Global warming err Climate change HOAX

[Foxx]

with more than half the world on lockdown, i'm thinking that if there is any truth to this man made global warming, we will be seeing the undeniable, noticeable effects of the shutdown of emissions fairly soon. will we even have a Summer?

[123719bwiqrb]

1 hour ago, Foxx said:

with more than half the world on lockdown, i'm thinking that if there is any truth to this man made global warming, we will be seeing the undeniable, noticeable effects of the shutdown of emissions fairly soon. will we even have a Summer?

 

Don't worry, the data will fit the narrative.  Greta is on it right now, leading her team of esteemed epidemiologists (lemmings) to the promised land. 

[Foxx]

6 minutes ago, ScotSHO said:

 

Don't worry, the data will fit the narrative.  Greta is on it right now, leading her team of esteemed epidemiologists (lemmings) to the promised land. 

i mean seriously, isn't this like the Al Gores, Gretas, AOC's of the world's wet dream? this is their golden opportunity when the 'science' will prove itself out.

Edited April 8, 2020 by Foxx

[billsfan1959]

50 minutes ago, ScotSHO said:

 

Don't worry, the data will fit the narrative.  Greta is on it right now, leading her team of esteemed epidemiologists (lemmings) to the promised land. 

 

I see Tiberius posted a research article in another thread concluding people who contract COVID-19 have a greater chance of dying in areas of higher air pollution. So, not only is Trump responsible for the deaths from this virus, the entire fossil fuel industry is as well....

[Deranged Rhino]

4 hours ago, RealKayAdams said:

 

You lost me a bit in your last two paragraphs, DR, but I always appreciate outside-the-box brainstorming for difficult problems! Here is broadly where I stand on this subject, since I have some time to waste this morning:

 

(Trimming for space, but appreciate the post and discussion  ) 

 

I am curious where I lost you within those last two paragraphs, and would be happy to explain it better if you wish. Though, admittedly, that post was meant to be WAY outside the box in an attempt to discuss this (partisan charged) topic without falling into the partisan talking points/spin which both sides employ. 

 

Just a few thoughts on your comments (again only trimming for space/conversational purposes, not trying to twist your statements): 

 

4 hours ago, RealKayAdams said:

 

1. Man-induced climate change is not a hoax like this thread title suggests.

 

I can only speak for myself, but I agree (and I think a lot do who post in this thread). Where I begin to differ, is when trying to determine to what extent humans are impacting the climate. The climate has been changing since our species first emerged -- and will continue to change long after we're gone. While I don't deny man's industrialization has played a role, I question how much we've accelerated an otherwise natural cycle. I'm certain we have (cause and effect and all), but the world has been "ten years from ending" since the 80s, if not longer. 

 

Still, for me, even that isn't the real crux of the issue. What concerns me are the extreme solutions being pushed in light of this unknown.

 

A dramatic reshaping of our economic and governmental models seems extreme, especially when that plan alone does nothing to address other emerging nations who are in the early days of their industrialization process. Strict enforcement would need to be done globally -- yet that's never a part of the plans I see/hear about. It's usually some form of: "we'll start in the west, and the rest of the world will follow our example" -- which sounds great but is not very realistic in terms of assessing geopolitics and human nature. 

 

So that leaves me in the position of understanding there's an issue we're facing as a global community, while wanting to protect the principles of sovereignty and civil liberties that have helped make the western world a beacon of hope, freedom, and the good. 

 

4 hours ago, RealKayAdams said:

2. The computational models that scientists use to predict global warming time frames and levels of severity are certainly open to criticism, but not at all to the degree that the biggest and loudest climate change skeptics state. When it comes to the problem-solving stages of climate change, I have no problem operating from the worst-case starting point of these models due to the grave potential impact on civilization.

 

I understand the logic -- I do. And I agree completely that there are two sides to this debate, and both extremes of those sides are funded by some unsavory businesses/interests who are trying to drag the debate down into partisan mudslinging and outright disinformation. 

 

But this pandemic should reinforce the fact that models can't predict the future. They can only project the present onto the future, leaving no room for human innovation or any other "outside the box" solutions we may stumble on as a people. I don't think being honest about that (not that I'm saying you're not being honest about it, not at all what I mean) does a disservice to the cause itself. In fact, I think ignoring this fact, when it's clear to most empirical minds, hurts the cause far more than it helps. My favorite example of how silly it can be to rely on models as predictors of the future is the horse ***** debate in NYC at the end of the 19th century. At that time, everyone was using horses, and people were actually concerned about the rising population numbers and what that would do in terms of horse ***** piling up in the streets of NYC. Had the world modeled the problem back then, and reorganized their society based on it, it would have looked insurmountable without eliminating horses entirely... 

 

... But they didn't see, couldn't see, that the world was about to change forever due to the advent of the automobile and the combustion engine. Not in decades, but in a few short years.

 

My personal take is that there's a middle ground that must be found between being slavishly devoted to models as if they were bibles, and being hopelessly optimistic/naive about the long term costs of a runaway climate disaster. And I think the vast majority of individuals, if you get them talking honestly and not from a partisan standpoint, would agree that it's a problem we have to be aware of, a problem we have to work to get ahead of, but that we shouldn't over-react without a full understanding of the data or the cost of the solutions being pushed. 

 

Again, it's kind of amazing how much this current pandemic parallels the debates around climate. 

 

4 hours ago, RealKayAdams said:

 

3. Private industry has an important role to play in terms of technological innovation and churning out applicable products into the global markets, but it needs government incentives to move toward these solutions in a focused and expedited manner. In terms of the fundamental science behind these products, this is best done in academia and with (primarily public) research grants. It’s been this way for a while now. The glory days of Bell Labs and IBM research labs are long gone. The same goes for the government labs, too. The glory days of NASA and the Manhattan Project are even more long gone.

 

We're very much on the same page with this issue. 

 

My personal issue with this is detailed in my other post, but revolves around the fact that the government (more than likely) has been suppressing advanced technologies (especially with regards to energy and propulsion) from the private sector and the people for 70+ years -- so how can we trust them to be the arbiters of truth now? This suppression was done for reasons of national security originally (in the late 40s through the 60s), but then slowly became about protecting the global economy which runs on oil.

 

This, obviously, is a FAR OUT there claim to make, but there's thousands of pages of FOIA documentation which suggest it's legit. That's why I personally roll my eyes when I hear government employees/officials/candidates push more government as the answer to this issue. If these government types truly cared about the climate, they wouldn't be looking to garner more power and control over us through their solutions, they'd be digging into their archives and Special Access Programs looking for the tech the people of this country paid to develop without even knowing it. (imo of course)

 

 

[IDBillzFan]

3 hours ago, ScotSHO said:

 

Don't worry, the data will fit the narrative.  Greta is on it right now, leading her team of esteemed epidemiologists (lemmings) to the promised land. 

 

How dare you...(said with scowling grimace)!

[Nanker]

Are the Neanderthals responsible for the 10,000 foot thick sheet of glacier that covered New York State and most of the New England states receding some 20,000 years ago?  If so, we owe them a debt of gratitude because that glacier retreat formed Long Island, Block Island, Fishers Island, the Elizabeth Islands, Cape Cod, Nantucket, Martha’s Vineyard, and Chappaquiddick. Not to mention the Great Lakes and the Finger Lakes! ?

Edited April 8, 2020 by Nanker

[ComradeKayAdams]

18 hours ago, Deranged Rhino said:

I am curious where I lost you within those last two paragraphs, and would be happy to explain it better if you wish. Though, admittedly, that post was meant to be WAY outside the box in an attempt to discuss this (partisan charged) topic without falling into the partisan talking points/spin which both sides employ. 

 

Hi DR,

 

I was confused about the “top secret patents related to propulsion” and “recovered craft” comments. No need to type up a lengthy explanation to me if you don’t want. Is there a link or book you recommend I check out on this?

 

You raised an excellent point here which I forgot to cover: the issue of countries like China and India raising the global carbon footprint despite whatever efforts we make to reduce our own. Diplomacy and open dialogue and pressure from Paris Agreement countries may not be enough. Hopefully the international economic pressures from wanting to participate in an exploding renewable energy economy would be enough, as well as a shrinking international demand for fossil fuels that China and India self-generate. If not, maybe high tariffs or economic sanctions as a last resort?!

23 hours ago, Foxx said:

with more than half the world on lockdown, i'm thinking that if there is any truth to this man made global warming, we will be seeing the undeniable, noticeable effects of the shutdown of emissions fairly soon. will we even have a Summer?

 

You might be interested to know that scientists can measure the dip in atmospheric carbon during the thirteenth century solely due to Genghis Khan’s raids. Destroying civilizations and allowing for the reforestation of the lands is good for the planet. So is the complete implosion of the world economy because of a pandemic. But there are less drastic solutions we can explore as well!

 

17 hours ago, Nanker said:

Are the Neanderthals responsible for the 10,000 foot thick sheet of glacier that covered New York State and most of the New England states receding some 20,000 years ago?  If so, we owe them a debt of gratitude because that glacier retreat formed Long Island, Block Island, Fishers Island, the Elizabeth Islands, Cape Cod, Nantucket, Martha’s Vineyard, and Chappaquiddick. Not to mention the Great Lakes and the Finger Lakes! ?

 

No, that was due to things like the earth’s orbital fluctuations, variations in sun energy output, changing ocean currents, shifting continental positions, volcanic activity, and what not. Climate change since the advent of the Industrial Revolution can only really be explained by artificially throwing lots of carbon into the atmosphere and not having as many trees around anymore to absorb it. Earth scientists have accounted for all other possible contributing factors.

[Nanker]

2 minutes ago, RealKayAdams said:

 

Hi DR,

 

I was confused about the “top secret patents related to propulsion” and “recovered craft” comments. No need to type up a lengthy explanation to me if you don’t want. Is there a link or book you recommend I check out on this?

 

You raised an excellent point here which I forgot to cover: the issue of countries like China and India raising the global carbon footprint despite whatever efforts we make to reduce our own. Diplomacy and open dialogue and pressure from Paris Agreement countries may not be enough. Hopefully the international economic pressures from wanting to participate in an exploding renewable energy economy would be enough, as well as a shrinking international demand for fossil fuels that China and India self-generate. If not, maybe high tariffs or economic sanctions as a last resort?!

 

You might be interested to know that scientists can measure the dip in atmospheric carbon during the thirteenth century solely due to Genghis Khan’s raids. Destroying civilizations and allowing for the reforestation of the lands is good for the planet. So is the complete implosion of the world economy because of a pandemic. But there are less drastic solutions we can explore as well!

 

 

No, that was due to things like the earth’s orbital fluctuations, variations in sun energy output, changing ocean currents, shifting continental positions, volcanic activity, and what not. Climate change since the advent of the Industrial Revolution can only really be explained by artificially throwing lots of carbon into the atmosphere and not having as many trees around anymore to absorb it. Earth scientists have accounted for all other possible contributing factors.

So none of that natural phenomena is still occurring?  Asking for a friend. 

[Joe Miner]

6 minutes ago, RealKayAdams said:

 

Hi DR,

 

I was confused about the “top secret patents related to propulsion” and “recovered craft” comments. No need to type up a lengthy explanation to me if you don’t want. Is there a link or book you recommend I check out on this?

 

You raised an excellent point here which I forgot to cover: the issue of countries like China and India raising the global carbon footprint despite whatever efforts we make to reduce our own. Diplomacy and open dialogue and pressure from Paris Agreement countries may not be enough. Hopefully the international economic pressures from wanting to participate in an exploding renewable energy economy would be enough, as well as a shrinking international demand for fossil fuels that China and India self-generate. If not, maybe high tariffs or economic sanctions as a last resort?!

 

You might be interested to know that scientists can measure the dip in atmospheric carbon during the thirteenth century solely due to Genghis Khan’s raids. Destroying civilizations and allowing for the reforestation of the lands is good for the planet. So is the complete implosion of the world economy because of a pandemic. But there are less drastic solutions we can explore as well!

 

 

No, that was due to things like the earth’s orbital fluctuations, variations in sun energy output, changing ocean currents, shifting continental positions, volcanic activity, and what not. Climate change since the advent of the Industrial Revolution can only really be explained by artificially throwing lots of carbon into the atmosphere and not having as many trees around anymore to absorb it. Earth scientists have accounted for all other possible contributing factors.

 

 

You don't understand most of what you're talking about.

 

You have faith in others' words, but lack the ability to critically analyze the problem, the analysis methodology, and the proposed solutions. But you're pretty good at reading, paraphrasing, and bloviating.

 

By the way, this doesn't just apply to climate change.

[Azalin]

59 minutes ago, Joe Miner said:

 

 

You don't understand most of what you're talking about.

 

You have faith in others' words, but lack the ability to critically analyze the problem, the analysis methodology, and the proposed solutions. But you're pretty good at reading, paraphrasing, and bloviating.

 

By the way, this doesn't just apply to climate change.

 

I'm enjoying the back & forth between RKA and DR. It's nice to see a little genuine discussion for a change, especially in this particular thread. 

[SoCal Deek]

8 minutes ago, Azalin said:

 

I'm enjoying the back & forth between RKA and DR. It's nice to see a little genuine discussion for a change, especially in this particular thread. 

And assuming Kay is right, all we need to do is plant lots and lots of trees. I’m all for it! It’s cheap. It won’t take long to have an impact. And everyone likes trees!  Why doesn’t someone propose this instead of the government overreach we’re getting from so many on the Left?

[Azalin]

2 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:

And assuming Kay is right, all we need to do is plant lots and lots of trees. I’m all for it! It’s cheap. It won’t take long to have an impact. And everyone likes trees!  Why doesn’t someone propose this instead of the government overreach we’re getting from so many on the Left?

 

Planting trees, growing gardens on balconies and patios - that's always good. Even if we don't know the extent of their effect, we know that plants thrive on CO2 and produce oxygen. We don't have to be greenies or environmentalists to appreciate the value in that. 

[SoCal Deek]

5 minutes ago, Azalin said:

 

Planting trees, growing gardens on balconies and patios - that's always good. Even if we don't know the extent of their effect, we know that plants thrive on CO2 and produce oxygen. We don't have to be greenies or environmentalists to appreciate the value in that. 

So if we’re going to have a massive infrastructure bill this year why not have even 10% of it go towards planting trees? Call it infrastructure! Trees are way cheaper than bridges and roads. Get ‘er done! 

[BuffaloHokie13]

4 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:

So if we’re going to have a massive infrastructure bill this year why not have even 10% of it go towards planting trees? Call it infrastructure! Trees are way cheaper than bridges and roads. Get ‘er done! 

I'm sure it depends on your municipality, but here in DC any substantial infrastructure project also requires stormwater management practices, which typically includes bioretention planters to treat runoff from the road (trees planted here), and permeable paver sidewalks to also feed water to the planters.

[Joe Miner]

41 minutes ago, Azalin said:

 

I'm enjoying the back & forth between RKA and DR. It's nice to see a little genuine discussion for a change, especially in this particular thread. 

 

I appreciate the polite discussion.  

 

But it's like listening to a conversation at a barber shop.  Lot of words, lot of concern, some truth, and a lot of misunderstanding.Talk that neither clearly defines a problem or clearly defines a solution.

 

Once DR gets his writer's inspiration for the day (alcohol), we'll be here:

 

 

But I agree, it's nice to have civil discourse.

 

 

 

 

The DR drinking part was a joke.  But he is a writer...

[3rdnlng]

1 hour ago, SoCal Deek said:

And assuming Kay is right, all we need to do is plant lots and lots of trees. I’m all for it! It’s cheap. It won’t take long to have an impact. And everyone likes trees!  Why doesn’t someone propose this instead of the government overreach we’re getting from so many on the Left?

We need to form a group of young dedicated planters who will act like a new Pony Express, planting trees across the world. We can have different groups in competition like the Oak Boys, Elm Streeters, Maple Laughs and Ash Wipes. They can compete for the newly established Johnny Appleseed Cup. Oh, and any democrat that wants to sign up can join the Weeping Willows.  

[Buffalo_Gal]

oh, and
 

 

[KRC]

31 minutes ago, Buffalo_Gal said:

oh, and
 

 

 

You're setting your DVR, aren't you? That way, you can watch it over and over again.

[Azalin]

7 hours ago, SoCal Deek said:

So if we’re going to have a massive infrastructure bill this year why not have even 10% of it go towards planting trees? Call it infrastructure! Trees are way cheaper than bridges and roads. Get ‘er done! 

 

I tend to think that most people are able to plant flowers and trees on their own, but if you think that it takes a village, then have at it. 

[123719bwiqrb]

9 hours ago, Buffalo_Gal said:

oh, and
 

 

 

Blow me weather channel.

[ComradeKayAdams]

On 4/9/2020 at 8:01 AM, Nanker said:

So none of that natural phenomena is still occurring?  Asking for a friend. 

 

They are still occurring, of course, but their effects have already been accounted for and still can’t explain the specific temperature trends seen since the late 19th century. The greenhouse gas effect caused by modern human activity (mainly from fossil fuel burning, concrete production, deforestation, and methane gas emissions from livestock) is the earth science community’s overwhelming consensus explanation.

 

 

On 4/9/2020 at 8:10 AM, Joe Miner said:

 

 

You don't understand most of what you're talking about.

 

You have faith in others' words, but lack the ability to critically analyze the problem, the analysis methodology, and the proposed solutions. But you're pretty good at reading, paraphrasing, and bloviating.

 

By the way, this doesn't just apply to climate change.

 

I’m not really in the mood for personal attacks right now. I summarize the ideas of climate change experts because it also happens to be what I “believe,” which is to say it makes the most sense to me so far based on all the evidence I’ve seen. Arriving at conclusions different from you isn’t proof that I am blindly faithful or lack an aptitude for critical thinking.

 

In science, strong heterodox claims require strong evidence. So what are the peer-reviewed research papers countering the man-made global warming consensus that you find particularly persuasive? What logical fallacies or flaws in the data or computational modeling errors do these papers describe that pique your interest? And what is your own educational background that makes you qualified to assess these challenges to a scientific consensus? I’m asking for published papers in a research journal, not an opinion piece from a William Happer type or a YouTube video from a neckbeard quack. Articles summarizing the dissenting arguments from climate change scientists are perfectly fine, too.

 

Full disclosure on my own climate change background: not a professional climatologist or earth scientist, avid conservationist since adolescence, scientifically literate, basic earth science knowledge at an intro undergrad course level, semi-frequent reader of popular science articles, second-hand connections with actual climatologists via postdoc oceanographer friend who has published articles herself on climate change.

On 4/9/2020 at 9:25 AM, SoCal Deek said:

And assuming Kay is right, all we need to do is plant lots and lots of trees. I’m all for it! It’s cheap. It won’t take long to have an impact. And everyone likes trees!  Why doesn’t someone propose this instead of the government overreach we’re getting from so many on the Left?

 

I never argued that reforestation was the only solution needed. It’s not a trivial one, but the big limiting factor is the amount of land on the earth capable of growing forests. Research was done a while back about the reforestation potential of the entire Sahara Desert. The big conclusion (to no one’s surprise) was that it would be way too expensive. The somewhat unexpected realization was that it would also probably wipe out the Amazon rainforest in a sort of whack-a-mole problem solving dilemma. So yeah, I don’t want to overstate the idea that we can just grow a bunch of trees anywhere to get us out of this mess.

 

 

On 4/9/2020 at 9:25 AM, SoCal Deek said:

And assuming Kay is right, all we need to do is plant lots and lots of trees. I’m all for it! It’s cheap. It won’t take long to have an impact. And everyone likes trees!  Why doesn’t someone propose this instead of the government overreach we’re getting from so many on the Left?

 

I believe this was JP Losman’s plan for downtown Buffalo. It ended up being his greatest contribution to the city.

 

On 4/9/2020 at 10:02 AM, Joe Miner said:

 

But it's like listening to a conversation at a barber shop.  Lot of words, lot of concern, some truth, and a lot of misunderstanding.Talk that neither clearly defines a problem or clearly defines a solution.

 

You have bizarre expectations for political discourse on an online football message board. I didn’t realize DR and I were being graded on our prose. This is my 5th post here. The first two were fairly simple questions. The third was a much longer post casually summarizing all of my opinions on the subject so that DR knew where I stood. The fourth was a quick follow-up. I didn’t know I was supposed to be composing a well-focused expository essay all this time.

 

You want a clearly defined problem: anthropogenic global warming is negatively impacting our coastal cities and overall civilization in a number of ways, and it requires a rapid large-scale movement toward a solution. Do you want specific metrics? Carbon dioxide ppm, temperature limits, sea level rise limits, time scales? Do you want a bibliography appended with properly cited research papers?

 

Why do I need a clearly defined solution right now? I came here to participate in a discussion partly because I don’t have one. I have my general biases toward what a solution might look like, but I’m open to discussing all types of ideas. I originally came here today to share something I recalled about planet terraforming that was based on NASA Mars research done many years ago. Nevermind.

 

[SoCal Deek]

2 minutes ago, RealKayAdams said:

I never argued that reforestation was the only solution needed. It’s not a trivial one, but the big limiting factor is the amount of land on the earth capable of growing forests. Research was done a while back about the reforestation potential of the entire Sahara Desert. The big conclusion (to no one’s surprise) was that it would be way too expensive. The somewhat unexpected realization was that it would also probably wipe out the Amazon rainforest in a sort of whack-a-mole problem solving dilemma. So yeah, I don’t want to overstate the idea that we can just grow a bunch of trees anywhere to get us out of this mess.

 

 

Keep your shirt on Kay. My reply was of course somewhat sarcastic. FYI: I’m actually a LEED accredited professional (look it up). The issues are not really as complicated as many make them out to be. They really aren’t. The debate is the degree to which we want government involved. They don’t have a great track record.

[Joe Miner]

2 hours ago, RealKayAdams said:

 

They are still occurring, of course, but their effects have already been accounted for and still can’t explain the specific temperature trends seen since the late 19th century. The greenhouse gas effect caused by modern human activity (mainly from fossil fuel burning, concrete production, deforestation, and methane gas emissions from livestock) is the earth science community’s overwhelming consensus explanation.

 

 

 

I’m not really in the mood for personal attacks right now. I summarize the ideas of climate change experts because it also happens to be what I “believe,” which is to say it makes the most sense to me so far based on all the evidence I’ve seen. Arriving at conclusions different from you isn’t proof that I am blindly faithful or lack an aptitude for critical thinking.

 

In science, strong heterodox claims require strong evidence. So what are the peer-reviewed research papers countering the man-made global warming consensus that you find particularly persuasive? What logical fallacies or flaws in the data or computational modeling errors do these papers describe that pique your interest? And what is your own educational background that makes you qualified to assess these challenges to a scientific consensus? I’m asking for published papers in a research journal, not an opinion piece from a William Happer type or a YouTube video from a neckbeard quack. Articles summarizing the dissenting arguments from climate change scientists are perfectly fine, too.

 

Full disclosure on my own climate change background: not a professional climatologist or earth scientist, avid conservationist since adolescence, scientifically literate, basic earth science knowledge at an intro undergrad course level, semi-frequent reader of popular science articles, second-hand connections with actual climatologists via postdoc oceanographer friend who has published articles herself on climate change.

 

I never argued that reforestation was the only solution needed. It’s not a trivial one, but the big limiting factor is the amount of land on the earth capable of growing forests. Research was done a while back about the reforestation potential of the entire Sahara Desert. The big conclusion (to no one’s surprise) was that it would be way too expensive. The somewhat unexpected realization was that it would also probably wipe out the Amazon rainforest in a sort of whack-a-mole problem solving dilemma. So yeah, I don’t want to overstate the idea that we can just grow a bunch of trees anywhere to get us out of this mess.

 

 

 

I believe this was JP Losman’s plan for downtown Buffalo. It ended up being his greatest contribution to the city.

 

 

You have bizarre expectations for political discourse on an online football message board. I didn’t realize DR and I were being graded on our prose. This is my 5th post here. The first two were fairly simple questions. The third was a much longer post casually summarizing all of my opinions on the subject so that DR knew where I stood. The fourth was a quick follow-up. I didn’t know I was supposed to be composing a well-focused expository essay all this time.

 

You want a clearly defined problem: anthropogenic global warming is negatively impacting our coastal cities and overall civilization in a number of ways, and it requires a rapid large-scale movement toward a solution. Do you want specific metrics? Carbon dioxide ppm, temperature limits, sea level rise limits, time scales? Do you want a bibliography appended with properly cited research papers?

 

Why do I need a clearly defined solution right now? I came here to participate in a discussion partly because I don’t have one. I have my general biases toward what a solution might look like, but I’m open to discussing all types of ideas. I originally came here today to share something I recalled about planet terraforming that was based on NASA Mars research done many years ago. Nevermind.

 

 

 

Pardon me if your reasoning of I've read stuff isn't impressive.  You don't understand what you've read to the level of asking pertinent questions about the subject. 

 

And from your desire for me to justify something I've never said leads me to believe your reading skills aren't that impressive either.

 

Also, that's not a clearly defined problem, it's pontification.

Edited April 11, 2020 by Joe Miner

[Foxx]

22 hours ago, RealKayAdams said:

 

They are still occurring, of course, but their effects have already been accounted for and still can’t explain the specific temperature trends seen since the late 19th century. The greenhouse gas effect caused by modern human activity (mainly from fossil fuel burning, concrete production, deforestation, and methane gas emissions from livestock) is the earth science community’s overwhelming consensus explanation.

 

 

 

I’m not really in the mood for personal attacks right now. I summarize the ideas of climate change experts because it also happens to be what I “believe,” which is to say it makes the most sense to me so far based on all the evidence I’ve seen. Arriving at conclusions different from you isn’t proof that I am blindly faithful or lack an aptitude for critical thinking.

 

In science, strong heterodox claims require strong evidence. So what are the peer-reviewed research papers countering the man-made global warming consensus that you find particularly persuasive? What logical fallacies or flaws in the data or computational modeling errors do these papers describe that pique your interest? And what is your own educational background that makes you qualified to assess these challenges to a scientific consensus? I’m asking for published papers in a research journal, not an opinion piece from a William Happer type or a YouTube video from a neckbeard quack. Articles summarizing the dissenting arguments from climate change scientists are perfectly fine, too.

 

Full disclosure on my own climate change background: not a professional climatologist or earth scientist, avid conservationist since adolescence, scientifically literate, basic earth science knowledge at an intro undergrad course level, semi-frequent reader of popular science articles, second-hand connections with actual climatologists via postdoc oceanographer friend who has published articles herself on climate change.

 

I never argued that reforestation was the only solution needed. It’s not a trivial one, but the big limiting factor is the amount of land on the earth capable of growing forests. Research was done a while back about the reforestation potential of the entire Sahara Desert. The big conclusion (to no one’s surprise) was that it would be way too expensive. The somewhat unexpected realization was that it would also probably wipe out the Amazon rainforest in a sort of whack-a-mole problem solving dilemma. So yeah, I don’t want to overstate the idea that we can just grow a bunch of trees anywhere to get us out of this mess.

 

 

 

I believe this was JP Losman’s plan for downtown Buffalo. It ended up being his greatest contribution to the city.

 

 

You have bizarre expectations for political discourse on an online football message board. I didn’t realize DR and I were being graded on our prose. This is my 5th post here. The first two were fairly simple questions. The third was a much longer post casually summarizing all of my opinions on the subject so that DR knew where I stood. The fourth was a quick follow-up. I didn’t know I was supposed to be composing a well-focused expository essay all this time.

 

You want a clearly defined problem: anthropogenic global warming is negatively impacting our coastal cities and overall civilization in a number of ways, and it requires a rapid large-scale movement toward a solution. Do you want specific metrics? Carbon dioxide ppm, temperature limits, sea level rise limits, time scales? Do you want a bibliography appended with properly cited research papers?

 

Why do I need a clearly defined solution right now? I came here to participate in a discussion partly because I don’t have one. I have my general biases toward what a solution might look like, but I’m open to discussing all types of ideas. I originally came here today to share something I recalled about planet terraforming that was based on NASA Mars research done many years ago. Nevermind.

 

hi Kay,

 

no real comment on your posting here other than to say i might not agree with your position but that's okay, we don't necessarily have to, right? 

 

my real reason for quoting you is that i wanted to let you know that i appreciate your tone and level of discourse. you come across as articulate and cogent in your stance on all of the issues you take up. i enjoy the competing dialogue as it helps me to look at things from a place other than my own window. 

 

 

Edited April 11, 2020 by Foxx

[SoCal Deek]

57 minutes ago, Foxx said:

hi Kay,

 

no real comment on your posting here other than to say i might not agree with your position but that's okay, we don't necessarily have to, right? 

 

my real reason for quoting you is that i wanted to let you know that i appreciate your tone and level of discourse. you come across as articulate and cogent in your stance on all of the issues you take up. i enjoy the competing dialogue as it helps me to look at things from a place other than my own window. 

 

 

What’s next? Cats and Dogs living together? Come on now! Let’s get back to some good old fashioned screaming past each other. 

[Koko78]

57 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:

What’s next? Cats and Dogs living together? Come on now! Let’s get back to some good old fashioned screaming past each other. 

 

Listen *****wad, I'm right, and you're wrong. You're a ***** dumbshit moron for believing whatever it is that we're talking about.

 

 

Feel better?

[Just Joshin']

Will people learn their lesson from the CV that models are based on assumptions.  Assumptions have the bias of their creator and are designed to meet a point of view. 

 

So are climate change models as good as the CV models?

[Wacka]

Remember assuming something makes an ass out of you and me.

[SoCal Deek]

15 hours ago, Koko78 said:

 

Listen *****wad, I'm right, and you're wrong. You're a ***** dumbshit moron for believing whatever it is that we're talking about.

 

 

Feel better?

Thanks 

That’s way better. ?

[B-Man]

YEP. THIS IS THE GREEN CAMEL’S NOSE UNDER THE TENT.

ONLY THAT EXPLAINS WHY SUBWAYS ARE OPEN, BUT PEOPLE GET ARRESTED FOR GOING FOR A DRIVE IN THEIR CARS:  

 

If You Like WuFlu Confinement, You’ll Love Biden’s Promised Green Prison.

 

 

 

The Green New Nose Under the Tent.

 

 

 

.

 

[Hedge]

One of the things I am looking forward to, when we come out on the other side of COVID-19, is the numerous studies that will surely be published about how well nature has snapped back when the bulk of humanity was under lock down for months.

 

Of course, the conclusions will be how bad humans, and our actions, are on the environment. They won’t even realize that it will actually disprove their allegations. If nature can snap back in 60-90 days, there is absolutely no need for radical measures to be enacted.

 

But globalists will be globalists and there will be renewed calls for the Green New Dealio, due to the “evidence”.

[ComradeKayAdams]

On 4/10/2020 at 8:12 PM, Joe Miner said:

 

 

Pardon me if your reasoning of I've read stuff isn't impressive.  You don't understand what you've read to the level of asking pertinent questions about the subject. 

 

And from your desire for me to justify something I've never said leads me to believe your reading skills aren't that impressive either.

 

Also, that's not a clearly defined problem, it's pontification.

 

You’ve given me a grand total of 8 sentences to read. All 8 are variations of calling me stupid, but without any specific details explaining why or how I’m stupid, as well as no recommended educational path I could take to eventually become less stupid. Instead of unchaining me from Plato’s cave, you’ve blocked the cave entrance with a pile of big rocks. Given the way you came at me, I assumed it was because you disagreed with practically everything I said. Unless you agree with most of what I said but don’t like how I express it? I don’t know. Maybe clarify your point of view here a bit more.

 

How do you feel about the clarity of the defined problem as outlined in the Paris Agreement?

 

On 4/11/2020 at 4:33 PM, SoCal Deek said:

What’s next? Cats and Dogs living together? Come on now! Let’s get back to some good old fashioned screaming past each other. 

 

You deserve a “like” for the Ghostbusters reference. I hope the following exchange puts you more at ease:

 

Me: orange man bad!

Rest of PPP: green commie B word!

 

On 4/11/2020 at 7:08 PM, Just Joshin' said:

Will people learn their lesson from the CV that models are based on assumptions.  Assumptions have the bias of their creator and are designed to meet a point of view. 

 

So are climate change models as good as the CV models?

 

I think it might be comparing apples and oranges, really. CV models are much less complex than climate models and are modeling vastly different types of things. CV models for this particular CV have been around only within the past 5 months at best, while climate models have been around for 60 years. CV models have a much smaller scientific community working on them, while climate models have an enormous body of research literature and related research conferences.

 

If you’re comparing the two strictly by accuracy at this present time, I think climate models easily win the debate. The biggest problems with the CV models are the official data. Many people get the virus but don’t report it. Then you have variations among countries with how cause of death is determined. And then you have serious questions with the quality of data from countries like China and Iran and India. While these CV models use many of the same modeling factors as with other pandemics, scientists are still struggling to work out many of the little details on the mechanisms by which COVID-19 spreads.

 

With climate models, there are no similar concerns with the accuracy (or precision) of the data collected. The issue is getting the right mathematical models for all the possible factors on the planet that influence the climate. NASA GISS (see: Gavin Schmidt’s work) has been compiling the results of many different climate models for the past 20 years, and most of them are extremely impressive in their accuracy. They historically became much more accurate once the ocean’s effects were better understood. Climate models aren’t black boxes, by the way. All the underlying assumptions made are published and then shared among scientists. The various biases, points of view, or funding sources of the climate model creators are irrelevant. The only bias is toward correctly matching climate data from the past and present while making accurate predictions of the future.

 

On 4/12/2020 at 1:05 PM, B-Man said:

YEP. THIS IS THE GREEN CAMEL’S NOSE UNDER THE TENT.

ONLY THAT EXPLAINS WHY SUBWAYS ARE OPEN, BUT PEOPLE GET ARRESTED FOR GOING FOR A DRIVE IN THEIR CARS:  

 

If You Like WuFlu Confinement, You’ll Love Biden’s Promised Green Prison.

 

The Green New Nose Under the Tent.

.

 

Rest assured that if Joe Biden somehow becomes president, there will not be a Green New Deal. That’s not what centrist/moderate/establishment Democrats want. They only throw around the “green” label to corral gullible progressive lefties on election day and obfuscate true interests (example: Liz Warren’s “green new military” proposal). They have no desire to fundamentally reshape our civic infrastructure and thus large parts of our economy; they’re only willing to trim around the margins a bit. I always judge politicians by their actions and their donors, not by their speeches and their promises. If Joe Biden or any of the establishment Dems actually cared about any of the Green New Deal components, they would have achieved something substantive within the past 25 years since Al Gore began sounding alarms.

 

On 4/12/2020 at 4:49 PM, Hedge said:

One of the things I am looking forward to, when we come out on the other side of COVID-19, is the numerous studies that will surely be published about how well nature has snapped back when the bulk of humanity was under lock down for months.

 

Of course, the conclusions will be how bad humans, and our actions, are on the environment. They won’t even realize that it will actually disprove their allegations. If nature can snap back in 60-90 days, there is absolutely no need for radical measures to be enacted.

 

But globalists will be globalists and there will be renewed calls for the Green New Dealio, due to the “evidence”.

 

I don’t know what you mean by “nature snapping back in 60-90 days.” Are you referring specifically to global warming? The effects of the estimated global COVID-19 shutdown times are projected to be about a 5% reduction in annual carbon dioxide emissions, which will be measurable in atmospheric ppm but utterly negligible in the scheme of things with respect to atmospheric temperatures and ocean temperatures and Arctic ice size and sea elevations and the like. But let’s say the effect is somehow much larger than expected. This would mean these measurable outputs are much more robust to the carbon dioxide system inputs than we thought, which would be encouraging news in term of our potential to turn things around. But that still doesn’t alter the fact that we don’t ever want to push nature beyond certain “point-of-no-return” limits for atmospheric ppm inputs and global temperature outputs. As you may already know, the Earth’s climate is one giant feedback control system with a complex number of positive feedback loops and negative feedback loops. You don’t want to drive this system’s gain beyond certain regions of stability. The atmosphere of Venus is a very extreme example of doing that (although to be clear, an anthropogenic greenhouse effect couldn’t possibly create THAT type of system instability here on Earth).

 

If you’re referring to nature in general, 60-90 days of inactivity will likely show obvious reductions in pollution and increases in animal populations. But nature’s ability to snap back, following corrections in human behavior, completely depends on the situation. Sometimes it can restore itself quickly (hole in ozone layer), sometimes very slowly (rainforest soil restoration), sometimes a mix of speeds (Chernobyl impact region), and sometimes not at all (ecological distortions from megafaunal species extinction). I don’t see the point of ever having a careless regard for nature, even if it’s just a temporary carelessness. Environmentalism is about much more than maintaining a subjective “green aesthetic” for whacko lefties like me. It’s about securing at all times our civilization’s health, food supply, civic infrastructure, and ultimately the economy.

[Bill from NYC]

31 minutes ago, RealKayAdams said:

 And then you have serious questions with  Environmentalism is about much more than maintaining a subjective “green aesthetic” for whacko lefties like me. It’s about securing at all times our civilization’s health, food supply, civic infrastructure, and ultimately the economy.

Wrt the bolded words, who exactly are you talking about when you say "our?" Do you mean the USA or the entire world?

 

I think if you mean the entire world, I fully disagree. I'm sorry but China (by far the world's biggest polluter) just unleashed a deadly virus upon us, or so it would logically appear. Should we be held to strict standards while we make recommendations to other countries that they are not mandated to obey? Is it our moral duty if you will to foot the bill for the entire world's global warming while many of them profit from it and will not curb their behavior.

 

When we defeat this virus we will have enough problems to solve. Way too many to finance the entire world.

 

Jmo.

 

 

Edited April 14, 2020 by Bill from NYC

[Joe Miner]

5 minutes ago, RealKayAdams said:

 

You’ve given me a grand total of 8 sentences to read. All 8 are variations of calling me stupid, but without any specific details explaining why or how I’m stupid, as well as no recommended educational path I could take to eventually become less stupid. Instead of unchaining me from Plato’s cave, you’ve blocked the cave entrance with a pile of big rocks. Given the way you came at me, I assumed it was because you disagreed with practically everything I said. Unless you agree with most of what I said but don’t like how I express it? I don’t know. Maybe clarify your point of view here a bit more.

 

How do you feel about the clarity of the defined problem as outlined in the Paris Agreement?

 

 

 

Paris agreement: the political aspect is a large power and money grab

 

From what you're said so far, the most specific thing I can see is that man made Global warming is a problem.

 

Few questions assuming we agree:

 

1) How much man made warming is a problem?

2) What specifically are the problems caused by man made warming?

     For example, Sea levels rise and cover coastline.  How much do they rise and how much land is covered?  What are the specifics?

3) If there was no man made warming what would temps do?

4) What's the cost (not specifically Money) of the solution vs the problem?

5) What other factors play into warming that aren't man made? 

6) What specifically has to be done to 'fix' man made warming?

7) Would temps continue to rise with no man made warming?  If so, how much, and would this be a problem?

 

 

 

These are just a few questions based upon your assumptions that all of these models are correct and that the problem exists as you've identified it. This doesn't even get into the idea of whether this thing is being driven off of money and power of not.   I'll leave that discussion to DR. I mean wouldn't it be something if this was driven off the idea of continually paying for something and ceding power to others for a problem that either wasn't there or couldn't be solved by man's efforts?

 

You have praised the modeling and how accurate it is and how all the data is known.  You're just plain wrong. If you've ever done any scientific, mathematic, economic, or any other type of system modeling you would always know there are unknown variables.  What are the assumptions made by the scientists when they are performing these studies? Why did they make the modeling assumptions they did? What would different assumptions have meant?  Why does there appear to be data that disagrees with these studies or points to other causes for temperature rise? Not all data is created equal.  Decisions about how to use different pieces of data varies as well as how much weight to give some data. How much data being used has been directly gathered and what was the accuracy? How much data being used has been derived from other modeling efforts and what is the accuracy of that data?  How much compounding inaccuracy in these models is there with all the different data sources?

 

I don't have a big problem with environmentalism, efficiency, not being wasteful,  or being good stewards of our resources.  We probably don't disagree on as much as you think.  But I do have a problem with your call to action on a problem  based on your faux scientific understanding.  Reading articles and listening to people talk is not a  substitute for understanding. Maybe the pseudo scientist in you should have opinions but hold off on calls for enormous govt intervention because it's possible that you don't really understand the full issue and have just gravitated to the argument that sounds best to you and makes you feel like you're doing the right thing?

 

Example about reading articles and drawing conclusions on things I don't understand:

I read an article about this new virus we have.  Turns out, the WHO (very smart people who seem to be experts) say it isn't transmitted human to human.  Hooray!

 

[B-Man]

 

MODELS WORK BEST WHEN YOU HAVE PERFECT DATA AND A COMPLETE UNDERSTANDING OF THE PROCESSES INVOLVED, WHICH IS NEVER. 

 

Earth’s atmosphere has 4 times more dust than climate models allow for.

 

 

 

 

.

[ComradeKayAdams]

On 4/14/2020 at 7:56 AM, Bill from NYC said:

Wrt the bolded words, who exactly are you talking about when you say "our?" Do you mean the USA or the entire world?

 

I think if you mean the entire world, I fully disagree. I'm sorry but China (by far the world's biggest polluter) just unleashed a deadly virus upon us, or so it would logically appear. Should we be held to strict standards while we make recommendations to other countries that they are not mandated to obey? Is it our moral duty if you will to foot the bill for the entire world's global warming while many of them profit from it and will not curb their behavior.

 

When we defeat this virus we will have enough problems to solve. Way too many to finance the entire world.

 

Jmo.

 

Both, unfortunately, since we can’t decouple our environment from the rest of the world. Implement public policy changes for ourselves, while using diplomacy and different forms of economic pressure policies for everyone else. China is still in the Paris Agreement and will want to be a cooperative international economic player moving forward beyond COVID-19 (hopefully…because it is in their own economic interests to be that way). CCP is also positioned very favorably for all these nascent renewable energy industries because of their country’s own rich transition metal oxide natural resources, as well as the ones they’ve been eyeing in Africa.

 

 

On 4/14/2020 at 8:16 AM, Joe Miner said:

 

Paris agreement: the political aspect is a large power and money grab

 

From what you're said so far, the most specific thing I can see is that man made Global warming is a problem.

 

Few questions assuming we agree:

 

1) How much man made warming is a problem?

2) What specifically are the problems caused by man made warming?

     For example, Sea levels rise and cover coastline.  How much do they rise and how much land is covered?  What are the specifics?

3) If there was no man made warming what would temps do?

4) What's the cost (not specifically Money) of the solution vs the problem?

5) What other factors play into warming that aren't man made? 

6) What specifically has to be done to 'fix' man made warming?

7) Would temps continue to rise with no man made warming?  If so, how much, and would this be a problem?

 

 

 

These are just a few questions based upon your assumptions that all of these models are correct and that the problem exists as you've identified it. This doesn't even get into the idea of whether this thing is being driven off of money and power of not.   I'll leave that discussion to DR. I mean wouldn't it be something if this was driven off the idea of continually paying for something and ceding power to others for a problem that either wasn't there or couldn't be solved by man's efforts?

 

You have praised the modeling and how accurate it is and how all the data is known.  You're just plain wrong. If you've ever done any scientific, mathematic, economic, or any other type of system modeling you would always know there are unknown variables.  What are the assumptions made by the scientists when they are performing these studies? Why did they make the modeling assumptions they did? What would different assumptions have meant?  Why does there appear to be data that disagrees with these studies or points to other causes for temperature rise? Not all data is created equal.  Decisions about how to use different pieces of data varies as well as how much weight to give some data. How much data being used has been directly gathered and what was the accuracy? How much data being used has been derived from other modeling efforts and what is the accuracy of that data?  How much compounding inaccuracy in these models is there with all the different data sources?

 

I don't have a big problem with environmentalism, efficiency, not being wasteful,  or being good stewards of our resources.  We probably don't disagree on as much as you think.  But I do have a problem with your call to action on a problem  based on your faux scientific understanding.  Reading articles and listening to people talk is not a  substitute for understanding. Maybe the pseudo scientist in you should have opinions but hold off on calls for enormous govt intervention because it's possible that you don't really understand the full issue and have just gravitated to the argument that sounds best to you and makes you feel like you're doing the right thing?

 

Example about reading articles and drawing conclusions on things I don't understand:

I read an article about this new virus we have.  Turns out, the WHO (very smart people who seem to be experts) say it isn't transmitted human to human.  Hooray!

 

 

Thanks for this reply. A few comments:

 

1. Regarding a clearly defined problem and solution: You’ve listed 7 questions. Do you want me to answer them in detail here? Or were they more rhetorical? Questions 3, 5, and 7 are very well-defined by the science (quick source: NASA GISS site). Questions 1, 2, and 4 are defined well enough (quick source: Paris Climate Agreement PDF documents) with a converging consensus, but there is still a range of opinions that vary somewhat by country. Question 6 is still open-ended with the “Green New Deal” umbrella term for the potpourri of solutions, but the United States is one of the few remaining countries in the world with a major political party still stuck debating the worthiness of the other 6 questions first. I’d be happy to answer them in detail later if open-minded people want to read them, but it’s not worth my time if they will be laughed at because they’re coming from a “pseudo scientist” perceived as capable of reading and regurgitating but incapable of understanding and questioning. I’ve already defined the criteria I’m looking for in order to break off from the mainstream scientific consensus: dissenting research papers or research summary articles from properly credentialed climatologists that I could examine. What would be your evidence criteria in order to join my side (a question directed at any anthropogenic climate change skeptic reading this)?

 

2. On the models and data: I’ve never argued that all the data is known. Likewise with the modeling assumptions and unknown variables. What I did argue was that enough of the data and modeling assumptions are known to make satisfactorily accurate climate predictions. We can have a discussion on what constitutes “satisfactorily accurate.” Future predictions that track all data metrics within 2.5% deviation at 100% consistency? Have you defined your own computational model accuracy expectations at which scientific legitimacy can then be bestowed? It seems absurd and unproductive to me to demand climate model perfectionism before political action is to be taken. It would probably be more productive to take up an accuracy debate with credible climatologists (Zeke Hausfather would be a pretty good start).

 

3. On government solutions: I’m currently looking into what’s specifically working and what’s specifically not with all the various Green New Deal implementations in the EU, especially in Germany right now. All ideas should be on the table, anyway, given the pressing need to overhaul our dilapidated national civil infrastructure. I just want to reiterate that I would be unhappy pushing Green New Deal legislation without careful deliberation beforehand and without appropriate safeguards. I like to think that we share similarly deep concerns for government overreaches of power, government choosing economic winners and losers, and government waste and inefficiencies that increase with government program size. Where I may possibly differ from others here is my essentially equal concern for corporate power left unchecked in capitalist systems (the fossil fuel industries in this case). I’m mostly referring to the many forms of crony capitalism: shirking environmental stewardship responsibilities via deregulatory pollution law measures, price manipulation policies, foreign policy in places like the Middle East and Venezuela, and exploiting such an overly expansive U.S. transportation grid already built to heavily favor fossil fuel consumption. But even in a completely uncorrupted and unfettered capitalist system, I fully and very cynically expect private tech industries to move on their own volition without proper regard to long-term crises involving mutually shared risk (i.e. man-made climate change).

[Nanker]

Five weeks of economic shutdown and social distancing and just like that - a snowstorm in April. What more proof do we need?  

[4merper4mer]

15 minutes ago, RealKayAdams said:

 

Both, unfortunately, since we can’t decouple our environment from the rest of the world. Implement public policy changes for ourselves, while using diplomacy and different forms of economic pressure policies for everyone else. China is still in the Paris Agreement and will want to be a cooperative international economic player moving forward beyond COVID-19 (hopefully…because it is in their own economic interests to be that way). CCP is also positioned very favorably for all these nascent renewable energy industries because of their country’s own rich transition metal oxide natural resources, as well as the ones they’ve been eyeing in Africa.

 

 

 

Thanks for this reply. A few comments:

 

1. Regarding a clearly defined problem and solution: You’ve listed 7 questions. Do you want me to answer them in detail here? Or were they more rhetorical? Questions 3, 5, and 7 are very well-defined by the science (quick source: NASA GISS site). Questions 1, 2, and 4 are defined well enough (quick source: Paris Climate Agreement PDF documents) with a converging consensus, but there is still a range of opinions that vary somewhat by country. Question 6 is still open-ended with the “Green New Deal” umbrella term for the potpourri of solutions, but the United States is one of the few remaining countries in the world with a major political party still stuck debating the worthiness of the other 6 questions first. I’d be happy to answer them in detail later if open-minded people want to read them, but it’s not worth my time if they will be laughed at because they’re coming from a “pseudo scientist” perceived as capable of reading and regurgitating but incapable of understanding and questioning. I’ve already defined the criteria I’m looking for in order to break off from the mainstream scientific consensus: dissenting research papers or research summary articles from properly credentialed climatologists that I could examine. What would be your evidence criteria in order to join my side (a question directed at any anthropogenic climate change skeptic reading this)?

 

2. On the models and data: I’ve never argued that all the data is known. Likewise with the modeling assumptions and unknown variables. What I did argue was that enough of the data and modeling assumptions are known to make satisfactorily accurate climate predictions. We can have a discussion on what constitutes “satisfactorily accurate.” Future predictions that track all data metrics within 2.5% deviation at 100% consistency? Have you defined your own computational model accuracy expectations at which scientific legitimacy can then be bestowed? It seems absurd and unproductive to me to demand climate model perfectionism before political action is to be taken. It would probably be more productive to take up an accuracy debate with credible climatologists (Zeke Hausfather would be a pretty good start).

 

3. On government solutions: I’m currently looking into what’s specifically working and what’s specifically not with all the various Green New Deal implementations in the EU, especially in Germany right now. All ideas should be on the table, anyway, given the pressing need to overhaul our dilapidated national civil infrastructure. I just want to reiterate that I would be unhappy pushing Green New Deal legislation without careful deliberation beforehand and without appropriate safeguards. I like to think that we share similarly deep concerns for government overreaches of power, government choosing economic winners and losers, and government waste and inefficiencies that increase with government program size. Where I may possibly differ from others here is my essentially equal concern for corporate power left unchecked in capitalist systems (the fossil fuel industries in this case). I’m mostly referring to the many forms of crony capitalism: shirking environmental stewardship responsibilities via deregulatory pollution law measures, price manipulation policies, foreign policy in places like the Middle East and Venezuela, and exploiting such an overly expansive U.S. transportation grid already built to heavily favor fossil fuel consumption. But even in a completely uncorrupted and unfettered capitalist system, I fully and very cynically expect private tech industries to move on their own volition without proper regard to long-term crises involving mutually shared risk (i.e. man-made climate change).

Better run.  The turnip truck is getting away.

[Bill from NYC]

35 minutes ago, RealKayAdams said:

 

Both, unfortunately, since we can’t decouple our environment from the rest of the world. Implement public policy changes for ourselves, while using diplomacy and different forms of economic pressure policies for everyone else. China is still in the Paris Agreement and will want to be a cooperative international economic player moving forward beyond COVID-19 (hopefully…because it is in their own economic interests to be that way). CCP is also positioned very favorably for all these nascent renewable energy industries because of their country’s own rich transition metal oxide natural resources, as well as the ones they’ve been eyeing in Africa.

 

I think that you have much more faith in China to do the right thing than I do. That is easy to achieve too because I have none.