Climate change science resources

...in wealthy countries that can afford to eliminate - at source - the crap that is emitted from burning fossil fuels;
as you said, billions of people in poor nations have yet to start the 'fossil fuel journey'...which is exactly the reason why the world CANNOT continue down that path.

The moral case? Without even reading it, I'm guessing he is saying poor people need access to 'cheap' fossil fuels...

I'm here to say the BIS (central bank of central banks) can fund - ex nihilo - a GLOBAL transition to green, thus by-passing the whole filthy-fossil-burning, energy-access route.

 

The key phrase in your post was: "Without even reading it . . . "
From the link I posted:
"The key difference between a healthy and unhealthy environment, Epstein argues, is development—the transformation of nature to meet human needs. And the energy required for development is overwhelmingly made possible by the fossil fuel industry, the only way to produce cheap, plentiful, reliable energy on a global scale.
While acknowledging the challenges of fossil fuels (and every form of energy), Epstein argues that the overall benefits, including the largely ignored environmental benefits, are incomparably greater."

 

So now you have posted something to read.

Well he is wrong straight up. 19th century London, the center of the emerging Industrial Revolution based on burning coal, quickly became a smog-filled cesspool.

Up to the early 20th century, yes. Whereas currently energy from solar/wind is growing rapidly...and CAN eliminate the fossil industry entirely if this HAS to be done.

{QUOTE]the only way to produce cheap, plentiful, reliable energy on a global scale.[/QUOTE]

No. Even with the costs of pumped-hydro and battery storage figured in, renewables are rapidly becoming cost competitive with fossil; and like I said, if it IS a matter of saving the planet, then the BIS could fund - ex nihilo - the entire global transition. (Note: conventional free market economists are stuck with the ridiculous proposition that we "cannot afford to save the planet".....if in fact time was of the essence).

That's a repeat of his opening WRONG assertion, above.

How much underground water pollution results from fracking?

How are China and India going to create clean, breathe-able air?

How are poor countries going to pay to clean up filthy-fossil energy producers?

 

No, it was a cesspool before cheap iron water pipes made with coal enabled the city to build safe water and sewer systems.

It can, but it doesn't have to be done.

Fine. Let them compete.

It takes real resources to build energy infrastructure, not just money. Those resources could be better utilized doing something worthwhile.

Not a lot.

Same way rich countries did: stop burning wood and animal dung for cooking and heating, and burn cleaner fossil fuels instead.

From the wealth fossil fuel use enables them to produce.

 

No. Even with the costs of pumped-hydro and battery storage figured in, renewables are rapidly becoming cost competitive with fossil; and like I said, if it IS a matter of saving the planet, then the BIS could fund - ex nihilo - the entire global transition. (Note: conventional free market economists are stuck with the ridiculous proposition that we "cannot afford to save the planet".....if in fact time was of the essence).



That's a repeat of his opening WRONG assertion, above.

How much underground water pollution results from fracking?

How are China and India going to create clean, breathe-able air?

How are poor countries going to pay to clean up filthy-fossil energy producers?[/QUOTE]

The Skeptical Environmentalist - The Guardian
www.theguardian.com › books › sep › scienceandnatur...
Aug 31, 2001 — There is little evidence that the world is in trouble, he claims, and a good deal more that suggests that we've never had it so good. Air quality in ...

". . . Nonsense, says Lomborg. These are just scare stories put about by ideologues and promulgated by the media. There is little evidence that the world is in trouble, he claims, and a good deal more that suggests that we've never had it so good. Air quality in the developed world has improved markedly over the last 100 years. Human life expectancy has soared. The average inhabitant of the developing world consumes 38% more calories now than 100 years ago, and the percentage of people threatened with starvation has fallen from 35% to 18%. The hole in the ozone layer is more or less fixed; the global-warming threat has been much exaggerated. And though we worry incessantly about pollution, the lifetime risk of drinking water laden with pesticides at the EU limit is the equivalent of smoking 1.4 cigarettes. In short, the world is not falling apart; rather, the doom-mongers have led us all down the garden path. . . . "

 

Increasing Hurricane Intensity Study Fatally Flawed
Charles Rotter
The data shows that the global results are driven largely by a single basin, the North Atlantic. The proportion of major wind speeds increased by 72% in the North Atlantic,…

". . . In any other field of science, peer review would have spotted this fatal flaw in Kossin’s paper, which would never have been published."

 

Resources:

When Will IPCC End Its Scientific Denial: How Long Can UN Body Ignore Thousands Of Publications Disputing CO2
By P Gosselin on 31. January 2021

Share this...
Despite the thousands of scientific publications refuting alarmist climate change scenarios, governments, activists and the IPCC continue to insist that we’re headed for climate catastrophe when we clearly are not.

Thanks to Kenneth Richard’s Herculean efforts and the Google Medieval Warm Period Map, we have these publications readily available.

There are reasons why in 2019 renowned astrophysicist Nir Shaviv told a Swiss news magazine that the warnings of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) could not be taken seriously. The government-funded body relies on faulty models and alarmist publications, and continues to ignore a huge portion of the published rational science.

There is also the ongoing campaign aimed at preventing scientists from publishing non-alarmist findings. . . . .

 

And yet in congested traffic in urban centers, air quality is still harmful to human health.

"Air pollution from traffic congestion in 83 of the nation's largest urban areas contributes to more than 2,200 premature deaths annually, costing the health system at least $18 billion, according to a study by Harvard School of Public Health (HSPH) researchers featured May 25, 2011, in USA Today".

"The study was led by Jonathan Levy, adjunct associate professor of environmental health, and co-author Katherine von Stackelberg, a research associate, of the Harvard Center for Risk Analysis. Jonathan Buonocore, an Sc.D. student in the Department of Environmental Health’s Environmental Science and Risk Management program, also participated in the study".

 

Such a miniscule number merits the reply: So what? Meanwhile:

". . . Air pollution is not what you think. It is by far the biggest environmental problem in the world. And its impact has been declining for past 110 years. This is because most air pollution deaths are caused by indoor pollution from cooking and heating with dirty fuels. Over the 20th century, 260 million died from indoor air pollution in the Third World – about twice the toll in all the century’s wars.

Overall, in 1900, air pollution cost 23% of global GDP. Today it has fallen to 6% and by 2050, mainly because of much less indoor pollution, it will reach 4%."
Outcome | Copenhagen Consensus Center
www.copenhagenconsensus.com › outcome
Air pollution is not what you think. It is by far the biggest environmental problem in the world. And its impact has been declining for past 110 years. This is because ...

 

But this problem is not inherent to use of fossil fuels. It is mainly caused by particulate matter from old, badly tuned, or poorly maintained engines -- especially large diesels in trucks -- that could easily be identified and fixed or taken off the road if local governments seriously wanted to improve their air quality. Some local governments already do so. Similarly, indoor air quality improves immeasurably in poor countries when the people stop cooking with renewables like wood, charcoal and animal dung, and use fossil propane or natural gas instead.

 

Minimum wages are simply price controls, and price controls ALWAYS lead to shortages... in this case, a shortage of jobs.

Yes, they can. The SODC (Socialist Oligarchy of the District of Columbia) is currently ~$28T in debt, and has over $159T in unfunded liabilities. It is completely and utterly broke. The SODC, like most of the world, is going to eventually experience either a tax crash, a debt crash, or a cash crash. It seems like you are opting for a cash crash (printing more money without a corresponding increase in wealth).

It will affect anyone who the government defaults on, such as other countries and any treasury holders. It will affect anyone and everyone who is to be paid social security, medicare, and other related things. IOW, it will affect everyone.

It IS a burden on THIS generation...

Inflation is happening right now. Increasing the supply of money without a corresponding increase in wealth IS inflation, dude... It will eventually lead to a cash crash.

CO2 is not pollution.

How do you suppose the world will operate as it does currently without ICE's... What "human health-destroying ****" comes out of vehicle exhausts?

Good question. The SODC is currently broke.

There's no need to do any "green" BS... The Church of Green is a fundamentalist religion.

 

Sorry, NY Times, Climate Change Is Improving Human Health
HEALTH IMPACTS FEBRUARY 1, 2021

 

PAST PERFORMANCE IS NO GUARANTEE OF FUTURE RESULTS:

● Shot: Storm Orlena: New York City and New Jersey issue state of emergency ahead of heavy snow.

—The London Independent, today.

● Chaser: Snowfalls are now just a thing of the past.

—The London Independent, March 20th, 2000.

 

I said there are sufficient resources to allow government to employ everyone (of working age) at above poverty level (as employer of last resort) , when the private sector fails in that regard....which it always MUST fail to do, in a competitive free market (see NAIRU).

In fact, the JG job IS the minimum above poverty wage in the economy

Job Guarantee: Well-paid work for all who want it | Future To Fight For

(the above is a link)

Wrong. Your "SODC" is NOT a sovereign currency-issuing government; it is a state which USES the currency of the USA. Indeed your "SODC" CAN go broke, unlike the USA provided
1. the US doesn't borrow in a foreign currency, and
2. the US maintains its productive capacity.

Of course, I'm assuming the US Fed and treasury is authorized to create and spend the nation's own currency, without taxing or borrowing from the private sector, which is not the case under the current neoliberal orthodoxy.

MMT: overcoming the political divide. | PoliticalForum.com - Forum for US and Intl Politics

(the above is a link)

Like I said, I'm exposing the lies of the current neoliberal monetarist orthodoxy. A currency-issuer CANNOT "run out of money". As for inflation, it has been dead for ages; while Japan has been fighting DEflation for 4 decades.

Of course not, but the filth coming out of the exhausts of all ICE's IS health-destroying pollution, resulting in higher death rates in high traffic-congestion urban areas.

"Air pollution from traffic congestion in 83 of the nation's largest urban areas contributes to more than 2,200 premature deaths annually, costing the health system at least $18 billion, according to a study by Harvard School of Public Health (HSPH) researchers featured May 25, 2011, in USA Today".

That why GM and the rest are exiting ICEs by 2035.

Er...hydrogen cells, or electric vehicles powered by green grid battery charging stations.

Addressed above.

Not necessarily so, the science is...divided...to say the least.
Fundamentalism doesn't allow ANY division...so be careful who you are pointing your finger at....

And in case the AGW science IS correct, I have explained how the BIS can fund the GLOBAL transition to green, creating a new global economy powered by the sun, wind, (and perhaps new generation nuclear).

And giving us clean air everywhere...regardless of any nation's current wealth.

 

1. Er....the cost of replacing old, poorly maintained ICEs, globally, is prohibitive...unless poor countries can send the bill to the BIS....

And as for propane gas:

"Carbon monoxide is a colorless, odorless, tasteless gas produced by burning gasoline, wood, propane, charcoal or other fuel. Improperly ventilated appliances and engines, particularly in a tightly sealed or enclosed space, may allow carbon monoxide to accumulate to dangerous levels.Oct 16, 2019"

2. Wood and charcoal are forerunners of fossil fuels (over eons) , as opposed to sunshine and wind; and the costs of eliminating poisonous, carcinogenic particulates and smog from burning fossil fuels are prohibitive anyway.

Better to use a clean 'fuel' as the the source of energy production.

 

Not really. They are less efficient, so tuning and maintenance can pay for itself in fuel savings.

Yes, well, people do need to learn to use any fuel safely, and you will notice that your source mentioned wood and charcoal, which propane would replace. The problem with propane is that it burns so cleanly, people don't notice that harmless CO2 is building up; but then it starts to produce CO, which they also cannot detect.

False. Modern fossil fuel power plants burn very cleanly and efficiently.

Clean fuel is fine as far as it goes, but as Michael Moore documented in "Planet of the Humans," renewables are far from clean in the full production cycle.

 

Well, no. GM's announcement was a marketing initiative. Please note that Toyota, for example, does not have an electric vehicle in the pipeline.

 

??

Toyota announces new all-electric SUV coming soon - Electrek

(the above is a link)


"Toyota announced today that they will be unveiling a new all-electric SUV in the coming months.
The automaker, which has been seen as a laggard when it comes to all-electric vehicles, says that it’s their ‘first step’ for battery-electric vehicles.
Toyota has yet to launch an all-electric vehicle outside of China.
The Japanese automaker has been focused on hybrids and fuel cell vehicles and it has often talked down on battery-electric vehicles.
Last year, the company announced an acceleration of its electric vehicle plans and unveiled a few concepts that it plans to turn into production vehicles in the coming years."

You need to keep up with the news...

 

But WHO is will pay? The government? The owners?

That last point (underlined by me) is important; ANY fossil fuel burn emits harmful chemicals.

You better let China know that - the CCP is desperately interested in keeping the smog-oppressed population onside...

But that presupposes recycling processes won't be developed that can minimize harmful pollution.

 

This is new news. Thanks. This looks like just a compliance gesture in any case.

 

In places that have such programs, the owners pay.

No, CO2 is not harmful, and propane only emits harmful CO when the combustion air has too much CO2/not enough O2.

China is making rapid progress in cleaning up its air, just as South Korea did 20 years ago, and Japan did 40 years ago.

No, it just identifies a fact about the current level of technology.

 

Global warming by adjustment:

Robust Measurements Show The Northern Hemisphere’s Atmosphere Cooled -0.6°C In 5 Years 60 Years Ago
By Kenneth Richard on 4. February 2021

Share this...
Covering 92% of the Northern Hemisphere’s (NH) atmosphere, between 150,000 and 200,000 measured temperatures per month indicated the NH cooled by -0.60°C from 1958-1963. From the equator to 30°N, the cooling was -0.81°C. Climate activists have since eliminated this cooling from the record.


Image Source: Starr and Oort, 1973 . . . .

 

A useful resource:

Climate Researcher’s New E-Book: IPCC Significantly Overstates CO2, “The Sorry State Of Climate Science”
By P Gosselin on 5. February 2021

Share this...
Climate researcher, geologist, Patrice Poyet has released a new e-book: The Rational Climate e-Book: Cooler is Riskier. The Sorry State of Climate Science and Policies.

This is an outstanding reference. Using the table of contents the reader can conveniently look up the topic that’s of interest. The ebook has been downloaded over 10,000 times so far.

The 449-page book contains 120 figures and 177 equations and concludes that climate change is mostly about politically-fanned fear, and based very little on hard science. . . .

 

Good resource for some people here:
https://climatekids.nasa.gov/

 

Alarmist silliness.