of science that has this problem.  Others are almost completely observational.  At least with climate science we have a lot of observational data and the ability to run experiments on individual components.  Where we "lose" the certainty is when we try to model the entire climate.

I personally don't know anyone that holds the above position.

You don't know anyone that opposes carbon sequestration?  That protests any emissions - or thinks that every coal plant should be shut down?  I mean heck the Green New Deal just proposed 0% emissions energy sources, did you miss that?  That's not just anyone that's a chunk of your Congressional representatives.

Is this true?

But let's just say that if there was a magical button that would turn the clock back on modern life, there are a couple people I'd make sure never got near it.  Just in case. 

Just to be clear, I'm not suggesting that they are Amish or Luddites (though some are).  The biggest faction is opposed to things that they don't easily connect to their personal lives.  They drive an SUV to a power plant to protest its emissions.  They want that coal plant shut down (and don't care that a dirtier one will be opened in China).  Right now many are just focused on painting the US as a bad guy, others are concerned about the global case.

When you go to weigh the economic benefits versus the ecological harms (which is  a requirement under the EPA), the scale is always weighted to "infinite" on the ecological harm side.

[rightleft22]

The biggest faction is opposed to things that they don't easily connect to their personal lives.  They drive an SUV to a power plant to protest its emissions.  They want that coal plant shut down (and don't care that a dirtier one will be opened in China).  Right now many are just focused on painting the US as a bad guy, others are concerned about the global case.

That seems to be a huge assumption. IMO again I know no one that holds those opinions. I hear them refereed to in online, primary as excuses to invalidate all environmental arguments or planing but no one that actually holds them.

I think a problem lies in the way social media arguments progress. Its the loudest extreme voices being responding to making it appear as if the extreme views are held by all those on the 'other side'

There are plenty of hypocrites on both sides of the environmental augments as well as just plain stupid and there are not the voices we should be listening to.

I personal care very much that China will open a dirtier coal plant however I don't think its a argument about why we should or should not continue to build them. At least its not a environmental one (I hate the argument that be cause bob is a asshat its ok for me to be a asshat) though could be a economical one.  The problem here is that we tend to confuse the arguments - economical verses environmental and lose all balance.

[Fenring]

They don't understand that this "Science" is non-experimental and is built on computer models that incorporate massive amounts of assumption.  They hear "Science" and they think it's the same as an experimental science.

I've always been a reader about science, and it's become grating how the word "science" is thrown around to mean almost anything, and especially things of a faddish nature or that support certain presuppositions. One particular trend that I find troubling is that the study of just about anything to do with humans is often called "science", such as for instance sociology. So a university department will have someone studying trends in behavior, will have a pre-set dogma associated with this, and will call their beliefs "science" and will call themself a "social scientist", or even worse sometimes just "a scientist". The word becomes so sullied when used in this manner IMO that saying "science!" is now becoming equivalent to "my team says X". No wonder so many people distrust science, when in fact what they should be distrusting is people. The fact that it's people who do science is a very special reason why good science takes this into account to eliminate the human factor from the results.

The biggest faction is opposed to things that they don't easily connect to their personal lives.  They drive an SUV to a power plant to protest its emissions.  They want that coal plant shut down (and don't care that a dirtier one will be opened in China).  Right now many are just focused on painting the US as a bad guy, others are concerned about the global case.

A related area that's interesting to look at is recycling. Sure, a segment on Penn & Teller might open up eyes about how much recycling really achieves, but it doesn't seem to have altered the mainstream 'consensus' that recycling tons of stuff helps the planet a lot. But as far as I can tell there are so many conditions that would have to be met for recycling to really work that are too arduous for average families to achieve, and the mess that's thrown into recycling unusable, that I wonder if there's a comprehensive study around about what it really accomplishes. And putting trash into landfills isn't even really a carbon footprint issue; it's more of an aesthetic one. But I routinely see people running the sink for a long time to clean one dirty plastic container, and the suggestion that "this may be causing the environment more harm than just throwing it out" doesn't seem to register. I don't actually know for a fact that it does (i.e. quantitatively) but I'm pretty sure that using gallons of water to *try to* recycle one oily jar is going to create a negative net carbon footprint.

That's just one tiny issue, but it does reflect on the fact that the "do something!" attitude might yield very zealously held dictums that may not reflect well in practice. "Doing nothing is better than what you're doing" tends to make people upset when they think they're helping. And hey, we were shown that already in Oedipus Rex, where thinking you can save the situation when you lack the broader picture is likely to cause more trouble than it fixes.

[DonaldD]

In this case, 95% of the arguementers on climate change don't actually understand how the conclusions they are repeating were reached.

I would say closer to 100%, given that the internet has given anybody with a keyboard a point of view that can be expressed fairly readily.  And this problem is, of course, common to both sides of the debate.

What I see thrown around so often now is equating climate science with modelling.  However, there are hundreds of lines of inquiry that support unprecedented warming having nothing to do with modelling. Biological changes, ice extent changes, glacier changes, oceanic changes, land based temperature changes, satellite MSU changes, jet stream changes, tropopause changes, seasonal weather changes... and the list goes on and on. You could discount any number of these sets of metrics without affecting the overall conclusion. 

You can also completely misrepresent and misunderstand how the models are created and what the models are used for, and also not affect these conclusions in any significant way.  But that never seems to stop people from making the argument that how the climate is changing is uncertain because ... models!

[D.W.]

Show me anywhere I've ever said that.

Never said you did.  I was just trying to understand where your line of reasoning lead to.  I get it.  Don’t worship science as a label.  But are you proposing better methodology?  I think you’re sellin this “95%” short.  My point is the modeling IS the science.  (or part of it anyhow)  To say it’s not, or that is faulty science is throwing me for a loop.  What experiments do you want them to do?  What would be conclusive to you?  Is there something that can/should be done to result in “settled science”? 

Opposes carbon sequestration? Nope…
Any emissions?  I know some who hope we can achieve it someday, as sorta an ideal to strive for.

Shutting down coal?  Now there I think I could find some people.  Hell, I’m probably in that group.  But I’d have cooling towers and fuel rods up in their place…  So I’m sure I lose some points off my merit badge there.

Now that’s not to say I’ve not heard all these positions and more.  But it’s nobody I associate with or talk to.  I see them online, and see the talking points.  But I don’t’ know them… 

They want that coal plant shut down (and don't care that a dirtier one will be opened in China).

This is an odd point.  First, they probably DO care, but they sure as poop ain’t gonna fly to China to protest there.   

Paint the US as a bad guy?  Well… we were.  We’re kinda an ex-con at this point.  We show signs of reforming and back slide a little now and then, but it’s looking good on us being reformed.  Yes, there are other “bad guys” out there right now.  Up to the same naughty stuff we once did and at some pretty grand scales in some cases. 

On the off chance the “kooks” are right, and we may reach some cascade of “bad”, I’m willing to say we can afford to tamper with the scales in the name of caution.  After all, doing so is an almost guaranteed winner of an investment down the road.  I suppose we can milk a few more decades out of easier economic winds and let someone else reap the rewards of that investing.  After all, we’re the least likely to suffer for it.  We’ve already got (most of) what we want.  It’s the others struggling to catch up that are the REAL problem.

[Seriati]

The biggest faction is opposed to things that they don't easily connect to their personal lives.  They drive an SUV to a power plant to protest its emissions.  They want that coal plant shut down (and don't care that a dirtier one will be opened in China).  Right now many are just focused on painting the US as a bad guy, others are concerned about the global case.

That seems to be a huge assumption. IMO again I know no one that holds those opinions.

Really?  Do you know "no one" that "recycles" in a single stream because separating it into six stacks is too much hassle?  Or that supported a move to single stream?

No one that that sprays pesticides on their grass yards?  (just having a grass yard is environmentally bad).

No one that is angry because they can't do what they want with their back yard just because it borders on protected wetlands (I know hard core lefties that throw a fit about this issue, where they don't view the muddy trees are as a real habitat).

Do you know anyone that refuses to fly because of the pollution?

I personal care very much that China will open a dirtier coal plant however I don't think its a argument about why we should or should not continue to build them. At least its not a environmental one (I hate the argument that be cause bob is a asshat its ok for me to be a asshat) though could be a economical one.  The problem here is that we tend to confuse the arguments - economical verses environmental and lose all balance.

Except the Bob is an asshat argument is literally the one the environmental lobby is behind.  Just make bob the US and "me" China, and you've pretty much paraphrased what TheDrake was saying above.

[Seriati]

Show me anywhere I've ever said that.

Never said you did.  I was just trying to understand where your line of reasoning lead to.  I get it.  Don’t worship science as a label.  But are you proposing better methodology?  I think you’re sellin this “95%” short.  My point is the modeling IS the science.  (or part of it anyhow)  To say it’s not, or that is faulty science is throwing me for a loop.

I think as we discuss this I'm becoming more convinced that modeling is not science and that this is where a lot of the problem arises in this discussion. 

Data processing and predictive analytics are tools, they are applications of science.  What makes a monte carlo simulation run on a stock portfolio not science and the same tool run on environmental data suddenly science?  Is it just inherent in your data, that if you run analytics on "science stuff" you get science?

The models are logical systems, they don't create any information, they can't, they just identify connections that are not inherently obvious to the human eye.  Without observation where's the science?  Sure the people studying this can take the models and go do science, but the models themselves are no more science than the data itself. 

This has nothing to do with fault, or invalidity. 

What experiments do you want them to do?  What would be conclusive to you?  Is there something that can/should be done to result in “settled science”?

Settled science of what?  I think my original charge was that we'd need instellar travel so that we could test theories with something other than an N of 1.

Or just that there is warming?

Or that man generated carbon alone out of the millions of daily impacts that apply to the climate is the primary cause of a warming trend?   

Opposes carbon sequestration? Nope…
Any emissions?  I know some who hope we can achieve it someday, as sorta an ideal to strive for.

I only mention that one cause there was a poster on here a long time ago (maybe a couple) that argued that carbon sequestration was immoral.

Paint the US as a bad guy?  Well… we were.  We’re kinda an ex-con at this point.

It seems to be a tenant on the left that the US is primarily an evil force in the world.  They rejected the idea of American exceptionalism and went out the other side to the "US can do no good."  The fact is we are one of the best guys on almost every area of liberal/progressive thought, on human rights, on the advancement of equality and justice, and yes, on the environment.

We have literally been harming our business interests with self imposed sanctions for decades.

[D.W.]

No one that is angry because they can't do what they want with their back yard just because it borders on protected wetlands

I wish mine was…  Then I wouldn’t have the lawn police telling me I got to mow now… or else!  (happened twice…) 
I guess if someone thought sequestration was somehow going to contaminate something it could be immoral?  Sounds like a loony toon to me, but who knows.  I don’t know much about sequestration techniques. 

It seems to be a tenant on the left that the US is primarily an evil force in the world.

There’s some of that baked in there but the key word is “primarily”.  I don’t think that part is fair.  What most I talk to would be firmly in the Spider-Man camp.  With great power comes great responsibility.  And we’re pretty frickin powerful right now.  We are out ahead, we have made a mess of things in some cases, we know better now.  So…  Easy/dirty path or trickier/cleaner path?  Time to see some more of that American exceptionalism again. 
While some pat themselves on the back “the left” wants to keep being… well, progressive. 

[Seriati]

Well if you're going with the Marvel analogy how did you miss Ironman?  Great power, great responsibility, decadent life style, reforming from dealing in weapons?

Progressivism really troubles me in a way that classical liberalism didn't.  The closest I can come to explaining it is that progressives act like the moral conservatives of yesteryear, they impose morality based laws and harshly punish transgression.  And many times the laws are of the unworkable "I'll know when I see standard" that actually applied in pornography cases for a while.  I mean I've listed it out before, but the new left really doesn't believe in civil liberties (when applied to their opponents) and believes that they can use their own "hyper-liberties" as a sword to overrun those of the other side.  When you add in America is always evil on top of that you get AOC and Anti-fa as the new normal.

[D.W.]

Careful now.  Starting to exhibit symptoms of the other strain related to TDS...

[Crunch]

“During the last hundred years the temperature increased about 0.1°C because of carbon dioxide. The human contribution was about 0.01°C”, the Finnish researchers bluntly state in one among a series of papers.

This has been collaborated by a team at Kobe University in Japan, which has furthered the Finnish researchers' theory: "New evidence suggests that high-energy particles from space known as galactic cosmic rays affect the Earth's climate by increasing cloud cover, causing an 'umbrella effect'," the just published study has found, a summary of which has been released in the journal Science Daily. The findings are hugely significant given this 'umbrella effect' — an entirely natural occurrence — could be the prime driver of climate warming, and not man-made factors.

“Because the anthropogenic portion in the increased carbon dioxide is less than 10 percent, we have practically no anthropogenic climate change,” the researchers concluded.

Money shot:

"If we pay attention to the fact that only a small part of the increased CO2 concentration is anthropogenic, we have to recognize that the anthropogenic climate change does not exist in practice," the researchers conclude.

AGW is a hoax.

[TheDeamon]

Oooh,Cosmic Rays are back on the table again?

Although the reporter has it slightly backwards.

Sunspot activity has been higher than typical for the past ~100 years(on average), and increased sunspot activity means fewer cosmic rays, which means fewer clouds, which means a higher planetary albedo, which means more heat absorbed by solar irradiation rather than reflected back into space by clouds.