Climate Change 2022: Mitigation of Climate Change

One can not ignore per capita output.

Measuring only total output simply penalizes them for having 4X our population.

And, from a political point of view, ignoring that WE are the worst of developed nations when it comes to per capita output degrades our ability to say anything to any other nation on this issue.
--
Your "climate doesn't care about per capita" doesn't mean anything. After all, climate doesn't care about national boarders that humans have erected.

Pointing at China is merely a way to justify shifting responsibility elsewhere so we can ignore the problem .

 

If you can't even describe it, it must be YOUR problem.

 

We've been over this several times. The term "denier" is a deliberate pejorative intended to evoke a parallel with holocaust deniers. It is rhetorical bullying of the first order.
As for the rest, the name-calling heaped on scientists who stray from the approved narrative is well known.

 

It seems wind power has viability limits.

Energy transition: The land use conundrum
Posted on August 31, 2022 by curryja | 7 comments
by Judith Curry

Does our future hold a plethora of wind turbines, solar farms, and transmission lines covering an ever-growing fraction of the planet’s surface as energy demand increases? The output of farmland and forests being burned to provide power?

Continue reading →

 

?? I've addressed that many times. And, every time I suggest that the complainant propose a different name and promote its use.

I don't know of any "name-calling" of deniers who happen to be scientists.

 

No in this you are very wrong. I did not say to blame China to shift responsibility, just the opposite.

The physics of the problem doesn’t care how the gas gets into the atmosphere. If global warming is an immediate existential threat to humanity and is man caused, and if 1trillion tons of gas is catastrophic, then why is your response based on the number of people emitting?

Is 1 trillion less dangerous if 1 billion people generate it than if 1 person generates it? No. You are playing politics, not science.

 

The name would be skeptics.
Name-calling? Just google Pat Michaels, Richard Lindzen, Judith Curry, John Christy, and Roy Spencer.

 

LOL!!! It was CHINA that was being blamed. If those people were emitting greenhouse gas at the rate WE are, it would mean an astronomical amount more CO2 in the air.

We are LUCKY that China is emitting so much less CO2 per capita.

From another angle, we got our standard of living by CAUSING this problem. NOW we want China to not take advantage of cheap fossil fuel energy - which is exactly how we got such a great standard of living.

There is nothing fair or equal about that, and China will laugh in your FACE if you propose that it is.

 

If climate change were truly an existential threat, the response to China's objection should be: So what?

 

You did not answer the question

Is 1 trillion tons of methane less dangerous if emitted by 1 billion people than if emitted by 1 person?

 

I disagree with using "skeptics" in that way.

WUWT's author (Watt) is not a scientist. He doesn't even have a college degree. BUT, he has an absolute conclusion that he spends his days promoting. What he does has nothing to do with being skeptical.

And, those who sign onto WUWT are in the same boat. They picked a champion who is not a scientist and who promotes his position without skepticism.

I would agree that Judith Curry is skeptical, but she definitely is a scientist and her approach is based in science, while WUWT is based in picking papers that he thinks promotes his position. Also, Curry's position is not absolutist - her positions get majorly distorted on a regular basis. She does support the IPCC, for example, even though she points to places where the process must be improved. She agrees that CO2 causes warming. She has believed that models have overemphasized the amount of warming - however, I don't know what she thinks about that today, as models have been amazingly accurate and even underestimating of warming. She has also pointed out that we need to be working on being more resilient to climate change. She has focused on finding areas of doubt, but has pointed out that it doesn't justify inaction.

You need a term that describes Anthony Watt, as that is the guy YOU choose.

So far, "denier" is the term used by those interested in this topic of climate.

 

That's not a response to ANY problem.

Plus, the issue is world wide. So, cooperation is clearly of value.

 

Those on THIS BOARD point to the standard of living that fossil fuel gives to each American.

But, somehow YOU forget that when you claim that China should IGNORE that better standard of living for THEIR people.

Why should they aspire to a standard of living that is WORSE than ours?

 

Accurate descriptions of philosophical positions have nothing to do with credentials. Watt is fully a skeptic -- "a person inclined to question or doubt accepted opinions."
I have pointed out often that you will many more posts of opposing views on Watts's site than on any AGW site.
Your view is mere unthinking prejudice and a smear of those with whom you disagree.

 

Then, if the problem is truly existential, there should be an effort to coerce China's cooperation.

 

Watt is not "questioning".

He is working to promote HIS conclusion. Over and over he promotes papers what he claims counter the notion that human activity is causing warming. Plus, I've repeatedly pointed out cases where he stretches or misrepresents papers he links in order to make his position of denialism be more thoroughly supported.

Also, I pointed to Curry as a skeptic. You can not blame me for "unthinking prejudice".

 

Well, first of all I don't see science saying that climate change is an existential problem. I've seen NO scientist claim that humans won't survive.

That is one of the denialist claims - moving the goal posts to the extreme, so it becomes easier to deny. No skeptic would do that, obviously.

Next, YES, we should be working with China and other countries as well as taking action ourselves.

What we need to do is support the IPCC process. That is the only multinational approach, and it's strength comes from the very fact that it is multinational. Turning this into the USA v. <anyone> is a way to make it fail.

 

Yes, I can. Your own words make my case. And your characterization of Watt is purely a propaganda straw man.

 

Abstract

The COVID-19 pandemic and climate change are complex existential threats, unpredictable in many ways and unprecedented in modern times. There are parallels between the scale and scope of their impacts and responses. Understanding shared drivers, coupled vulnerabilities, and criteria for effective responses will help societies worldwide prepare for the simultaneous threats of climate change and future pandemics. We summarize some shared characteristics of COVID-19 and climate change impacts and interventions and discuss key policy implications and recommendations.


Interactions between two existential threats: COVID-19 and climate change

 

Come on, you are dodging.

If 1 trillion tons of gas is bad, it doesn’t matter what nation or how many people. Is AGW an existential threat to mankind or not?

You appear to be arguing standard of living takes priority over AGW.

 

China has taken steps to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. They have a huge fleet of electric buses* They have a lot of solar power. There is a drive to reduce coal smoke polluted skies.

*The effectiveness of the electric buses at thus point is questionable.

 

China also leads the world in construction of new coal-fired power plants, both in China and abroad.

 

Tyranny is on the march in Australia.
Australian Academy of Science Demands Dissent be Silenced
Eric Worrall
In a submission to the Australian Government, the AAS has demanded “disinformation” about climate change, the great barrier reef, and Covid vaccines be censored from broadcast news and the internet. . . .

 

Regardless of the title, the abstract proposes that there are parallels.

But, it doesn't say there are interactions between them.

 

That is not the point. Your claim (#892) was: "I don't see science saying that climate change is an existential problem."
The language in the abstract refutes you.