Global warming err Climate change HOAX

[B-Man]

MICHIGAN DAM OWNER FOUGHT WITH STATE OVER LAKE LEVELS BEFORE FLOOD:

Boyce Hydro, which has been criticized for failing to keep the Edenville Dam in compliance with federal regulations, said it sympathizes with those affected by the flood but defended its actions in the weeks and months before record rainfall caused the dam to fail.

 

In April, Boyce and the state sued each other in state and federal court over the company’s attempts to lower Wixom Lake, an impoundment reservoir that the Michigan Department of Environment, Great Lakes and Energy (EGLE) says is home to endangered freshwater mussels that were killed by drawdowns in 2018 and 2019.

 

Boyce says it asked EGLE for permission to lower Wixom Lake last fall “due to concern for the safety of its operators and the downstream community.” EGLE and the Michigan Department of Natural Resources denied the request. Boyce lowered the lake without approval in mid-November “believing its safety concerns were paramount.”

 

Boyce sued the state on April 29 in Grand Rapids federal court, arguing the state lacks scientific validation for its endangered species concerns and should allow the drawdowns.

 

 

Gov. Whitmer: If it saves just one mussel, it’s worth it.

 

 

 

 

[ComradeKayAdams]

17 hours ago, Azalin said:

 

There's not a lot that I disagree with here, but I'm not completely in agreement with you when you say:  ""normal” is a quantitative reference to averages of atmosphere and ocean climate data taken over the past 125 years or so and compiled by NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration)". I have faith in the research and calculations of both organizations, but only to a point. I sure feel old admitting this, but I'm slightly older than NASA, and almost a decade older than NOAA. That gives them a good 50-60 years of hard data to work with, but to go back 125 years takes a lot more theorizing than working with empirical, contemporary evidence. That's my biggest beef with the entire issue - how can an honest, legitimate trajectory be calculated when "point A" on the chart has such potential to be incorrect? Maybe it can be, maybe not. I personally don't believe it's solid enough to base policy that may potentially have a negative economic impact on us. 

 

Fair question. We’re really moving outside my purview here because I’m not a practicing climate scientist, as you know and a few others love to emphasize. But I’ll try my best:

 

Without looking through the published climatology scientific literature to tell you exactly how “normal climates” are being determined, I would say that it’s perfectly possible and maybe likely that they are truncating the chronological weather/ocean data somewhere around the middle twentieth century. They could do this without losing any understanding of the climate trends, and then they could extrapolate backward in time and compare with the older data for accuracy.

 

I also don’t necessarily believe the older data from the first half of the twentieth century is bad. Modern measuring equipment is going to be more precise, but how much is really lost in accuracy? For example, even the most basic mercury thermometer is very reliable, even if you can’t discern between hundredths of a degree like you could with a digital thermometer. I do know that NACA, the predecessor to NASA, had somehow been compiling extremely accurate (and precise) atmospheric temperature and pressure data soon after the Wright brothers. They needed highly reliable data to design even remotely reliable airplanes for the world wars and for commerce. Civil engineers, farmers, naval architects, and the military also needed fairly reliable weather and ocean data in the early twentieth century in order to have success at their jobs.

 

Hope this helps? Maybe we should e-mail a real expert like Greta Thunberg for answers lol?!

[Azalin]

1 hour ago, RealKayAdams said:

 

Fair question. We’re really moving outside my purview here because I’m not a practicing climate scientist, as you know and a few others love to emphasize. But I’ll try my best:

 

Without looking through the published climatology scientific literature to tell you exactly how “normal climates” are being determined, I would say that it’s perfectly possible and maybe likely that they are truncating the chronological weather/ocean data somewhere around the middle twentieth century. They could do this without losing any understanding of the climate trends, and then they could extrapolate backward in time and compare with the older data for accuracy.

 

I also don’t necessarily believe the older data from the first half of the twentieth century is bad. Modern measuring equipment is going to be more precise, but how much is really lost in accuracy? For example, even the most basic mercury thermometer is very reliable, even if you can’t discern between hundredths of a degree like you could with a digital thermometer. I do know that NACA, the predecessor to NASA, had somehow been compiling extremely accurate (and precise) atmospheric temperature and pressure data soon after the Wright brothers. They needed highly reliable data to design even remotely reliable airplanes for the world wars and for commerce. Civil engineers, farmers, naval architects, and the military also needed fairly reliable weather and ocean data in the early twentieth century in order to have success at their jobs.

 

Hope this helps? Maybe we should e-mail a real expert like Greta Thunberg for answers lol?!

 

Thanks, I appreciate your response - you can probably tell, I'm no climate scientist either. As I've already said, my skepticism is mostly based on what I consider to be assumptions with regard to what "normal" is as it applies to our climate. I don't try to convince anyone that there is only one truth to the state of Earth's climate and how it evolves, but rather to  see beyond what global political tribalism demands we believe about the science of climatology.  It's become too politicized, and people line up on one side or another based mostly on what their team believes. That's about as unscientific as it gets. 

 

I didn't mean to say that I think the data gathered pre-NASA/NOAA is necessarily bad, just that there's room to question its accuracy. Room enough in my opinion to hold off on putting restrictive energy policies in place, or take directives from groups like the IPCC. I think we need to understand that it's important for us to be ecologically responsible where we can while working to develop more efficient means of generating energy in the future, and that we can do both without increasing cost.

 

email Greta?  

 

 

[Tiberius]

Back to the other "hoax" for a minute 

 

French government pushes green goals in coronavirus relief efforts

BRUSSELS — The French government has asked Air France for a “drastic reduction” in its domestic flights in exchange for a bailout, Ecological Transition Minister Élisabeth Borne said Sunday, as European countries attempt to use the pandemic-fueled economic crisis to further ambitious climate goals.

French leaders asked Air France to stop servicing routes that France’s high-speed rail network can cover in less than 2½ hours, Borne told France Inter radio, part of a goal to cut the carrier’s carbon emissions from domestic flights in half by 2024.

Air France and KLM, which operate jointly, have received about $7.3 billion in loan guarantees from the state to mitigate the disruptions caused by the pandemic, which has brought air travel to a near standstill in Europe. Even before the coronavirus struck Europe, airlines were coming under pressure to reduce their emissions, a major contributor to global warming.

President Emmanuel Macron is expected on Tuesday to outline a plan to rescue French car manufacturers that would place a heavy emphasis on green goals, France’s Le Parisien newspaper reported Saturday. The state would offer buyers a rebate of up to 8,000 euros, or $8,720, for the purchase of fully electric cars and a bit less for hybrids.

The European Commission on Wednesday will announce recovery proposals for the 27-nation European Union, for which leaders are also expected to prioritize green goals as they reboot economic growth

[ComradeKayAdams]

On 5/23/2020 at 11:47 AM, Azalin said:

Thanks, I appreciate your response - you can probably tell, I'm no climate scientist either. As I've already said, my skepticism is mostly based on what I consider to be assumptions with regard to what "normal" is as it applies to our climate. I don't try to convince anyone that there is only one truth to the state of Earth's climate and how it evolves, but rather to  see beyond what global political tribalism demands we believe about the science of climatology.  It's become too politicized, and people line up on one side or another based mostly on what their team believes. That's about as unscientific as it gets. 

 

I didn't mean to say that I think the data gathered pre-NASA/NOAA is necessarily bad, just that there's room to question its accuracy. Room enough in my opinion to hold off on putting restrictive energy policies in place, or take directives from groups like the IPCC. I think we need to understand that it's important for us to be ecologically responsible where we can while working to develop more efficient means of generating energy in the future, and that we can do both without increasing cost.

 

email Greta?  

 

I’d feel more comfortable verifying my response with a friend of mine who happens to be a professional oceanographer. But until I hear back from her, my best attempt at an answer is that the climate data going back to about 1900 is acceptably accurate, partly because old analog measuring equipment for climate metrics (temperature, precipitation, atmospheric pressure, humidity, maybe also wind) can still be used today without losing practically anything in accuracy. Also, the data HAD to meet high accuracy thresholds in order to make early twentieth century technology (particularly airplanes) possible and agricultural businesses able to run effectively.

 

Now whether or not they still use this climate data for making calculations? I want to say yes because I remember reading popular science articles in the past that referenced changes from early twentieth century climates. For a given location on earth, I believe they take temperature and rainfall averages for about a generation’s length (25 years or so) to determine the climate. Then they increment these averages forward in time and plot the trend. The “normal” climate can then either be defined as the original average (i.e. the least anthropogenically perturbed) or arbitrarily chosen at a later date in time, depending on what is considered acceptable for civilization in terms of its civil and agricultural infrastructure.

 

I haven’t said much about ocean data, which is super important to climate because the oceans are a major heat sink and greenhouse gas sink for the atmosphere. I want to say that the temperature and pressure data was equally accurate back then as it was for the atmosphere, but probably WAY less complete because we hadn’t explored nearly as much of it back then as we have since World War 2. Because submarine technology depends on good temperature and pressure data, the range of our ocean data in the early twentieth century possibly varied in direct proportion to the depths and geographic locations which these designs evolved to handle.

 

This was a really good question you raised. Global warming skepticism is healthy and should be encouraged, given the huge economic stakes. My only concern is when people hold strong opinions but aren’t intellectually curious enough to seek the knowledge that better informs these opinions (I’m not including you or most anyone reading this thread). It’s also crucial to establish in one’s own mind a standard of new facts or evidence or scientific insight that would cause one to completely reverse their old opinion. This goes for everybody on both sides of the debate. I myself have a pretty good idea of what I need to see to join the side of global warming deniers. Hopefully I’m there in about 5 years…

[Azalin]

4 hours ago, RealKayAdams said:

 

I’d feel more comfortable verifying my response with a friend of mine who happens to be a professional oceanographer. But until I hear back from her, my best attempt at an answer is that the climate data going back to about 1900 is acceptably accurate, partly because old analog measuring equipment for climate metrics (temperature, precipitation, atmospheric pressure, humidity, maybe also wind) can still be used today without losing practically anything in accuracy. Also, the data HAD to meet high accuracy thresholds in order to make early twentieth century technology (particularly airplanes) possible and agricultural businesses able to run effectively.

 

Now whether or not they still use this climate data for making calculations? I want to say yes because I remember reading popular science articles in the past that referenced changes from early twentieth century climates. For a given location on earth, I believe they take temperature and rainfall averages for about a generation’s length (25 years or so) to determine the climate. Then they increment these averages forward in time and plot the trend. The “normal” climate can then either be defined as the original average (i.e. the least anthropogenically perturbed) or arbitrarily chosen at a later date in time, depending on what is considered acceptable for civilization in terms of its civil and agricultural infrastructure.

 

I haven’t said much about ocean data, which is super important to climate because the oceans are a major heat sink and greenhouse gas sink for the atmosphere. I want to say that the temperature and pressure data was equally accurate back then as it was for the atmosphere, but probably WAY less complete because we hadn’t explored nearly as much of it back then as we have since World War 2. Because submarine technology depends on good temperature and pressure data, the range of our ocean data in the early twentieth century possibly varied in direct proportion to the depths and geographic locations which these designs evolved to handle.

 

This was a really good question you raised. Global warming skepticism is healthy and should be encouraged, given the huge economic stakes. My only concern is when people hold strong opinions but aren’t intellectually curious enough to seek the knowledge that better informs these opinions (I’m not including you or most anyone reading this thread). It’s also crucial to establish in one’s own mind a standard of new facts or evidence or scientific insight that would cause one to completely reverse their old opinion. This goes for everybody on both sides of the debate. I myself have a pretty good idea of what I need to see to join the side of global warming deniers. Hopefully I’m there in about 5 years…

 

Well, when we start getting to global-scale fluid/thermodynamics it's best if I do more listening than talking. I guess with me it keeps coming down to how politicized the issue has become, and how much of the information I can accept as genuine, accurate, and unbiased. I don't consider myself a climate change denier, despite that I've been called that around here many times. I think that to simply deny any possibility of our influence on climate is just as idiotic as preaching irredeemable MMGW doom & gloom. Even the most conservative people I know all want clean air and water, a healthy environment, and a stable climate. The influence of party politics is , in my opinion, the greatest impediment to getting reasonable policy put in place.  

[Tiberius]

 

 

https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2948/milankovitch-orbital-cycles-and-their-role-in-earths-climate/

[Reality Check]

It's a hoax.

[Gary M]

On ‎5‎/‎24‎/‎2020 at 11:47 AM, Tiberius said:

Back to the other "hoax" for a minute 

 

French government pushes green goals in coronavirus relief efforts

You never let a serious crisis go to waste. And what I mean by that it's an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before.

Rahm Emanuel

 

[Tiberius]

26 minutes ago, Gary M said:

You never let a serious crisis go to waste. And what I mean by that it's an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before.

Rahm Emanuel

 

It's true, the forces against progress must be beaten when and where they can be. 

 

Nothing wrong at all with taking advantage of a situation to do what's right. 

32 minutes ago, Reality Check said:

It's a hoax.

Exactly like the pandemic 

[B-Man]

 

 

 

Shameless Climate Fearmongers Spread False Climate/Cancer Horror Story

 

 

 

[ComradeKayAdams]

On 5/24/2020 at 6:33 PM, Azalin said:

Well, when we start getting to global-scale fluid/thermodynamics it's best if I do more listening than talking. I guess with me it keeps coming down to how politicized the issue has become, and how much of the information I can accept as genuine, accurate, and unbiased. I don't consider myself a climate change denier, despite that I've been called that around here many times. I think that to simply deny any possibility of our influence on climate is just as idiotic as preaching irredeemable MMGW doom & gloom. Even the most conservative people I know all want clean air and water, a healthy environment, and a stable climate. The influence of party politics is , in my opinion, the greatest impediment to getting reasonable policy put in place.  

 

Don’t worry, I’ll try to avoid mentioning anything related to fluid mechanics and thermodynamics in the future. l just want to briefly emphasize one more time the importance of the interaction between the atmosphere and the ocean. It can’t be overstated. The ocean is obviously big (covering 70% or so of Earth’s surface area), deep, complex, and can store very large amounts of heat and greenhouse gases with potentially very delayed large-scale transfer rates. So if scientists end up learning that the observed global warming wasn’t man-made all this time, then far and away the most probable explanation (in my opinion) will be because there was something major and potentially fundamental that they got wrong with their understanding of this specific component of Earth’s climate system. Similarly, if global warming somehow ends up stabilizing or reversing course in spite of the continued pace we’re on with our fossil fuel use, then by far the most probable cause (in my opinion) will be because scientists missed something very critical with the atmosphere-ocean feedback control system. This all seems unlikely to me, however, given how much scientists now know about the ocean and all the accumulated oceanic evidence and how accurate their predictions have been matching the data so far. But I wanted to float this idea out there for the skeptics interested in looking for places where climatologists messed up. Ok, this concludes my ocean talk!

 

I agree that it would be unfair and inaccurate to label you a MMGW denier. There is absolutely a difference between a skeptic and a denier.

 

I’m equally frustrated over the politicization of this subject, but it is what it is, yeah? I guess the best we can do is maintain an awareness of all the bad faith actors and cognitive biases on both sides of the debate and be willing to call everyone out on both sides when necessary, especially our own. I’ll start calling them out here because I’m filled with sass and that’s how I roll. First and foremost, the fossil fuel industries manage to play the game effectively by purchasing politicians on both sides and promoting media disinformation campaigns. I’d also say some right-wing voters have turned what was once a healthy classical American skepticism of experts, authority figures, government power, and government program inefficiencies into a counterproductive Alex Jones-style pathology. On the left, we have our hordes of hypocritical voters who throw the word “green” around to virtue signal about saving Mother Earth and who make fun of those Alex Jones-style conservatives online, meanwhile doing absolutely nothing in their own private lives to improve global sustainability. Then there was Michael Moore’s most recent film that launched a wonderful salvo at the possible bad faith actors operating on the left, the ones who are shilling for select renewable energy industries or co-opting the green movement for purely self-promotional reasons. Last but not least, we get to my favorite political enemy: the entire Democratic party establishment, which effectively operates as one giant bad faith actor working for a variety of neoliberalism-inclined corporatists dependent on maintaining the energy status quo. It’s why I think so little has been achieved for the American green movement this century, while our European counterparts have moved light-years ahead of us in green politics. Even when facing a looming economic depression and an important election, these so-called Dem party “leaders” can’t even cobble together something like a Green New Deal-esque basic public works plan to energize the voting base and score easy political points. Oh I should also mention a major political fissure emerging on the left: mainstream leftists inclined to be content enough with the given panoply of renewable energy alternatives versus the eco-socialists (my wonderful people) who prefer exploring all the hard questions first like technical difficulties with achieving carbon neutrality on solar/wind alone, the nature of human consumption, overpopulation, land rights and resource claims, public transportation and urban/suburban sprawl, blah blah blah.

 

On 5/27/2020 at 10:42 AM, Tiberius said:

It's true, the forces against progress must be beaten when and where they can be. 

 

Nothing wrong at all with taking advantage of a situation to do what's right. 

Exactly like the pandemic 

 

That’s certainly one way of looking at it. I’m starting to respect more and more the politicians who can somehow find ways to actually achieve deliverables for their constituencies, especially deliverables with strong moral imperatives. My only counterpoint is to be mindful of all the prospective political blowback and be confident enough in the quality of your ideas. Forceful political action to finally clean up the Zone Rouge, for example, would probably work out okay. But forceful action for something as seemingly innocuous as a slight increase in fuel taxes could lead to a large, sweeping Yellow Vest movement and an abrupt end to many French political careers.

 

I love France’s national energy policy, by the way. It’s my favorite one in the world right now.

[Reality Check]

The largest influence on global climate is solar activity. The second largest influence is on fluctuations in the Earth's magnetic field, and its interaction as part of a dynamic system with again, solar activity. Also, CO2 is plant food and is a heavy cold gas, not a green house gas, whereas methane is of course a green house gas. City people discount the giant steel and concrete heat sinks that they live in and ignore the environmental impacts of all those vehicles required to keep them fully supplied. A bit ironic. I wonder how many so called environmentalists have even planted one tree in their life, which costs next to nothing, but then believe increased taxes will translate to a better outcome. We also have about 78,000 chemicals used in total to create our products, roughly 20,000 of which are in cosmetics alone. Where is the discussion on the chemical poisoning of land air and sea as a result? Global warming is a low IQ "throw" away from what is actually "poisoning" our environment. The world doesn't have too much CO2, it has too little oxygen. Oxygen depletion is our biggest issue when it comes to air quality. Why spend trillions when many of us can plant trees for free?

[GaryPinC]

23 hours ago, RealKayAdams said:

 

Oh I should also mention a major political fissure emerging on the left: mainstream leftists inclined to be content enough with the given panoply of renewable energy alternatives versus the eco-socialists (my wonderful people) who prefer exploring all the hard questions first like technical difficulties with achieving carbon neutrality on solar/wind alone, the nature of human consumption, overpopulation, land rights and resource claims, public transportation and urban/suburban sprawl, blah blah blah.

 

How about carbon neutrality utilizing nuclear power?  

 

[KD in CA]

23 hours ago, RealKayAdams said:

Oh I should also mention a major political fissure emerging on the left: mainstream leftists inclined to be content enough with the given panoply of renewable energy alternatives versus the eco-socialists (my wonderful people) who prefer exploring all the hard questions first like technical difficulties with achieving carbon neutrality on solar/wind alone, the nature of human consumption, overpopulation, land rights and resource claims, public transportation and urban/suburban sprawl, blah blah blah.

 

It seems like the left has 3 camps, not two.  In order of influence:

 

-Mainstream types (lifetime Senators, Nancy, Clintons, etc) who don't give a flying ***** about any of it and are in it to line their own pockets

-Nutjobs and blowhards who preach 'Green New Deal' but don't have the slightest idea how any of that could reasonably be achieved, or done without creating more harm than they are saving,

-Serious people interested in dealing with the hard question and technical difficulties as you point out.

 

Of course, the 3d camp isn't part of 'the left' at all....those are mostly people in the private sector who are motivated (by both money and creating long term solutions), to work those problems and create those solutions.  And that is happening every day.  The narrative that we're not doing anything to address climate change is of course pure bunk.

[Azalin]

On 5/28/2020 at 2:22 PM, RealKayAdams said:

 

I’m equally frustrated over the politicization of this subject, but it is what it is, yeah? I guess the best we can do is maintain an awareness of all the bad faith actors and cognitive biases on both sides of the debate and be willing to call everyone out on both sides when necessary, especially our own. I’ll start calling them out here because I’m filled with sass and that’s how I roll. First and foremost, the fossil fuel industries manage to play the game effectively by purchasing politicians on both sides and promoting media disinformation campaigns. I’d also say some right-wing voters have turned what was once a healthy classical American skepticism of experts, authority figures, government power, and government program inefficiencies into a counterproductive Alex Jones-style pathology. On the left, we have our hordes of hypocritical voters who throw the word “green” around to virtue signal about saving Mother Earth and who make fun of those Alex Jones-style conservatives online, meanwhile doing absolutely nothing in their own private lives to improve global sustainability. Then there was Michael Moore’s most recent film that launched a wonderful salvo at the possible bad faith actors operating on the left, the ones who are shilling for select renewable energy industries or co-opting the green movement for purely self-promotional reasons. Last but not least, we get to my favorite political enemy: the entire Democratic party establishment, which effectively operates as one giant bad faith actor working for a variety of neoliberalism-inclined corporatists dependent on maintaining the energy status quo. It’s why I think so little has been achieved for the American green movement this century, while our European counterparts have moved light-years ahead of us in green politics. Even when facing a looming economic depression and an important election, these so-called Dem party “leaders” can’t even cobble together something like a Green New Deal-esque basic public works plan to energize the voting base and score easy political points. Oh I should also mention a major political fissure emerging on the left: mainstream leftists inclined to be content enough with the given panoply of renewable energy alternatives versus the eco-socialists (my wonderful people) who prefer exploring all the hard questions first like technical difficulties with achieving carbon neutrality on solar/wind alone, the nature of human consumption, overpopulation, land rights and resource claims, public transportation and urban/suburban sprawl, blah blah blah.

 

 

I don't think the politicization of the issue can or should be waved away so dismissively. Injecting politics will always poison an issue, which is the absolute last thing that problems relying on science for their solution need. I can't stress this strongly enough: as much as I favor taking reasonable steps to mitigate the effect we have on our environment as a whole, I am wholeheartedly against anything like AOC's green new deal, or anything else that so blatantly asserts itself into our economy. I believe we can have both a robust free market economy and responsible energy policy. 

 

 

[ComradeKayAdams]

On 5/29/2020 at 5:45 AM, Reality Check said:

The largest influence on global climate is solar activity. The second largest influence is on fluctuations in the Earth's magnetic field, and its interaction as part of a dynamic system with again, solar activity. Also, CO2 is plant food and is a heavy cold gas, not a green house gas, whereas methane is of course a green house gas. City people discount the giant steel and concrete heat sinks that they live in and ignore the environmental impacts of all those vehicles required to keep them fully supplied. A bit ironic. I wonder how many so called environmentalists have even planted one tree in their life, which costs next to nothing, but then believe increased taxes will translate to a better outcome. We also have about 78,000 chemicals used in total to create our products, roughly 20,000 of which are in cosmetics alone. Where is the discussion on the chemical poisoning of land air and sea as a result? Global warming is a low IQ "throw" away from what is actually "poisoning" our environment. The world doesn't have too much CO2, it has too little oxygen. Oxygen depletion is our biggest issue when it comes to air quality. Why spend trillions when many of us can plant trees for free?

 

Lots of info here. I’ll unpack my responses in the order that the info was presented:

 

1. Yes, the Sun obviously has the largest influence on Earth’s climate, but it’s also extremely easy for climatologists to model. By “easy,” I am referring strictly to a focus on the energy that leaves the Sun and reaches the Earth, while ignoring the plasma physics details of all the solar atmospheric commotion.

2. There’s actually plenty of evidence in the scientific literature indicating that the Earth’s magnetic field and its fluctuations have a negligible impact on climate. The Earth’s magnetosphere will steer solar winds, but it has no practical impact on solar energy transfer, which consists of light photons that inherently have no electric charge to respond to these magnetic fields.

3. Carbon dioxide is most definitely a greenhouse gas in the same physical way that water, ozone, methane, and nitrous oxide behave after absorbing sunlight energy. Sources or explanation contradicting this??

4. Agree 100% with the problem of hypocritical environmentalists unwilling to alter their own behavior for a greater good and/or unaware of the full effects their behavior has on the environment.

5. A transition to renewable energies doesn’t necessarily lead to increased taxes. The big devil is in the vast budgetary and legislative details as well as in the allotted timeframes for fixing problems. Plus you have to factor in all of the long-term financial damages from global warming that would burden taxpayers: increased destruction from wildfires and hurricanes, urban coastline civil infrastructure damage, massive agricultural industry alterations, etc.

6. I’d definitely like to see more public discussion on industrial chemical poisoning. It’s best done by case studies. These discussions rarely happen for the reasons you probably already figure: potential subtraction of jobs, inconveniences to people’s way of life, and intentional information suppression from chemical industries.

7. Unfortunately we can’t photosynthesis our way out of the global warming crisis. There’s not enough land on Earth that can support forest growth for all the trees we’d need, and this viable land percentage is constantly shrinking with desertification and climate change effects in progress and competition with our constantly increasing international agricultural needs (biggest culprit by far: cattle pastures for the meat and dairy industries). Additionally, old forests have soil that is better for carbon sequestration than newly planted ones.

 

On 5/29/2020 at 2:42 PM, GaryPinC said:

 

How about carbon neutrality utilizing nuclear power?  

 

 

Yes, absolutely. The carbon neutrality math that I’ve seen works out well if you include second/third generation nuclear reactors. This is the foundational model of France’s national energy policy which I have spoken highly of here. For America’s unique energy needs, at this very moment I’m supportive of solar and nuclear as the bulk of our twenty-first century energy infrastructure, with a mix of other renewables sprinkled in when sensible (wind, hydroelectric, geothermal, certain types of biofuels). It’s a shame that most fellow environmental lefties are against anything related to nuclear energy. They bring up major safety disasters (Chernobyl, Fukushima, Three Mile Island) or storage concerns (Hanford, Kyshtym, Yucca Mountain) to me without the proper perspective that all known nuclear-related disasters came from entirely obsolete technology and ridiculous safety standards. Sort of akin to refusing to fly on a standard commercial jet plane in 2020 because a few WWI airplanes experienced mechanical failure and crashed. On an international scale, no other modern energy technology scores better on safety and reliability metrics over its entire life cycle than nuclear (this is actually thanks to the heavy government regulations it now faces as a historical legacy of the few aforementioned disasters). For many of the next-generation reactor designs in development, the issues of nuclear waste storage and safety look even better than the current designs being used.

 

On 5/29/2020 at 2:56 PM, KD in CA said:

Of course, the 3d camp isn't part of 'the left' at all....those are mostly people in the private sector who are motivated (by both money and creating long term solutions), to work those problems and create those solutions.  And that is happening every day.  The narrative that we're not doing anything to address climate change is of course pure bunk.

 

To clarify the narrative: it is that we’re not doing enough in magnitude and speed to address climate change that is commensurate with its severity, when considering even the most conservative estimates of the progression of man-made global warming. If you were to do a survey of all the private sector workers in the sustainability industry (renewable energy engineers, scientists, civil engineers, agricultural engineers), you’d probably find that a large majority of them are politically left-leaning. Solutions will mostly come from the private sector, but I believe (as do all now but the most ardent economic libertarians??) that the private market will need significant assistance from the government. Looking throughout the entire history of capitalism going back to the late Middle Ages, the free market has repeatedly demonstrated itself to be insufficient on its own for solving problems similar to MMGW, where negative impacts are dispersed throughout the entire collection of market participants over ranges of time close to a human lifespan or longer.

 

On 5/30/2020 at 6:51 PM, Azalin said:

I don't think the politicization of the issue can or should be waved away so dismissively. Injecting politics will always poison an issue, which is the absolute last thing that problems relying on science for their solution need. I can't stress this strongly enough: as much as I favor taking reasonable steps to mitigate the effect we have on our environment as a whole, I am wholeheartedly against anything like AOC's green new deal, or anything else that so blatantly asserts itself into our economy. I believe we can have both a robust free market economy and responsible energy policy.

 

Sorry Azalin, I wasn’t intending to be so flippant or dismissive with my response. But the way I see it, anything related to science that calls for direct public funding or government intervention of the economy will, to some extent, ALWAYS become politicized. Example: even the most esoteric science of fundamental particle physics was politicized during the 1993 Texas particle accelerator project proposal, which was ultimately cancelled. So in my head, I always assume some degree of this inevitable politicization and then work to come up with practical solutions within this constraint. Current example: maybe appeal to Trump’s ego of wanting to beat China economically and be the best at everything when trying to promote the merits of US renewable energy technology?? If we were to remove all politics and notions of the economy with the MMGW topic and go purely by the science, then I think calls for drastic immediate change would be pretty strong (and just as a starting point for the remaining doubtful, MMGW deniers would first need to explain the rise of carbon dioxide in parts-per-million from 280 in 1750 to 415 last year by non-anthropogenic mechanisms, given that the number remained basically steady at 280 for the thousands of years before the Industrial Revolution).

 

For the purposes of this thread’s discussion when thinking about the Green New Deal, I’ll focus on the stuff related to climate change and the environment and ignore all the rest (better for another thread…maybe The Trump Economy one). On one hand, I can fully understand not supporting the GND in its current form when it is somehow still devoid of any agreed-upon details on the changes to be implemented or on the transition process for the fossil fuel industries being replaced. It’s pathetic how little the GND was even discussed during the Democratic Party primary debates, though maybe the Dems would have had more of an incentive to do so if Trump hadn’t removed the topic from the American political table of discussion altogether and if the Republicans didn’t choose to be the only major political party in the world to call MMGW a hoax…but I digress. What I really aim to do here is to challenge how “free” our free market economy actually is when you consider three areas:

 

1. annual collective fossil fuel subsidies.

2. a post-WW2 foreign policy centered on maintaining cheap oil supplies in the Middle East and now also in Venezuela.

3. an energy-inefficient US transportation system, built with steady supplies of cheap oil in mind, which has been firmly in place since WW2 (especially since the 1956 Highway Act).

 

So we should at least acknowledge that the economic game is already rigged to some extent in favor of fossil fuels and against renewables. But even if we are okay with that and prefer maintaining the economic status quo for whatever reasons, we also have to acknowledge that change may be imminent and may be urgently forced upon us. The pandemic has created a shaky economy that threatens the US petrodollar system we’ve been running since the 1970’s. And if the economic recovery continues as sluggishly as I fear, I can’t think of a more perfect time to upgrade our long-rotted civil infrastructure system and call for FDR-style GND public works projects for the throngs of unemployed.

 

Ouch my fingers hurt from all this typing. Good topics I think I’ll leave for another day:

 

1. carbon taxes, carbon credits, carbon offset, cap-and-trade emissions program.

2. advances this century in solar technology, including what Michael Moore may have gotten wrong in his “Planet of the Humans” film.

 

Y’all have a good weekend!

[SoCal Deek]

Kay? You’re super cute for sure but I simply cannot read your thesis paper long posts anymore. You’re losing the audience. I believe your passion for this topic but is there anyway to boil things down to a few sentences? 

[Buffalo_Gal]

LOL Trump just said, "The Green New Deal is like baby talk."

He's pointing out how ridiculous a proposal it is.

[ComradeKayAdams]

On 6/5/2020 at 8:41 AM, SoCal Deek said:

Kay? You’re super cute for sure but I simply cannot read your thesis paper long posts anymore. You’re losing the audience. I believe your passion for this topic but is there anyway to boil things down to a few sentences? 

 

Oops! Thanks for the advice, SoCal Deek. I was responding to 4 different people in that last post, but yes I should be more mindful of the audience whenever I sacrifice brevity for content overload. I partly blame my high caffeine sensitivity and my early morning coffee. It fires me up for PPP like a Kyle Williams locker room speech for Bills games.

 

Instead of summarizing my last post in a few sentences, can I try summarizing the entirety of my global warming posts? That way everyone who is not interested in going back and reading my global warming novella can get on the same page. It could be a good reset and a launch point for future discussion. It’s gonna get INTENSE, so buckle up and just please let me know if y’all think I need to pare it down further…

 

My summary of the science behind man-made global warming (MMGW):

 

1. It has become very difficult in 2020 to find a credible scientist or scientific paper that can debunk the fundamental scientific reasoning, the data quality, or the fidelity of the mainstream feedback control system climate models that support the MMGW consensus.

2. A good starting point for climate change skeptics would be to explain the relatively sudden atmospheric increase of carbon dioxide from 280 ppm to 415 ppm between 1750 and 2019 (with similar spikes seen in methane and nitrous oxide), using only non-anthropogenic mechanisms, when the 280 ppm number remained approximately steady for many thousands of years before.

3. The best remaining place for climate change skeptics to challenge the MMGW consensus may be the complicated heat and gas transfer dynamics at the interface between the ocean and the atmosphere.

 

My summary of what is going wrong with our search for MMGW solutions:

 

1. The climate/environment portions of the Green New Deal (GND), in its present form under the banner of either the Democratic Party or even the Green Party, is woefully lacking in details for renewable energy choices, carbon market legislation, transition processes from fossil fuels, and practically everything else.

2. Corrupt Democratic Party leaders, the corrupt/incompetent mainstream media, and hypocritical/oblivious environmental lefties deserve as much of the blame for the state of the nation’s MMGW discourse as do fossil fuel corporate lobbyists, Trump, the Republican Party, and the right-wing voting base.

3. The American economic market is very much structurally biased in favor of fossil fuels and against renewable energy, with regards to subsidies and foreign policy and civil infrastructure currently in place.

 

My own general outline of what a MMGW solution set would look like:

 

1. Make solar and nuclear the foundational basis of the future US energy infrastructure, with wind/hydro/geothermal added where appropriate, and with certain limited types of biofuels incorporated as necessary.

2. Implement some federal subsidies for private renewable energy industries and substantially increase spending on fundamental scientific research at American universities/government labs that is focused on renewable energy tech, civil engineering, agricultural engineering, replacements for internal combustion engines, replacements for jet engines, planetary terraforming, and carbon sequestration tech.

3. Enact a transition process for displaced workers in an old energy economy that would be centered around similar ideas which have been proposed for workers replaced by automation, such as job retraining programs and sunset UBI’s.

4. Public works projects to facilitate widespread upgrading of the US civil infrastructure, with an emphasis on public transportation and on the reduction of urban/suburban sprawl (I know I know…controversial after the pandemic and the riots, but whatevs…).

5. Reforestation up to at least 90% of the total forest land coverage that existed in the US prior to 1620, as well as essentially 100% preservation of current remaining old growth forests.

6. Carbon market legislation…so the economics are way too nuanced to summarize in a sentence, but I will describe my opinion later this summer, based on what’s working and not working in Europe and elsewhere.

7. Related environmental conservation of air, water, ecosystem flora, and ecosystem fauna by generally more strict regulations, greater EPA oversight, and public works waste cleanup programs.

8. Promote vegan diets that reduce the environmental stress from cattle and their pastoral land requirements, as well as promote the minimization of food waste practices in restaurants, grocery stores, and homes.

9. Educate people to reconsider their capitalist consumption habits, to buy less of stuff they don’t need, to challenge the mantra of “keeping up with the Joneses,” and to increase various sustainability efforts like recycling.

10. Encourage people to not have children if they’re not fully committed to being parents, discourage the “barren spinster” stigma for women, encourage adoption options, promote birth control education, and increase birth control access.

 

And for my beloved TLDR audience:

 

1. Man-made global warming doesn’t look to be a hoax.

2. All of our politicians suck balls.

3. I have an eco-socialist wish list that is the stuff of hippy dreams (or of authoritarian nightmares, depending on the point of view).

4. Moving forward, we can discuss the MMGW science, GND politics, GND pecuniary matters, wherever y’all wanna go…