A Conversation on Climate Change, Catastrophism, and Illiberalism

A panel discussion from the Liberalism for the 21st Century conference

Climate change seems to provoke illiberal reactions from both Right and Left. The former falls prey to know-nothingism in its efforts to deny the existence of a problem that would justify a governmental response. The latter's tendency to catastrophize climate change fosters support for illiberal responses. Neither is a productive response to a serious problem.

This concern was the focus of a panel on which I participated at the ISMA's inaugural Liberalism for the 21st Century conference this past July. Joining me on the "Climate Change: Liberal Solutions" panel was Nils Gilman of the Berggruen Institute, Joseph Majkut of CSIS, and Slow Boring editor Matt Yglesias. The video is below.

An edited transcript (omitting the Q&A) is also available here.

Comments

[Abdul Abulbul Amir]

The Green Carbon Free Church of the Climate Apocalypse is a fundamentalist religion that allows no apostasy. There can only be discussion of changing our behavior to control climate change, and none about adapting to climate change. USA at the turn on the century was first in carbon emissions. Today China emits more that the USA and the EU combined. India and the developing countries need, want, and will get low cost energy one way or the other. The only two options that fill that bill are fossil fuels and nukes. The Europeans abandoning modern highly productive agriculture at least in part will be seen at some point as a crime against humanity.

[Sarcastr0]

It's both and: https://coast.noaa.gov/funding/bil/ncrf/overview.html

[JoeFromtheBronx]

"China emits more than the USA and the EU combined"

Not surprising since China has more people.

U.S. has about 330M

EU has about 450M

China has 1.4B.

[Brett Bellmore]

"The former falls prey to know-nothingism in its efforts to deny the existence of a problem that would justify a governmental response. "

Why this instant leap from "problem that exists" to "problem that would justify a governmental response"? As if there's no such thing as "a problem the private sector can deal with itself if the government just stops f'ing things up"?

Maybe we think that the bigger problem is, in fact, what the government is doing using climate change as an excuse?

[Abdul Abulbul Amir]

As Rahm Emanuel said, “A crisis is a terrible thing to waste.”

[gVOR08]

I wish people would stop attributing that to Emmanuel. NYT quotes Paul Romer, saying it years before Emmanuel, and Romer denies originating it. https://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/02/magazine/02FOB-onlanguage-t.html?unlocked_article_code=1.JE4.zKvL.VgpalTTk8xnD&smid=url-share
I recall hearing it as a management maxim long before Emmanuel and the Obama administration.

[Roger S]

The NYT article says that Emmanuel said something similar.

[bernard11]

As if there’s no such thing as “a problem the private sector can deal with itself if the government just stops f’ing things up”?

And how will the private sector deal with it? What incentives do they have, and what methods will they use?

[TwelveInchPianist]

What incentives does the government have to deal with it?

[Jason Cavanaugh]

You can't think of any reasons why a government might want to ensure the nation's population, economy, and military have an optimal climate?

Never mind. You probably can't. Have you found your balls yet?

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Have you found your balls yet?"

It turns out they were on your mom's chin.

Again, what incentive does a representative who's elected every two years have to fix a long term problem?

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Gee TIP, perhaps a desire to see our nation continue to exist and prosper?

Private corporations can move to where the climate is suitable if need be. Countries can't.

I tried really hard to leave some obvious hints for you. I will lower my expectations in the future even further.

[Don Nico]

Tax policy, 12"

[bernard11]

What incentive does the government have to build roads, maintain the armed forces, regulate banking, etc.

Politics, public pressure, elections, a sense of responsibility towards the country?

[TwelveInchPianist]

So, many of the same incentives that the private sector has to do those things? (Feel free to substitute elections with boycotts.)

[Krayt]

It's less about that, than reflexively jumping to command and control.

It was noted in the '70s that, as class warfare rhetoric was flailing at the polls more and more, that the same people who demanded command and control of the economy, readily shifted to environmentalism, or ecology as it was called then, and touted the same soluion.

[Brett Bellmore]

And I'm not sure why people who were paying attention back then were supposed to ignore the way they tested out global cooling, then switched to global warming instead, and the policy recommendations remained exactly the same.

[Rossami]

What incentives did the private sector have to deal with the Great Manure Crisis of the 1890s? What methods did they use that were predicted in the 1870s? Why do you suppose that human ingenuity, markets and even human nature will suddenly fail?

[bernard11]

Why do you suppose that human ingenuity, markets and even human nature will suddenly fail?

I don't suppose that human ingenuity or human nature will fail. Believe it or not, there are actually some clever people in government.

As to markets, I'm not sure they will fail. Indeed we've had some market-based proposals that were rejected by denialists. But I'm suspicious.

After all, market failures are not unheard of. It's not as if they have a perfect record, except in the eyes of market-worshipers.

For markets to work you need correct incentives. I don't see that here. Now, it may be that, as in the manure crisis, there is a technology which will solve the problem.

[MatthewSlyfield]

"After all, market failures are not unheard of."
If you really dig into claimed market failures, the vast majority of them are actually a direct consequence of prior government interference in the market. In other words, they are government failures, not market failures.

[Rossami]

As Matthew said, most "market failures" are the result of government tampering, not a failure of the market itself. Of the few where the root cause actually was a market failure, the government intervention always made it worse.

And yes, there are a few clever people in government. The point you're missing (or intentionally ignoring) is that there are a hell of a lot more of them outside government and they have incentives aligned to make things better. Not perfectly so but far far better aligned than the incentives for government officials and employees.

[Sarcastr0]

The main causes of market failure (monopoly, externalities, information asymmetry, public goods, collective action) are not government driven.

[Rossami]

No changing the definitions in the middle of the argument. Bernard, Matthew and I were talking about real world market failures that have actually happened. You are talking about theoretical effects that could cause a market failure. While true in theory, they do not happen (or happen to a far, far lower extent) without government meddling.

Public goods, for example, are only public because some government (with the threat of force) deemed them to be so. Monopolies only work when you can erect barriers to entry to keep new competitors and substitution goods out - barriers that are almost impossible to enforce unless you can get the coercive power of government to help. Information asymmetry is a classic game theory problem and one that markets deal with routinely. That is not a market "failure" at all.

[Sarcastr0]

we think that the bigger problem is, in fact, what the government is doing using climate change as an excuse?

Yes, of course YOU think this. Assuming bad faith is how you deal with everything that you don't like, from business judgement to economic numbers to Supreme Court opinions. Why would climate change be any different for you?

[TwelveInchPianist]

The assumption that the government uses the crisis du jour to justify unrelated issue is a pretty good assumption.

We saw how they used inflation to justify all sorts of infrastructure spending, right?

[bernard11]

We saw how they used inflation to justify all sorts of infrastructure spending, right?

No. Not right AFAICT. Facts, please.

[Brett Bellmore]

You are aware that Biden recently had a Kinsey gaffe on that exact topic, right? Said that the "inflation reduction act" was the most significant climate change law ever", and that they should have given it an honest name.

[Sarcastr0]

Yeah, spending laws can't do two things. You've found proof of a conspiracy once again where everyone else found an anodyne statement!

[Brett Bellmore]

It was supposedly an "inflation reduction act", and you've just admitted it was just a spending bill.

You don't reduce inflation by increasing government spending, that's totally backwards, and people were pointing it out at the time.

[Krayt]

In my partitioning and neural networks class, you have to be careful in your decision algorithm, the result of training. You are trying to partition two groups with imperfect knowledge.

The classic example is, skipping modern sensibilities, determining if someone has a rare disease. Of course, if only 1% have it, if you decided the rule, "No", for everyone, you'd be correct 99% of the time.

But in some cases, that is valid. If you simply presume "ulterior motive" with a politician, you're right 99% of the time. If nothing else, they need to be in power so (something mysterious) and their wealth skyrockets.

[Sarcastr0]

If you simply presume “ulterior motive” with a politician, you’re right 99% of the time

How would you know this?

Ideology is no substitute for evidence.

[Randal]

If you simply presume “ulterior motive” with a politician, you’re right 99% of the time.

Don’t encourage him! Politicians’ motives are the most transparent of all.

You sound like those jerks who blame “the media” for “deciding” what stories are gonna be popular.

[Randal]

Why this instant leap from “problem that exists” to “problem that would justify a governmental response”?

Uh... because that accurately describes the behavior of the right, which denies the very existence of climate change?

Please, it would be a wonderful breakthrough for y'all to admit that climate change exists and move to a position of anti-intervention, if that is in fact your position.

[Bruce Hayden]

Of course we do!!! It’s idiotic. CO2 is necessary for life, and the world is greening, as the amount in the atmosphere slowly increases. Indeed, it was so low, during the recent Little Ice Age, that life, as we know it was threatened.

It’s also not science. It’s cargo cult scientism religion. Yes, there is a small greenhouse effect, when you conduct an undergraduate level science experiment with increasing the amount of CO2. But that is in a small, closed, system, with no feedback. It doesn’t scale, because the feedback in the atmosphere and oceans is significant. The models that ignore feedback run very hot. So, they fake it, trying vainly to model feedback, and their models continue to run hot. Yes - the predictions for warming, and pretty much everything else, are based on computer models, that don’t model reality very well. Yes, the models are slowly getting better, but they still run hot. That means that those trying to change policy to prevent climate catastrophes are demanding that we destroy our economies, based on computers models known to be inaccurate.

Then, these climate “scientists” pretend to corroborate the models utilizing other measurements, such as tree rings. Except that the inaccuracies in the data are orders of magnitude larger than the differences in the data. It’s classic GIGO (garbage in - garbage out).

Multivariate regression analysis shows empirically that the top five drivers of the Earth’s temperature are (if I remember correctly): Sun spot cycle; distance of the Earth from the sun; Earth’s wobble and tilt; eccentricity of its orbit; and El Niño/La Niña cycle. All, scepter the last one, impacting how much solar energy is received, and where. The fifth factor involves deep ocean cold reservoirs. After removing these factors, the amount left is essentially statistical noise, and any attempt to separate out the effects of CO2 are fruitless as a result of the accumulated uncertainties in the 5 primary drivers.

[Randal]

See what I mean, Brett? Let this be the answer to your question.

[Brett Bellmore]

My question was, "Why this instant leap from “problem that exists” to “problem that would justify a governmental response”? "

I'm not seeing how this is an answer.

[Randal]

The original quote was

The [right] falls prey to know-nothingism in its efforts to deny the existence of a problem that would justify a governmental response.

Bruce and the right are denying the existence of an obvious problem, presumably because it’s the best argument they’ve got against a government response, which implies that they think that the problem does justify a government response. If it didn’t, they’d just say that, rather than go around implausibly pretending the problem doesn't even exist.

[Rossami]

You are assuming your conclusions. You start with "it's an obvious problem" then ignore all the evidence put forward by Bruce and others that it's not at all obvious.

More specifically, of course the climate changes. It always has and always will. Neither you nor anyone else on the catastrophic anthropogenic global warming side of the argument have yet presented conclusive evidence that the trend in warming is outside the normal variation, much less that the cause is attributable to CO2 or even if that is the case, that the costs and dangers of "fixing" it outweigh the costs of adaptation.

You have junk science and ad hominems. And then you act surprised that no one defers to your "judgement".

[Randal]

I don’t care about your bullshit, I’m just explaining to Brett, who at least seems willing to admit that climate change is a problem, what Jonathan meant. He meant you.

(This is a misplaced reply to Rossami.)

[John F. Carr]

The problem on both sides is few people want to change their lifestyle. Liberal suburbia with two acre zoning votes to ban new gas stoves and feels its work has been done.

[Joe_dallas]

fwiw – the gas stove causing 12% of asthma cases is one serious case of junk science. It was a meta study using population attribution function (PAF) which is simply is a worthless tool when there are more than 2 or 3 cofounding variables. Asthma has some 10-15 variables, so there is no way to isolate any one variable to reach any conclusion using PAF.
The various asthma advocacy organizations didnt even list gas stoves in the top ten causes, yet the study showed gas stoves caused 12% of cases. Go figure.

[Sarcastr0]

Joe finds another area of expertise.

I don't have the facts or statistical understanding to push back against specific criticism, but suffice to say it's not the only study so this is a thin reed to hang your concerns on.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-health-risks-of-gas-stoves-explained/

[Joe_dallas]

https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/20/1/75

The scientific american article is very heavily based on the Dec 2022 study which used the PAF analysis. PAF analysis has well known problems with multiple factors.

Don Nico is perhaps the only other person posting that has the math or analytical skills to pick up on the errors in these advocacy generated studies. That being said, most of the advocacy / agenda driven studies have red flags that can easily be spotted.

[Sarcastr0]

Aren't you like a financial person for the oil and gas industry? Or was that Bevis.
Regardless, you've got a rooting interest in oil and gas as I recall.

The article relies on a 2013 meta-analysis as much if not more than the 2022 one, cites an expert who was author on neither, and cites additional studies as well.

You read what you want, I guess.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Sarcastro moves to ad-hom.

What's your evidence that the other studies are reliable?

[Malika the Maiz]

It’s not an argument ad hom to point out someone is unreliable or has a conflict of interest (do you think impeaching a witness is “ad hom”?).

In addition, he provided several substantive rebuttals to polymath genius slept-in-a-holiday-express last-night joe’s criticism of the article, so that’s hardly “ad hom” either…

[TwelveInchPianist]

Joe_dallas isn’t testifying to anything, he’s making substantive arguments that can be addressed on the merits. Something Sarcastro seems unable to do.

“In addition, he provided several substantive rebuttals to polymath genius slept-in-a-holiday-express last-night joe’s criticism of the article”

Really? What were they? I must have missed them.

[Malika the Maiz]

Expert witnesses can be impeached. Polymath genius slept-in-a-holiday-express last-night joe provided a link and then claimed he had advanced math skills to tell the study he claimed Sara’s article relied on was faulty. It’s certainly not an ad-hom to point out he’s a history of not understanding articles he cites, doesn’t have any credentials to support his claim of superior skills and might have a conflict of interest to boot.

“What were they? I must have missed them.”

Yes, you must have. The criticism of Sarc’s article was: “The scientific american article is very heavily based on the Dec 2022 study which used the PAF analysis. PAF analysis has well known problems with multiple factors.”

Sarc replied: “The article relies on a 2013 meta-analysis as much if not more than the 2022 one, cites an expert who was author on neither, and cites additional studies as well.”

What an ad-hom, lol!

[TwelveInchPianist]

"What an ad-hom, lol!"

Lol. If you thought that was what I was referring to as "ad-hom"

"Sarc replied: “The article relies on a 2013 meta-analysis as much if not more than the 2022 one, cites an expert who was author on neither, and cites additional studies as well.”"

That's not a refutation of Joe_dallas's claim. And in any event, Sarc hasn't provided any evidence that the other sources are any more reliable than the first. If the article relies on some unreliable sources, there's no reason to assume the others are reliable.

[Malika the Maiz]

Well, as I explained, if you were pointing to his first paragraph that certainly wasn’t an ad-hom (I notice you elided that). So I was giving you the benefit of the doubt that maybe you were just as laughingly saying his second paragraph was an ad-hom.

[Joe_dallas]

Malika the Maiz 57 mins ago
Flag Comment
Mute User
In addition, he provided several substantive rebuttals to polymath genius slept-in-a-holiday-express last-night joe’s criticism of the article, so that’s hardly “ad hom” either…

Actually Sarcastro did not provide a substantive rebuttal, though he may have thought he did.
The article he cited was an advocacy article simply cheerleading a flawed study. Its unfortunately that most people lack the necessary math skills to recognize weak and dubious science studies.
I will repeat my two major criticisms of the study - It used PAF and it set the selection criteria to specifically exclude a newer more comprehensive study (post 2013) that showed no correlation with asthma and gas stoves.

[Malika the Maiz]

You don’t even seem to understand that rebuttal doesn’t need to be correct to be substantive*, how are we to take your claims of polymath genius in other much more complicated areas?

*It’s certainly substantive to reply to a criticism of an article that it’s based on a certain allegedly flawed study by pointing out that the article actually relied on several other sources.

[Don Nico]

"your claims of polymath genius"
Joe never claimed that; you frequently do.

[bernard11]

Actually, Joe comes pretty close to claiming polymath genius.

Even if his discussion of gas stoves and asthma is 100% accurate, that proves nothing about his mental prowess. It just means he looked some stuff up.

[Voize]

It just means he looked some stuff up.

I have to say I much prefer commenters who look stuff up over ones who make stuff up.

[Armchair]

"It’s not an argument ad hom to point out someone is unreliable or has a conflict of interest"

Technically speaking, yes, it is. It attacks the characteristics of the speaker, rather than the argument itself.

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

"do you think impeaching a witness is “ad hom”"

Depends on the argument, how the witness is impeached and the argument being made. But it can be.

For example, if a witness says "The person was here on this night, and not at the crime site". An Ad Hominem would be "you're just saying that because you're his friend". It's a weak argument.

A strong argument would, for example, point to cell phone records demonstrating the individual was at the crime site. It directly addresses the argument in question

[Malika the Maiz]

Like many here you are mistaken as to what an ad hominem is. It’s a fallacy of deductive logic that says an *argument* is faulty by simply pointing to characteristics of the one making the argument. But here polymath genius slept-in-a-holiday-express last-night joe provided a link and then claimed he had advanced math skills to tell the study he claimed Sarc’s article relied on was faulty. It’s certainly not an ad-hom to question his ability to understand the article he linked or his claim of special skills by referring to his track record, lack of credentials/accomplishments in the relevant field and possible conflict of interest. That kind of thing happens in challenging expert witnesses, it’s not an ad hominem.

It’s like a lot of people here took critical thinking or logic 101 (where common deductive fallacies are covered) but not 102 where inductive logic is covered.

[Joe_dallas]

I explained why the study was flawed with 4 solid reasons. I then explained why the rebuttal was flawed. I can only educate you to a very limited extent.

After pointing out the problems of using PAF analysis multiple times, and you havent educated your self, then you shouldnt be commenting.

[Malika the Maiz]

Your “explanation” of why the article was wrong was that it relied very heavily on an allegedly flawed specific study, Sarc pointed out it relied on other expert opinions and studies.

[Joe_dallas]

Malika the Maiz 28 mins ago
Your “explanation” of why the article was wrong was that it relied very heavily on an allegedly flawed specific study, Sarc pointed out it relied on other expert opinions and studies.

Malika - There is a reason I stated that Don Nico was the only other person here capable of understanding and commenting on the various science topics.

The 2022 study was a meta study using other meta studies including the 2013 study. Both of which used the flawed PAF analysis. Take time out and spend some time getting familiar with topic.

[Armchair]

Sorry Malika,

It is an ad hominem argument.

1) Joe presented fact - a study, linked to.
2) Rather than engage with this fact, you attacked the speaker, diverting the argument.

[Malika the Maiz]

Armchair, you don’t get it. This conversation is about joe’s criticism of the article Sarc presented. joe’s come back was 1. Sarc’s study relied on a certain study joe alleged was faulty and 2. joe has superior skills that only Don here could also see.

Sarc replied 1. that the article relied on several other sources and 2. that joe has no given no reason to think he has superior skills, likely has a conflict of interest, etc., none of which are ad hom as lawyers are allowed to this to witnesses claiming expertise all day long. You truly deserve your handle!

[Armchair]

Again, you need to come back to the original point.

Joe's point that the study was flawed is well taken.

Personally, I find the fact that it was an MDPI journal article is very telling. These journals tend to be predatory, with very weak (if any) peer review process. And indeed, that journal is on the list of predatory journals.

https://predatoryjournals.org/news/f/list-of-all-mdpi-predatory-publications?blogcategory=MDPI

If the study is relying on journal articles from predatory (AKA pay to publish whatever you want) journals, odds are it's very flawed.

[Sarcastr0]

This is ad hominem Armchair -
You're attacking the paper, by attacking it's peer review, by attacking the journal, by attacking the journal's publisher.

This is perhaps the weakest chain of ad hominem I've ever seen.

Your authority is a blog dedicated to a grudge against MDPI, or at least that's what 90% of it's posts are about.
Not a lot of attribution on those posts either.

[Rossami]

Let's simply this. Yes, attempting to impeach a witness is an ad hominem. It is a logical fallacy in the sence that it is an invalid way to test an argument in a strict logic problems.

Yes, we allow impeachment of witness in trials because trials are not exercises in pure logic. That has no relevance in a scientific debate other than "X lied or was wrong about Y in the past so I'm going to prioritize replication of X's results over Z who has a better track record - but (and this is important) I still have to replicate Z's results."

[Commenter_XY]

LOL, you know better than to ask that question, TIP.

[Joe_dallas]

Yes it does include the 2013 meta study which also used PAF as I recall. Another thing the 2022 study did was adjust their selection criteria to specifically omit a vastly more comprehensive european study that showed no correlation with gas stoves and asthma.

In either event, They used the PAF analysis which is simply worthless when you have multiple variables. ie other words both studies used a methodology that is invalid.

[bernard11]

Don Nico is perhaps the only other person

I take it you mean the only person other than yourself.

Well, here's a clue. Your analytical/mathematical skills are far from wondrous, as you've demonstrated often enough.

[Joe_dallas]

Correct - I havent noticed any of the leftist commentators with any math or science skills. if fact most of the leftists are quite busy cheerleading some of the most junky of science, much less show any ability to know what to question.

[bernard11]

I havent noticed any of the leftist commentators with any math or science skills.

"Any math or science skills?" Not at any level? I have little more than a layman's knowledge of science, but I suspect my math skills equal or exceed yours. And I know, just from comments on this blog, that my economics/finance skills do.

[Don Nico]

Gas stove risk is BS. Burning dung in India, is a far bigger health issue.

[Joe_dallas]

Thanks
Fwiw - you happen to be the only other person that has demonstrated any math / science or other critical analytical skills to evaluate any of the studies.

[Don Nico]

You admit that you don't have relevant expertise, yet you merely insult Joe, rather than making substantive remark.

Scientific American is hardly an authoritative scientific journal. Over the years its articles with polical implications have often been biased.
Finally like many medical "studies" contrary findings are frequently reported in the peer reviewed literature. Junk food generally has been found to have a strong correlation with asthma, but no community is banning potato chips.

[Sarcastr0]

Incredible.

I have the humility to admit what I can’t speak to, and then argue via other routs than straight on.

Joe has zero humility, speaks to everything, and you take his side somehow.

[Don Nico]

I have only paid attention to his comments on a few topics. It does seem that he has done his homework on the topics that I have commented on. There are many that I don't pay attention to.
But why the gratuitous insult to the guy? That does not boost your argument.

[Malika the Maiz]

“You admit that you don’t have relevant expertise, yet you merely insult Joe, rather than making substantive remark.”

I don’t know what Don’s mathematical skills are, but I do know this is terrible logic. You don’t have to have relevant expertise to answer some internet rando who is criticizing those who do by saying “why should anyone think you know what you’re talking about?”

[Don Nico]

Malika, the terrible logic is yours. You also did not have a substantive answer to Joe. Maybe he is wrong sometimes, and maybe he is correct sometimes (which he has been).
But the gratuitous insult doesn't advance the discussion. Just like your "terrible" logic" comment doesn't have anything to do with logic.

[Malika the Maiz]

You obviously still don’t get it as, with irony, your comment is totally non-responsive to mine.

[Don Nico]

Your logic is not logical. Truly, you don't get it.

[Frank Drackman]

1/2 of Asthmatics are Afro-Amurican (HT Colon-Blow Powell) I think maybe living around rat turds and menthol Cigarettes/Crack fumes may play a role.

Frank

[Dr. Ed 2]

Gas stoves ought to be an issue of informed individual choice -- and there are three wildly varying aspects to this: (a) how much unburnt gas is the stove leaking, (b) how cleanly is it burning the gas, and (c) how much ventilation does the house have?

Gas was initially used for lighting (think Coleman lantern), and a century ago, every room would have gas lights, often multiple gas lights. Gas stoves were just starting to come in, as was electricity.

But the houses back then were drafty with plenty of fresh air. Now they are not, and indoor air quality is an issue as a result -- and not just in terms of stoves. Every person puts about 7 pounds of water vapor into the air -- mostly showering and cooking -- and that water not being vented out of the house is why we have such mold problems now. (It also didn't help that we took the lead and mercury out of paint, as both kill mold.)

In most states the government tests well water for a modest fee as a public service. I'd like to see the government do the same for indoor air -- for $25-$50 they will come over with an electronic sniffer and tell you exactly what is in the air of your house -- and then it's YOUR choice as to what to do about it.

[DaveM]

Refereeing here, in 12 responses thus far to your original complaint about study methodology, none of them have challenged you on the facts. I'm not saying those replies aren't legitimate, but they do miss the point.

I, for one, would very much like to hear more about how this methodology should and should not be used.

[Michael Ejercito]

Even if gas stoves did this, people with asthma can simply not use them.

[Dr. Ed 2]

And not all gas stoves are equal -- some are worse than others.
Some homes have replacement air, some don't.
Look at the variables.

And the one thing government can (and should) do is facilitate trusted measurements of indoor air upon request and at a reasonable cost.

[Brett Bellmore]

"The problem on both sides is few people want to change their lifestyle."

In fact, the problem is activists who see the lifestyle itself as the problem, and climate change as a weapon they can use to abolish it. So they absolutely reject any solution that wouldn't involve ending the lifestyle. (Replacing fossil fuels with nuclear, for instance.)

At the same time, most people LIKE their homes being warm in the winter, cool in the summer, eating meat instead of bugs, and so forth, so the activists can't get their preferred lifestyle destroying solutions.

So very little actually gets done.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

Instead of assuming bad faith, can you not recognize that many of these activists actually believe that climate change is a huge problem, and other solutions like nuclear energy either won't solve the problem or would cause other huge problems? Most knowledgable climate scientists I've read do in fact support exploring and developing alternate sources of energy, but argue that only doing that won't be sufficient.

[Joe_dallas]

Alpheus W Drinkwater 35 mins ago
Flag Comment
Mute User
"Most knowledgable climate scientists I’ve read do in fact support exploring and developing alternate sources of energy, but argue that only doing that won’t be sufficient."

AWD - You highlight one of the points I made below. While I havent seen any "knowledgable scientists exploring rational alternate sources of energy, I do see quite a few activist scientists pushing renewables with considerable amounts of advocacy. The evidence those activists put forth in favor of renewables based various factors such as cheaper based on LCOE show how shallow they understand the physics and the costs. Its difficult to put much faith in the science they advocate when the get the easy stuff so wrong.

[David Nieporent]

Yet another subject on which Joe_Dallas is an expert. Has anyone checked the Nobel Prize award list to see whether one of the recent recipients of the scientific prizes is from Texas?

[Don Nico]

Actually, all so-called solutions have severe limitations and/or have their own environmental problems.

It is highly unlikely that the Western countries can get to net-zero by 2050, and that not counting energy used from process heat, which accounts for ~30% of CO2 emissions. Even by 2100, most of the developing world will have significant emissions. Realistically, the planet may get to depositing 15 - 20 Gigatonnes of of CO2 into the atmosphere as compared with the present 40 Gigatonnes. Even 10 GT for the next 70 years will triple the atmospheric concentration of CO2. Massive investment needs to be made into means of adaptation.

[Joe_dallas]

Don - If you want some entertainment, spend some time reviewing Marc Jacobsons studies on getting to 100% renewables for 145 countries by 2050.

Lots of distortions throughout.
One of the many distortions is the projected increase in electric usage, For Africa, the increase in electric usage over the next 25 years is barely equal to population increase, completely ignoring the likelihood of the electrification of the interior of Africa similar to what happened in america in the early 1900's.

[Don Nico]

Joe,
An energy analysis group of scientists and analysis that I work with this spring analyzed the International Energy Agency's net-zero scenario and found that it was highly unlikely to be achievable. That does not mean that countries should not strive toward that goal.
RE Africa: In Sub-Saharan Africa there are 800 million people (60% of the African population) with no access to electricity. Hopefully by 2050 that will change. Once has to estimate that by 2050 the growth of energy consumption will be much faster that the population growth (which also will be fast).

[Armchair]

Agreed. Outside of revolutionary new energy systems, net zero is extremely unlikely.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Once has to estimate that by 2050 the growth of energy consumption will be much faster that the population growth (which also will be fast).

Alternatively, if workable policies could be implemented which led to widespread initial electrical development by means of renewable energy sources, one might have to estimate the opposite.

More generally, it is commonplace to hear objections that climate friendly policy must be thwarted, lest it frustrate initial development among impoverished nations world-wide. But in some ways, underdeveloped countries present a major advantage compared to developed ones.

The latter feature huge existing investments in climate destructive energy modalities. Climate saving energy mandates risk turning those existing investments into liabilities which must be added to the cost of developing renewables. The developing world is not similarly afflicted. It could start with renewables, and thus get them at lower cost than the developed world will have to pay.

[Bruce Hayden]

If you were talking nuclear energy, I might take your suggestions seriously. But renewable energy is an idiotic chimera.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Don -- electrical transmission infrastructure -- wires, poles, transformers and even generators -- are incredibly vulnerable to hostile military and/or insurgent action.

Most transformers are oil cooled. Put a standard rifle bullet into one, the oil drains out and the transformer overheats, usually exploding in the process. Take out a pole and the wires come down, either breaking and/or shorting out. If a three phase system loses reference to ground because the ground wires have been cut, really bad things can happen to the voltage on some of the phases. Etc.

Are you aware of what is happening right now in Kenya? And Kenya was one of the African republics that wasn't an unstable shithole.

We're not going to see electrification in Africa until we see stable governments there.

[Joe_dallas]

Don
- fwiw - my point in mentioning africa was that Jacobson's 100% renewable study only projects an increase in electric usage for most of africa approximating population growth. He seemed to completely ignore the potential of africa becoming electrified. Just another example jacobson unrealistic analysis, very common among the cheerleaders of advocacy science. thus my comment on reading for entertainment.

[Don Nico]

I made an error in this post which this post corrects:
If the increase in emissions by the developing world offset the decrease in emissions by industrialized countries the during next 75 years the CO2 added would be roughly 3000 GT that would increase the atmospheric concentration by ~150 ppm to a total value of ~600 ppm.
Given that the temperature deviation increases roughly logarithmically, that implies an of the temperature deviation of an additional 1° C (not more than 2°C as I had written).

[Armchair]

It’s actually substantially worse than that Brett.

On one hand, you have the activists who are “useful idiots” like Greta Thunberg.

On the other hand, you have those in charge (the “elites”) who see “Green Energy” as a way to maintain and exert extra levels of control, while having some “feel good” nonsense about themselves.

There are certain elements of the economy that cannot easily be decarbonized without major economic damage (that doesn’t stop the elites from trying it though). But there are other elements that could easily be cut or de-carbonized, without real economic damage. For example, the banning of private jets.

But that would be “inconvenient” for the elites. So, that doesn’t happen. But cutting fracking jobs that pay well and generate economic independence. Yes sir.

[Sarcastr0]

that would be “inconvenient” for the elites

Just straight Alex Jones tin foil, no chaser.

[Brett Bellmore]

I take it you've never read an article about the carbon impact of your typical Davos meeting? One of my favorite bloggers likes to say that he'll believe there's a climate crisis when the people who claim there is act like they believe it. That's pretty much my position, too.

If you think decarbonization is an existential necessity, you're not going to oppose nuclear power.

[Randal]

The gas stove thing, although stupid, had nothing to do with climate change.

[Don Nico]

That is correct,

[Brett Bellmore]

Eh, kinda, sorta did. They're trying to discourage use of natural gas because natural gas is a fossil fuel. (And because leaked methane is a greenhouse gas.)

Otherwise they'd have no particular reason to have so much animus against it.

[Don Nico]

I would worry more about the thawing of the permafrost than about gas stoves.

[Brett Bellmore]

Well, that's part of my point: Global warming is a means, imposing social change is the goal. From that perspective, it's hardly shocking that their priorities make no sense.

[Randal]

If that's what they'd meant, they'd have just said it. The left isn't fighting fossil fuels in in secret. It's a badge of honor!

The fact is, gas stoves are way more efficient than electric stoves. Environmentalists on the left aren't as stupid as the climate-deniers on the right. They understand that superficially banning gas stoves as an anti-fossil-fuel move would backfire.

So no. Once again, Brett, it's not a conspiracy. Everyone's stated motives are transparently their actual motives. They're still stupid! You don't even need to make up a conspiracy theory this time. Nevertheless, you persist.

[Z Crazy]

Can't we just use the Animatrix blot out the sun thing?

[Brett Bellmore]

No, that's geoengineering, and the watermelons are adamant that solutions that don't involve most people becoming poor are unacceptable.

And we'd only need to blot out about 0.1% of the Sun...

[Sarcastr0]

Watermelons - green on the outside, red on the inside.

Because Brett doesn't just see bad faith everywhere, he's also old.

[Don Nico]

And your point is?

[Sarcastr0]

He called people advocating for policies to deal with climate change Communists.
He then strawmanned them regarding geoengineering. Or at least made an unsourced claim as to their position.

He made a very fallacious, very bad, attempt at something that looks like an argument but isn’t.

You either missed all that or don’t care.

[Joe_dallas]

Sarcastr0 28 mins ago
Flag Comment
Mute User
He called people advocating for policies to deal with climate change Communists.

Your are the first person that wrote the word communist or communists. Where did Brett write that?

[Sarcastr0]

Watermelons – green on the outside, red on the inside.
Feel free to look it up.

What did you think the adamant watermelons Brett was talking about were?

[Don Nico]

I missed his calling people communists.
As for his "fallacious argument," many climate activists do take the position that the science of geo-engineering approaches should not be studied. That is an extremist position, even though there is no reason for their deployment at present.

[Sarcastr0]

many climate activists do take the position that the science of geo-engineering approaches should not be studied

You're as unsourced as Brett!

[Don Nico]

Nonsense.
You did not read the Sunday NYT article on the topic published on August 2, 2024.
Try aiming before you shoot.

[Sarcastr0]

No, I didn’t. Why the hell would you think I read a particular article in the NYT published over a month ago?

I can’t find what you’re talking about at the moment, but if your source is that singular, you’re just nutpicking.

[Don Nico]

Why because it was full page, above the fold headline article.
You just insist on your usual brand of dishonesty.
I am not nitpicking; grumbling with nothing better to say about a topic you have little familiarity with. You don't fool anyone.
The discussions about geo-engineering have been around for at least thirty years. The arguments about why it should not been studied have been also. My international group of energy experts has discuss the topic periodically for that entire period.

[Malika the Maiz]

“I missed his calling people communists.”

Behold, the only other mathematical genius rivaling joe here!

What do you think the “red on the inside” refers to in Brett’s comment? This speaks to a larger point: even if joe and Don are great at math (the latter may be true, the former itself doubtful), they might not be great at understanding the logic, context, details. etc., of what’s being talked about. They might even be bad at it.

[Don Nico]

What is the purpose of your insult except to be childish?
Using your "inductive logic" it is only to show that you like to be a jerk.

[Brett Bellmore]

No, Sarcastr0 has correctly identified what "Watermelon" means: "Green on the outside, Red on the inside."

It's hardly a secret that the Greens are a left-wing movement.

[Michael Ejercito]

That describes what the environmentalist movement has become.

See also the plastic straw ban which the 'Ho supported.

[Frank Drackman]

Funny how the "Follow the Science" Crowd are also Creationists, Oil is "Non-Renewable"?? you mean some Surpreme Being created all the Oil on a particular day? Jay-Hay isn't making any more?

Frank

[Kazinski]

"The former falls prey to know-nothingism in its efforts to deny the existence of a problem that would justify a governmental response."

Bullshit. Some very prominent scientists that know more about the subject than Adler would know in several lifetimes don't think Global Warming is a serious problem. Scientists like Dr. Judith Curry, former head Georgia Tech's Climate department, Dr. Roy Spencer who won a the Distinguished Scientist award from Nasa, for inventing, then over seeing the Advanced Microwave Sounding Relay, which provides the most extensive and accurate global temperature record since 1979, because it measures lower Tropospheric temperature in the atmosphere over land and see and uncontaminated by urban heat island and other land use anomalies that come from siting weather stations at airports and in cities. Dr. Stephen Koonin Obama's chief scientist at DOE. Dr. Will Happer an atmospheric physicist. Thats just a few.

Now I am not making an appeal to authority, because there are just as prominent scientists on the other side of the debate, as is usual in both scientific and legal debates.

In fact Adler should know that statement is bullshit, because he doesn't call other law professors that disagree with him on subjects he knows far more about "know nothings". Nor would he ever count heads on either side of a legal debate to decide who he thinks is right. But he does on Global Warming, because he himself knows very little about the subject.

Adler actually should know better

[Sarcastr0]

A few scientists, often in utterly different disciplines, as though that is enough to somehow cancel out the broad consensus.

That is not how a non-expert decides what's credible, it's how a non-expert rationalizes that what they want to believe isn't anti-science so they can feel justified.

Even Brett thinks that global warming is a thing at this point!

[Kazinski]

Well no Sarcastro, these are not scientists in utterly different disciplines. They are scientists that work in disciplines directly related to the debate.

In fact most "Climate Scientists" are not qualified to discuss the physics of climate change, they study tree rings, or the effect of climate change on Bolivian Butterflies or the Great Barrier reef.

The theory of how CO2 and other Greenhouse gasses cause warming is hard core physics. Understanding just what wavelengths of photons are absorbed by what gasses, the resulting occilations of the atoms, how long the energy is retained by the molecule before it is either transferred as kinetic energy to non-greenhouse gas molecules (which is 99.9% of the atmosphere), and when it is reemitted as blackbody radiation.

Things the IPCC doesn't even try to get right, for example they assume Methane will absorb most of the radiation in its absorbtion bandwidth, ignoring the fact that water wapor also absorbs radiation in most of that bandwidth and H2O is thousands of times more prevalent in the atmosphere than Methane.

Don't go looking for answers for those questions from your "Bolivian Butterfly" Climate Scientists.

[Sarcastr0]

Theoretical physics and microwave engineering are not actually on point.

In fact most “Climate Scientists” are not qualified to discuss the physics of climate change, they study tree rings.
Neato change of scope. But it's not going to be enough to cut out the majority of those in climate physics.

Only hard core physicists need apply, says the dude arguing that if he can name like 3 people on one side that means everything is inconclusive and he's not denying anything.

This isn't my area of study but your point that methane is only going to effect one photon in 1,000 doesn't seem to be relevant to it's greenhouse potency.

[Joe_dallas]

First, the earth has been on a warming trend since the late 1800's and its likely that greenhouse gases such as co2 contribute to the warming. I will be the first to admit that atmospheric climate science is quite complex and I dont have a strong grasp of the subject.
That being said, I see considerable amount of the peripherial science aspects such as renewables, subsidies, paleo reconstructions where the climate scientists are making serious errors. Thus the question is to what extent can I trust the climate scientists when they get so much of the easier science wrong or where their conclusions are poorly founded.

[Bruce Hayden]

Paleo Reconstructions? Are we talking the tree ring counters at the heart of ClimateGate? Turns out apparently that they were assuming a more linear relationship with their tree rings than is warranted. That means that their climate reconstructions are, essentially, junk. Combine that with an apparent lack of serious statistical expertise. The error terms more than swamp their results. The big question is whether Michael Mann’s Hockey Stick was a mistake he made in his dissertation, that should have been caught by his committee, or was an intentionally fabricated falsehood. We do know that the cabal of paleo climatologists at the center of ClimateGate apparently did try to Hide The Decline by the way that they spliced tree ring proxies to actual recorded temperatures.

[Brett Bellmore]

Of course I think global warming is a thing. It had better be a thing, we're in an inter-glacial period during an ice age. If temperatures start dropping again, we're in serious trouble!

What I don't think is that global warming is an existential emergency. I'm basically in the same camp as Bjorn Lomborg: Global warming is real, and not a big deal. The money spent combating it would be better spend making society wealthier. Then if it does become a big deal, geoengineering is the appropriate answer, not neo-feudalism.

[Randal]

What I don’t think is that global warming is an existential emergency.

That’s the whole question, right? What counts as an emergency? Like, it’s not fatal to life on earth, for sure. It’s not fatal to human life. It’s probably just an expensive inconvenience to rich countries, such as costly homeowner’s insurance in Florida. It’s probably pretty catastrophic to select poorer populations. But who cares about them, right? 🙂 Except to the extent that they all become immigrant refugees…

[Malika the Maiz]

“there are just as prominent scientists on the other side of the debate”

If by “just as” you mean “many, many, many more” then you’re out of ignorant or disingenuous territory.

[Don Nico]

Malika, try reading what was written much more carefully.
Kaz did NOT mean “many, many, many more” scientists. He wrote that many scientists who are skeptical of the most extreme claims are just as prominent, such being a member of a national academy of sciences.

[Sarcastr0]

And you should know that prominence in an unrelated discipline like engineering or theoretical physics is immaterial.

You should also know that he named like three people.

He's cherry picking. As laypeople who try to deny there's a problem but still want to pretend to care about the science must.

[Joe_dallas]

Sarcastr0 13 mins ago
Flag Comment
Mute User
He’s cherry picking.

Odd that you would accuse Kaz of cherry picking. That happens to be one of the major problems in the paleo reconstruction arena.

[Sarcastr0]

::eyeroll::

[Joe_dallas]

Roll your eyes when you get caught

[Don Nico]

I would not write off theoretical physicists so quickly. The ones that I know who feel the alarm is probably exaggerated have studied the basic atmospheric physics and have a damned good know of the use and misuse of statistics.
You comment about the irrelevance of microwave engineering is at best misleading as the point is that the reference was to inventing a specific atmospheric monitoring instrumentation.
Kaz could have named Steven Koonin or Richard Lindzen among others.
Are there also crackpot deniers such as Christopher Moncton? Sure.

[Sarcastr0]

I'm trained as theoretical physicist. Thermodynamic cosmology.

While we did learn some toy model atmospheric physics problems as motivating problems. But I don't flatter myself that my foundation provided any kind of authoritative expertise in atmospheric physics, nor that I could critique papers in that discipline.

(Most scientists I work with seem quite good at remaining humble outside their lane; the engineering researchers...)

It remains not a very good argument to point out that there are dozens of scientists that agree with your take.
*DOZENS*!

[Armchair]

Please, we've seen your physics education in practice before. It was poor, at best.

[Sarcastr0]

Oh damn, Armchair thinks I'm bad at physics.

[Armchair]

Just this thread..

Sarcastr0: "This isn’t my area of study but your point that methane is only going to effect one photon in 1,000 doesn’t seem to be relevant to it’s greenhouse potency."

There's a lot wrong with this sentence, in multiple ways. But in terms of science knowing the percentage of photons that a greenhouse gas interacts with is fairly CRITICAL to its overall potency as a greenhouse gas. There are several other factors. But the % of photons that the gas can interact with (ie, the absorption bands, in coordination with the emission wavelength distribution) is one of the very important ones.

That's basic science. You don't need to be an expert in the field to understand that.

[Sarcastr0]

My point was general - that there can be a precipitous effect even if a small part of of the whole is involved.

But thanks for letting me know there are lots of factors involved in the atmosphere's interactions with sunlight.

Truly putting me in my place.

[Dr. Ed 2]

One word Gaslighto -- Sunspots.
Solar radiation is not a constant.

[Don Nico]

It is not MY take.
Also, I was not arguing that there are many, many. You make the same dishonest mistake I called Malika on already. Your "DOZENS!" is just lying. You should control that tendency.
As for your discounting what theoretical physicist can do in this area, I'd note that Prof. Richard Muller who started and led the Berkeley Climate project and his colleagues did exactly what you seem to claim is beyond their training.

As for your insulting engineering researchers, you're just showing your ignorance.

[Sarcastr0]

The fact that the number of scientists who deny climate change is a small and shrinking number is not a lie.

Mueller retooled; he didn't just start opining straight out of LBL.

Here is a great discussion about some of the issues you seem to be having. It's about 50 minutes, but it's a pretty comprehensive takedown.
Gell-Mann Amnesia and Michio Kaku

As to engineering researchers, I am relating my personal experience that they seem more likely than other folks I work with to act as though their expertise gives them a general expertise in all technical fields.

It's anecdotal. But I will observe that you are not doing a very good job of being an outlier.

[grb]

Don Nico : "You comment about the irrelevance of microwave engineering is at best misleading..."

Now this is really nostalgia-worthy! Many of us got to know Don during the Covid period, when his specialty was sciency-sounding takes fabbed-together as smokescreen to cover right-wing talking points.

Bless his heart, he could always string together a few sentences artfully sprinkled with science-ish words if a right-wing meme needed proof up is down, or black white.

[Malika the Maiz]

See, this is my point again. You simply don’t get it: if you have 98% of doctors, including prominent ones, who say X is true about an issue in their field, but 2%, including prominent ones disagree, as a matter of inductive logic which view should a layman guess is more likely correct? All you math skills don’t help if you can’t get what’s being debated.

[Dr. Ed 2]

There was a time when 98% of them favored bleeding as a cure.

[Don Nico]

Your argument from authority by consensus fails.
The physics of the period from 1900 to 1930 show that your claim has no merit. 99% can be and have been grievously wrong.

[Brett Bellmore]

The number of scientists in the USSR who disagreed with Lysenko was small and shrinking at one time. It kind of matters why the consensus exists, not just whether it exists.

I think global warming is real, but there's some pathological stuff going on in science now concerning this and many other topics where a lot of politics and money are at stake.

[Kazinski]

The biggest red flag about the hysteria about "Global Warming" is the ridiculous idea that the temperature from 1850-1950 is the most perfect temperature ever any any change of even +/- 2 degrees will catapult us into the abyss.

We actually are in a period that where temperatures are in the 1-2% over earths geologic history, including the Cenozoic Age, the age of mammals over the last 66 million years, when most mammal species including primates evolved.

Here is the temperature graph for the Cenozoic if you don't believe me:
opengeology.org/textbook/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/15_cenozoic-t-2-768x334.png

[Dr. Ed 2]

I love how every storm is blamed on "climate change" and they ignore all the storms of 70-150 years ago, ones well documented by humans, some still alive.

The Great Portland Gale of 1898 is still spoken of (I didn't realize it was 1898 until I looked it up), and living people remember the Hurricane of 1938, and the twin hurricanes of 1954.

People freak out over a 3 foot storm surge, the 1938 hurricane had a 30 foot storm surge, and the US Navy has a classic photo of it coming ashore.

[Life of Brian]

Seems like Reason borked the end of your link. This one should work:

https://opengeology.org/textbook/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/15_cenozoic-t-2.png

[Don Nico]

While the Greta Thunbergs of the world are hysterical, a realistic estimate is that even if the Western nations meet their 2050 goals, the present concentration is likely to triple. Accepting that the effect on mean temperature deviation is logarithmic, one predicts that by 2100, the global temperature deviation is likely to be twice its present value, i.e., in the range of 3° - 4°C,

[Commenter_XY]

Unlikely any of us here writing will be alive in 2100, Don Nico. I don't understand why there is not a crash program to develop safe, nuclear power like there is no tomorrow. The power needs of AI alone are dizzying, let alone the concepts that AI will introduce and design. And we need a means to efficiently move mass amounts of power from point of generation to point of use.

If I understand your back of envelope math, you estimate a ~1.2 to 1.8C increase in the next 75 years. Is that right? That is a long runway. Of course, it isn't a smooth increase, lol. More like a big lurch, and a change in sea level (pardon the pun). Plenty of time to AI to evolve and conceive of ways to forestall that kind of increase.

We don't know what conceptual solution AI could even conceive to address climate change. But it starts with a 'f*ckton' of cheap power. I know that. Would you agree with that 'power' proposition?

[Don Nico]

C_XY,
My estimate already assumes that between renewables and new nuclear, Western countries will get to Net-zero + the CO2 from industries that require high temperature process heat, such a metal foundries, cement making, and a large fraction of the ammonia production. As Africa will continue to have very fast population growth and will exploit large coal reserves in Nigeria contributions from developing countries will continue to rise.
Hence, the atmospheric concentration will almost certainly reach more than 500 ppm late this century.

Renewables are fine but they are not a substitute for baseload power if electrical grids are to be stable. If small modular reactors can be safely used in many parts of the developing world that would help. Certainly, even in the Western countries, they will be needed if the Paris net-zero pledges are to be met.

[Armchair]

Realistically, the only way to prevent Don's estimate is for "next generation" electrical power to be invented and established. ie, cheap, nuclear fusion. (Potentially space-based solar).

Those could provide baseload power, and additional power in order to directly withdraw carbon from the atmosphere.

[Don Nico]

Don't hold your breath waiting for fusion. And it will not solve the matter of rising consumption of fossil fuels in the developing world.
As for direct carbon capture, it is a loser energetically and economically.
If no carbon were emitted by humans, (and if all the permafrost does not melt) the planet will absorb ~1 pmm of the CO2 through natural processes

[Armchair]

While carbon capture is a loser energetically, if energy was essentially free (Via fusion), its technically feasible. And economically, if the government funds it, it doesn't need to make a profit. If the developing world burns coal, that CO2 can technically be captured by the fusion-powered CO2 capture plants in the first world.

But you're correct, it makes zero sense to use a coal power plant to pull CO2 from the atmosphere. But a carbon-free source could be done. And they've been promising Fusion energy is just 30-40 years away for the last 60 years. Still....

[Don Nico]

1) Fusion energy is not free and never will be. In fission reactors the cost of fuel contributes less than 10% to the LCOE.
2) The cost is enormous of the order of $100T to bring co2 levels back to ~200 ppm
3) The costs of storing 2000 Gigatonnnes of CO2 are also extremely large and the safety risks are substantial and not well characterized.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Nukes in Africa? Are you insane?

[Armchair]

" I don’t understand why there is not a crash program to develop safe, nuclear power like there is no tomorrow."

Because nuclear power is "scary" and if you solve the problem, you can't use the crisis to exert control.

[Bruce Hayden]

And make money on the graft.

[Stephen Lathrop]

I don’t understand why there is not a crash program to develop safe, nuclear power like there is no tomorrow.

XY, what is your estimate of the number of critical masses of plutonium now in storage at long-inactivated and thinly monitored nuclear reactor sites? In how many of those sites is that plutonium sitting outdoors in casks protected by little more than chain link fences and security cameras?

[Don Nico]

Lathrop,
The Pu to which you refer has large amounts of isotopes with rates of spontaneous fission (several in 100 nanoseconds) that make it quite unsuitable for use in a nuclear explosive.
You are correct that the materials in storage constitute a large amount of radiotoxic materials and do need to be properly sequestered.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Nico, all your accurate observation implies is that a crudely made plutonium fission bomb is nearly certain to deliver a fizzle, with a sub-kiloton yield not much greater than necessary to knock down the World Trade Center. Reckoning the threats presented by adversaries entirely willing to sacrifice their lives in service of an attack, it seems risky to leave that kind of material so widely distributed, so thinly defended, and in such great quantities.

So what is your estimate of the number of critical masses of Pu lying in dispersed storage throughout the nation, including in its urban core? How about in just one typical retired nuclear power plant?

Those questions, of course, come before we consider threats implicated by the medical toxicity of Pu, including Pu dispersed in an urban core by a fizzle-level nuclear detonation.

Also? Remember, the subject I chose to critique is not nuclear weapons technology. It is instead the wisdom of advocating to multiply the size of a widely-dispersed health and safety threat no one has found a practical way to get rid of.

[Don Nico]

Lathrop,
I agree that leaving the spent fuel in many places is far from ideal. However, the risks would have to be balanced against the risks of transporting large amounts of highly radiotoxic materials to a burial site to a partitioning site and then to a central storage site.
You may be familiar with the criticality accident that happened in Wood River Junction, Rhode Island.
As a more substantive answer, I note that Finland is building a huge underground site: "Onkalo will be the world's first permanent disposal site for high-level nuclear waste, and a triumph for Finland."
As for critical masses, you might take the mass (in kg) of all the fuels rods, divide by 10 to estimate the uranium; divide by 20 to get the amount of all isotopes of Plutonium; divide 5 to 10 to estimate your number.
Remember that these fuel rods need extensive remote handling and chemical partitioning to extract the plutonium. The chances of an untrained group converting the material back to metal and making a fizzile weapon without a criticality accident to undo their work is small. Stealing a weapon from Russia, Pakistan or India is a lot better idea for them

[Don Nico]

My post should have read
“the predicted global temperature deviation is likely to be 50% larger than its present value, i.e., in the range of 2° – 3°C."

[Dr. Ed 2]

"The former falls prey to know-nothingism in its efforts to deny the existence of a problem that would justify a governmental response."

Wow.

Someone clearly doesn't know who the "Know Nothings" were or where the term came from (it's what they were told to say when asked about their movement).

Although this is breaking down along lines similar to those of the 19th Century, which should disturb people.

My issue is the lack of evidence that there (a) actually IS a problem which (b) a government even (c) *could* do something about. There is *so* much evidence that the planet has been warmer in the past -- of its own accord. The glaciers receded after the last Ice Age, and they are still receding -- and that's bad?

The real issue is that some consider human progress to be bad.

[Bruce Hayden]

Worse. The Earth is greening. The Sahara Desert is (again) retreating. Humans evolved in a warmer climate, and we have adaptions, as a result - such as sweat glands and relative hairlessness.

[Longtobefree]

"deny the existence of a problem that would justify a governmental response."

Riddle me this, then.
If there is a problem, and people have been screaming doom for over half a century, and not a single model has been accurate, how can you possible pretend there is an actual problem, let alone one justifying a government response?

(other than you and you like have found sunrise a problem worthy of government interference)

[Rossami]

Calling it "know-nothingism" is an interesting choice given the repeated studies showing that climate skeptics are statistically more knowledgeable on scientific topics and have higher math skills.

[Longtobefree]

Well, yeah.
Daniel Patrick Moynihan (D) was claiming in 1969 that CO2 would rise by 25% by the year 2000, increasing the temperature by 7 degrees, raising sea levels by 25 feet, submerging New York and Washington D.C.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Everyone else was talking about the coming ice age back then.

[Michael Ejercito]

So why is he still being treated as if his underlying assumptions were right, even though the predictions were false?

Just one prediction that comes to pass is enough to refute original assumption.

Ken Ribet assumed a counterexample to Fermat's Last Theorem, and predicted the existence of semistable elliptic curv es that are immodular. When Andrew Wiles proved such elliptic curves can not exist, the assumption that a counterexample to Fermat's Last Theorem was disproven, and consequently Fermat's Last Thoerem was proven as true.

See also.

https://ethicsalarms.com/2011/04/17/global-warming-advocates-flunk-ethics-and-credibility-again/

[Sarcastr0]

repeated studies showing that climate skeptics are statistically more knowledgeable on scientific topics and have higher math skills.

Not doing much to disabuse the know-nothing label with this kind of unsupported yet irrelevant take!

[gVOR08]

Climate Scientists, CS: Fossil fuel use increases CO2 in the atmosphere and will result in higher global temperatures.
Reaction: Crickets.
CS: Temperature is rising consistent with our models.
Reaction: Yawn.
CS: Over decades this is going to cause serious problems.
Reaction: Nada.
CS: Guys, we really need to do something about this.
Reaction: Manana.
CS: You can see the results in record temps, wildfires, sea level rise, storm severity.
Reaction: It's just the weather.
CS: People, this is already causing serious problems and it's going to get worse.
Reaction: Meh.
CS: Damnit, don't you understand, this is real and we have to act!
Reaction: Those climate scientists are always so shrill.

[Frank Drackman]

so what was the temperature in Filthy-Delphia PA on July 4, 1776? Nobody knows, because nobody wrote it down, and that's only some 250 years ago, a mere 5% of the age of the Earth. So if you can't tell me what the temperature was, in a pretty well settled City, 250 years ago, how can you tell me what it's going to be in 100 years, and even if it's going to be hotter, I'll be dead, that's their problem

[Kazinski]

Actually Gvor, the models about 20 years ago predicted two atmospheric signals that proved their models to settle the debate.

If AGW theory was correct there would be a troposheric hotspot at predicted latitude and elevation which would be the result of the extra retained heat from CO2. It never materialized.

The second signal would be that the additional heat in the atmosphere would cause an increase in absolute humidity causing a positive feedback effect from the increased water vapor, by far the most potent greenhouse gas in the atmosphere.

That increase in absolute humidity, as measured any method including directly by radiosonode balloons also failed to materialize.

[Brett Bellmore]

I don't personally think there was any real debate that increasing CO2 would increase temperatures at the margins. The problem is indeed that, in order to get a large enough temperature increase to be threatening, you have to assume that the climate system is subject to enough positive feedback that it's teetering on the edge of thermal runaway. Otherwise you'd expect the temperature increase from burning the entire carbon stock of fossil fuels to be fairly minor.

Don't get me wrong: Maybe we do live in a unique global moment just before the Earth suffers Venus' fate; The Sun HAS been gradually getting hotter, and the former high CO2 levels happened when the Sun was dimmer, insolation was lower. Eventually the planet IS going to fry, maybe that's next week.

But if that's the case, my God, the last thing you should be doing is discouraging geoengineering research!

[Sarcastr0]

I don’t personally think there was any real debate that increasing CO2 would increase temperatures at the margins

Not only was that denied, it still is. Are you reading these comments? Many have not gotten the message to pivot to 'nothing mankind can do that's worth it.'

[Rossami]

"Fossil fuel use increases CO2 in the atmosphere and will result in higher global temperatures." - maybe
"Temperature is rising consistent with our models." - not hardly
"You can see the results in record temps, wildfires, sea level rise, storm severity." - again, not hardly

Since you're starting with unproven premises (and the alarmist "experts" consistently refuse to engage in actual debate on their allegations), it's hardly surprising that the rest of us discount the "conclusions" dependent on those premises.

[Brett Bellmore]

Part of the problem is that the models that have some degree of confirmation aren't predicting horrible temperature increases, while the models whose predictions get all the headlines aren't the ones being validated.

[Brett Bellmore]

"CS: You can see the results in record temps, wildfires, sea level rise, storm severity."

Of course if things are warming, you're going to see more record high temperatures. And fewer record lows, all things being equal. So long as more people are dying of cold than heat, I'm having a hard time seeing this as a bad thing.

Wildfires are a product of forestry practice, not climate.

The sea level has risen a tiny bit. Not enough to freak out about.

And last time this claim about storm severity came up, I linked to NOAA debunking it, pointing out that after you accounted for confounding variables such as the increase in capacity to monitor weather, there wasn't any evidence storms were getting worse.

In fact, on basic thermodynamic grounds, you wouldn't expect global warming caused by CO2 to make storms worse; You don't make a heat engine run faster by insulating it's radiator, after all.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Wildfires are a product of forestry practice, not climate.

Bellmore, you know where forestry has never been practiced? In most of the northern Canadian taiga, which has lately been burning at unprecedented rates.

America's northeastern states barely see clear skies anymore, during the Canadian fire season. Nobody alive can recall the like of it. Nothing in history shows a precedent. Do you know of any research which shows episodes of generally distributed combustion of northern Canada at long intervals during former eras?

[Don Nico]

"Wildfires are a product of forestry practice, not climate."
Some are but many are not. Just consider the fires in Hawaii. They cause massive damage; they were not forest fires caused by forest mismanagement.

[Brett Bellmore]

OK, granted, wildfires do happen naturally, forestry practices can ameliorate or exacerbate them.

[Squire Al]

Claimant is changing. For those that want to believe that Co2 has nothing to do with it or that a change of a degree or two won't end our civilization, OK, but it is impossible to deny that the change is having no economic impact now. For example, where are the Alaskan Crabs made famous by a TV show about dangerous jobs.

Well, we know. https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/animals/a45616518/why-billions-of-crabs-vanished-from-bering-sea/?utm_source=google&utm_medium=cpc&utm_campaign=mgu_ga_pop_md_pmx_hybd_mix_us_18374722695&gad_source=1&gbraid=0AAAAADCyiSn-kFc01JX5LgoM7WUFCHzHS&gclid=EAIaIQobChMIyu_P85a0iAMV4k9HAR2LsheiEAAYASAAEgIAw_D_BwE

Doing something has economic impact in many other areas. Ask any fisherman, anywhere what they are catching now. Take a look at the Maine Lobster industry. The water is warming and that is changing the fish industry. The air is warming and that will change farm economy, the most important industry for millions in this country.

The argument for doing nothing is that doing something will have significant economic impact, but so will doing nothing.

[Kazinski]

I guess they have completely ruled out overfishing as a cause.

But even if you wanted to ascribe reduced fishing yields 100% to global warming, you would have to counterbalance that with the much more significant increase in crop yields, much of which, especially since 2000 is directly related to higher CO2 levels which of course is the primary input, with water, to photosynthesis.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

Well, that should come as a huge relief to the fishermen who made their livings fishing the Bering Sea.

Not many people here on Hatteras Island deny global warming. They can see water getting places it's never been before, in their lifetimes or anyone else's. Although right now here in Buxton we have bigger fish to fry, dealing with a toxic mess left here by the US Navy, and finally uncovered by beach erosion, rising ocean levels, and worsening storms.

[Joe_dallas]

AWD - hatteras is a sand barrier/peninsula , with substantial subsistance. - The sinking of the island has absolutely nothing to do with global warming.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Warmer water actually means MORE lobsters, but don't confuse yourself with the facts.

Why might the water in the Gulf of Maine be warmer than the water outside of it? Geothermal heating comes to immediate mind, variation in the Gulf Stream is another.

Either makes more sense than saying that the sunlight is hotter there than it is a couple hundred miles due east of there. Or do we now believe in Jewish Magnifying Glasses in space???

[Squire Al]

https://www.mainelobsternow.com/blogs/resources/new-england-water-temperature-impact

Warm water moves the lobsters to different areas. It doesn't make for more lobsters. So, good for now for some areas, not so good for others. The point is that it disrupts. But, hey you know your facts so I guess you know best.

[Joe_dallas]

Squire Al 3 mins ago
Flag Comment
Mute User
"the water is warming and that is changing the fish industry. "

SQuire - you just highlighted what is know a lazy science. Its a lot easier to blame "Global Warming" than to study the actual cause of the change, which in your example is the change in the lobster industry.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

DMN, add marine biology to the list.

[Joe_dallas]

[Roger S]

He says honest liberals who believe in catastrophic climate change should be willing to shoot foreigners at the border.

[SRG2]

The scientific evidence supporting the climate change hypothesis has been clear for a while now, nor has the hypothesis lost any legitimacy.

You can argue about what the most effective steps to take should be and how serious it will be, but at this stage, if someone denies it's happening, they're no more worth attempting to convince than flat earthers. And if someone who had previously denied it's happening concedes that it is but it'll be beneficial, they may be dismissed as rationalising intellectual dishonesty.

[Bruce Hayden]

No. We can argue the fundamentals first. You accept global arming based on CO2 increase in the atmosphere. Then we can argue whether any reasonable amount of resulting heating is good or bad for humanity. My vote is that the increase of CO2 and temperature (which maybe, but probably isn’t increasing) are net good for humanity. That translates into increased vegitation, which ultimately means more food for us. Etc.

[SRG2]

And nope in turn. To my observation almost everyone who argues that increased CO2 will be a good thing had previously denied that climate change was happening at all. This is rationalisation, not science.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

"My vote is that the increase of CO2 and temperature (which maybe, but probably isn’t increasing) are net good for humanity. That translates into increased vegitation, which ultimately means more food for us. Etc."

That must be why we import all of our corn from Venus. CO2 is now good!