Guest
On Thursday, May 2, 2019 at 11:55:20 PM UTC+10, Joseph Gwinn wrote:
No. Somebody working for a greenie group is up-front about how they make their money.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Willie_Soon
"From 2005 to 2015, Soon had received over $1.2 million from the fossil fuel industry, while failing to disclose that conflict of interest in most of his work."
Not often. And not when the subject is of serious practical interest, as anthropogenic global warming definitely is.
Nobody is actually proposing to spend trillions of dollars. The changes we need to make to the way we get energy do involve re-directing trillions of dollars worth of investment, and make lots of money spent on fossil carbon extraction less immediately profitable than its investors had hoped, but the delusion that tackling climate change necessarily requires vast increases in taxes is one that is assiduously cultivated by the denialist propaganda machine.
Putting a tax on burning fossil carbon, and using the money to speed up investment in wind farms and solar farms is one way of re-directing investment, but it is more carrot and stick than upfront spending.
China is by far the largest player, and it has invested hugely in solar power. It is shutting down dirty and inefficient coal fired power plants very rapidly - more to minimise air-pollution than to minimise CO2 emissions, though both go down together . It has much more to lose from climate change than the US - it's agriculture is much more marginal, and it hasn't got the option of stopping eating meat when yields go down.
India and Pakistan are putting in a lot of small scale solar generation, pretty much entirely because it offers local solutions - you don't need to build a country wide power grid to get rural electricification if you've got enough sunlight and enough battery capacity to keep the lights on into the evening.
Enough anthropogenic global warming to wreck their agriculture would make it perfectly certain that they would never get "rich like us". Just because we got rich by burning fossil carbon doesn't mean it is the only way to get enough energy to support a modern life-style.
The authority of the science that tells you that higher global temperatures mean more intense tropical cyclones is more persuasive than you seem to think.
The cyclones are happening and they are killing more people.
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
On May 2, 2019, whit3rd wrote
(in article<5111a288-f1da-4b86-9b2f-b42eb85de137@googlegroups.com>:
On Wednesday, May 1, 2019 at 7:01:27 PM UTC-7, Joseph Gwinn wrote:
On May 1, 2019, bill.sloman@ieee.org wrote
When the journal's publisher declined to fire the editor concerned, the
editorial board all resigned in protest, and at that point the publisher
got
the message.
Coercion does work, then.
Deciding to associate (or resign in protest) is normal social interaction,
and not 'coercion'.
Ten years later we now know that the Hiatus was and remains real,
and...... I am not convinced that we today understand the mechanism or
more likely mechanisms well enough to support any bold predictions. As
science articles always end, more research is needed.
Twaddle. ...
Matter of opinion it seems. The literature has not yet settled.
Can't wait for 'settled' in this contentious environment. Ocean stirring and
ice melting
don't leave a detailed record that we'll be able to analyze, so the
'unconvinced' will always have a glitch to point to.
We need enough info to proceed into the future, we don't need omniscience.
Yes, the area is thoroughly polluted with conflicting theories and spin.
Given that these are trillion-dollar issues, how could it be otherwise?
It can be otherwise by insisting on disclosure of interest. Wei-Hock Soon
who didn't disclose his energy-industry funding was committing a major
ethical breach, and
in an ideal world, it wouldn't take years for such things to come to light.
Well, I did know how he made his living.
By the same token, anybody who works for an greenie group must be convicted
of bias?
No. Somebody working for a greenie group is up-front about how they make their money.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Willie_Soon
"From 2005 to 2015, Soon had received over $1.2 million from the fossil fuel industry, while failing to disclose that conflict of interest in most of his work."
Not often. And not when the subject is of serious practical interest, as anthropogenic global warming definitely is.
Nobody is actually proposing to spend trillions of dollars. The changes we need to make to the way we get energy do involve re-directing trillions of dollars worth of investment, and make lots of money spent on fossil carbon extraction less immediately profitable than its investors had hoped, but the delusion that tackling climate change necessarily requires vast increases in taxes is one that is assiduously cultivated by the denialist propaganda machine.
Putting a tax on burning fossil carbon, and using the money to speed up investment in wind farms and solar farms is one way of re-directing investment, but it is more carrot and stick than upfront spending.
China is by far the largest player, and it has invested hugely in solar power. It is shutting down dirty and inefficient coal fired power plants very rapidly - more to minimise air-pollution than to minimise CO2 emissions, though both go down together . It has much more to lose from climate change than the US - it's agriculture is much more marginal, and it hasn't got the option of stopping eating meat when yields go down.
India and Pakistan are putting in a lot of small scale solar generation, pretty much entirely because it offers local solutions - you don't need to build a country wide power grid to get rural electricification if you've got enough sunlight and enough battery capacity to keep the lights on into the evening.
Enough anthropogenic global warming to wreck their agriculture would make it perfectly certain that they would never get "rich like us". Just because we got rich by burning fossil carbon doesn't mean it is the only way to get enough energy to support a modern life-style.
The authority of the science that tells you that higher global temperatures mean more intense tropical cyclones is more persuasive than you seem to think.
The cyclones are happening and they are killing more people.
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney