Climate is far too chaotic to make sense of as to global climate

Rather than ask simple questions, the typical left winger reply always includes 2 or more conclusions they have made.

 

Are neither accurate? I’ll be the first to admit that I’m not sure I know what you mean. Feel free to correct me.

 

I did argue it scientifically and you continue to post political comments or engage in personal attacks because you can't discuss the science.

 

Let me introduce you to tens of thousands of even more educated people that actually have education and experience in relevant fields: https://www.ipcc.ch/

 

Ipcc is a political body, not a scientific body

Here is a non political scientific body for you

https://judithcurry.com/2020/12/07/the-blame-game-2/#more-26804

The blame for climate change

Manmade climate change is an emergent problem caused mainly by the abundance and usefulness of fossil fuels in providing cheap, reliable energy. In his book The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels, energy theorist Alex Epstein outlines the benefits that the development of coal, oil, and natural gas have had on mankind, including improved health, increased lifespan, and expansion of material welfare. Economist Richard Tol evaluated the private benefit of carbon, which is the value of energy services produced by fossil fuels. He finds that the private benefit of carbon is much greater than the social cost of carbon that causes damage via climate change; these benefits are related to the benefits of abundant and reliable energy.

So, who is to blame for fossil fuel emissions and manmade climate change?

• consumers and industries who demand electric power, transportation, and steel, which are produced using fossil fuels; or
• electric utilities providers and manufacturers of the internal combustion and jet engines that use fossil fuels; or
• oil/gas and coal companies that produce fossil fuels; or
• governments who have the authority to regulate fossil fuel emissions.

The blame for manmade climate change is occasionally placed on national governments. The Urgenda ruling ordered the Dutch government to step up its climate actions in reducing emissions. In the Juliana civil lawsuit, the U.S. federal government was blamed for declining to sign on to the Kyoto Protocol, pass a carbon tax and trade bill and withdrawing from the Paris Climate Agreement. However, most often in civil litigation, the blame is placed on oil/gas and coal companies that produce the fuels.

 

What attacks? Is the ^^^ scientific or argumentative?

 

There is the tactic known by various names such as this. If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit. The barrage of questions are linked in a fashion to try to elicit false remarks from the replying party.

 

OK, this one is just in the totally silly range!

Our military states that climate change is an inernational security threat.

Climatology is about what's happening and why. Cooling is NOT HAPPENING. So, making claims about cooling just indicates a false understanding of the situation.

In past times humans could move around to live where they could live. Today, that option is no longer available. So, when climate change causes agriculture to fail in some region, when water resources get depleted, when shoreline (which is always more populated) is removed those living there have to take action.

Even in the US, when we see NOLA go down, cities like the city of Miami Beach fail, the subway system in NYC fill with water, water shortages in places like Atlanta, Phoenix, and the major US agricultural areas of inland CA, the agricultural disruption in the midwest, etc., these events are expensive even for the USA - the richest nation in the world. For OTHER nations, we find that the drought in Syria was a major cause of the war zone there - breeding terrorism. We find millions of people trying to escape Bangladesh in order to find food. We see China rerouting rivers to change who gets the water - including those in other nations!

These are real events. And, they have to do with SCIENCE, not US political party memebership.

That's why you posted in this thread! Even YOU know better than your "Democrats" thing.

 

So, you post unreviewed nonsense videos of those bought and paid for - like Soon.

And, then ignore the entire world of the sciences related to Climatology.

 

Again, this is a topic of science. Look where you posted.

Making silly comments about partisan politics means NOTHING here.

 

It was not silly to comment on what the left does on science topics.

 

Of course not.

 

You expressed your enormous fear very well. I am not fearful as you are.

 

The blame game
Posted on December 7, 2020 by curryja | 18 Comments
by Judith Curry

How the ‘blame game’ gets in the way of solving complex societal problems.


An essay on how attempting to identify blame for complex societal problems can get in the way of finding solutions to these problems. What the climate ‘blame game’ can learn from the Covid-19 ‘blame game.’

The blame for climate change

Manmade climate change is an emergent problem caused mainly by the abundance and usefulness of fossil fuels in providing cheap, reliable energy. In his book The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels, energy theorist Alex Epstein outlines the benefits that the development of coal, oil, and natural gas have had on mankind, including improved health, increased lifespan, and expansion of material welfare. Economist Richard Tol evaluated the private benefit of carbon, which is the value of energy services produced by fossil fuels. He finds that the private benefit of carbon is much greater than the social cost of carbon that causes damage via climate change; these benefits are related to the benefits of abundant and reliable energy.
https://judithcurry.com/

 

Tol is an extreme outlier.

Every year, in it's annual energy issue, The Economist politely suggests we get a Carbon Tax.

The Koch funded assault on sanity really ought to stop.

 

Blame?? The science here is about causes and effects, about measurement of where we are, etc.

Deflecing to "blame" has nothing to do with science.

And, you recognize that by pointing out that various governments (ours chief among them) have refused to participate in addressing this field of science in a rational way.

There IS blame for that refusal. But, our refusal doesn't change the science. It just puts us farther behind.

 

Nonsense. You're attempting to deflect from science toward it all being an issue of politics.

And, that is absolute garbage.

The issue of what is going on with Earth's climate change today IS an issue science - NOT of politics.

 

That analysis ignores that there are alternative sources of energy. It also ignores that the cost of fossil fuel as a solution is not evenly distributed - thus supporting a fossil fuel industry argument that they benefit the USA while ignoring the lethal ramifications in so many other countries.

It ignores points such as that the cheapest form of energy today is insulation.

It ignores that the growth in energy demand in the US is the size of solar and wind growth. Our growth in energy demand is not dependent on growth of fossil fuel.

It ignores that in Iowa the largest single source of electricity is wind.

It ignores that the cost to our environment of coal fired plants vs gas fired plants is gigantic, and that oil is not a major contributor to electric power.

It ignores that solar on homes has advanced to the point of being cost effective - and that the needed improvements in our electricity grid could allow huge numbers of home owners in most of America to join those who produce more than they consume, becoming independent in that way.

It ignores that there are already more jobs in wind and solar than in coal.

It is WAY passed time to shuck these Koch/Curry arguments in the round file. They don't represent where we are. And, they DEFINITELY don't represent our best future.

 

YOU fear climate.

I on the other hand do not.

Glad you read what PhD Judith Curry had to say on blame.

 

Solar and wind are has been's. Solar has many problems. Perhaps you will address those problems.
Two glaring problems for both. 1. Intermittant 2. Indeterminate.

Oil is steady state. We enjoy the most abundant supply today of petroleum products thanks to Don Trump and our petroleum insustries.

 

Then leave out your politics.

 

Extreme as you are?

 

No. I recognize the overwhelming consensus of science on climate change.

You should remember that our military sees climate change as a serious internalional security issue, because of it's potential destabilization of numerous nations.

Are you ready to say our military is scared?

I read a lot of what Curry says. She has some interesting ideas on how to improve how science works.

Then YOU come along and cite Soon!!! You should be embarassed.

 

I've hardly even addressed YOUR total focus on politics.

I encourage you to consider science, because the OP totally ignores that and this is most definitely an issue of science.

Of course, knowledge of the science is likely to lead to improved policy. But that is exactly what is supposed to happen.

 

I am not ashamed of Willie Soon.

Why attack Soon when you could have attacked his science?