Bill Gates is heading a $1 billion venture fund to combat climate change

[happyjack27]

Name calling in the climate debate has to stop, and we have to engage seriously with each other to formulate a genuine consensus policy.

There is no debate. There is nothing at all in the science-deniers drivel to "seriously engage with" . And there is nothing to formulate.

The problem is one of education and getting rid of the social norms in America of ignorance and arrogance.

[RERT]

Nice to have my opinions reinforced so promptly and crisply. I've given you a number of sane reasons why there is no need to take an apocalyptic view, which you have simply ignored. All the neutrals (if they still exist) are assuming that's because you have no rational responses. Well done.

The paradigm of 'Label-Insult-Ignore' just lost the left an election against Donald Trump. I think it works by creating enemies who know better than to voice an opinion which is going to be shouted down, or lose them their job. They just get their own back in the privacy of the ballot box. Apparently nearly half the US is a 'basket of deplorables'. Label-Insult-Ignore never won an argument or a friend.

Feel free to carry on name calling if it makes you feel better. I think that is working against your political interests. Personally I've resolved to engage a little more, because I think the echo chambers we live in are causing conflict and bad politics. Hence my post.

[happyjack27]

i don't think you understand.

There is no "debate".

If you want to learn about climate science, there are plenty of resources to available. There are even courses available at a university. But you're not going to learn anything so long as you think you know everything.

We're not going to do this:




You can whine about it and cry about it all you want. It falls on deaf ears.

[Maui]

There is no doubt that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Pumping billions of tons of it into the atmosphere is a perturbation of the climate system which is best avoided. There needs to be an active discussion of the extent of the problem, and the most economical way of dealing with it.

For uttering the above paragraph, many people would be screaming "Denier!", equating me to a war criminal, just because I don''t believe the frankly ludicrous claims of imminent climate catastrophe. I've just looked at the data, and there is no reason to panic

This is absolutely reasonable. I do think policy makers have layered an unfortunate catastrophe storyline on top of the climate work done by scientists. I feel with the word "ludicrous" you've resorted to the name calling you just asked to stop, though. There are very real consequences of climate change; but I agree, let's strip out the adjectives and talk metrics.

One thing that is clear is that a lot of eco systems are/will be upended and this will/is leading to mass extinctions. However, it is those very mass extinctions that have led to big "progress" in evolution, so is that necessarily a bad thing? Maybe at the end of all of this dolphins will have risen up to challenge our our species' rule over the planet! j/k. Anyway, in my view human overpopulation poses a much bigger risk to the Earth's wildlife than climate change and mass extinctions would be occurring with or without AGW. So if we are really worried about ecosystems, we need to start peddling birth control with more urgency than electric cars.

From an economic perspective, it is perfectly legitimate to be calculating the costs to raise cities or build seawalls. I'm all for a reasonable discussion on how to come up with the most accurate estimates for sea level rise, how much that will cost to address in coastal cities and when it makes more sense to take action now vs react to the rise later.

That brings us back to policy. Personally, I fail to see why well engineered nuclear power can't be the principal component of a solution. Couple that with a 'moonshot' on batteries, and power and land transportation could be de-carbonised in a few decades, which is plenty soon enough (in my view).

I'd also offer my view on why this debate is so poisonous - it is because, in the face of the above facts, it would be hard to get the public to pursue ANY policy. A scare story is required, or a very modest and measured approach. I also think that that explains the "Denier!" meme. The debate has to be cut off, because the catastrophic the view does not stand up. In addition, there are certainly people who would use AGW as a lever to try and deconstruct our consumer life-style (for which aim stated baldly there is essentially zero public support).

Yes, the unfortunate thing is that the AGW conversation jumped from science studying of the coming changes to fear of what our response may need to be sabotaging the science. It is scary how just a few agents out there can inspire so many tin foil hats. 10 years ago when I was less jaded (or the right wing was less crazy?) I would spend hours responding point-by-point in these debates. And I would frequently agree with you that the consequences of AGW are not so clear cut. But as with happyjack, I for the most part fail to see the point anymore. There are enough anti-AGW tin hats out there fabricating their own reality that it is just impossible to have a sensible fact-based debate anymore.

I've basically stopped worrying about what the anti-AGW movement thinks anymore not just because of the pointlessness, but because I think we've reached the tipping point on energy anyway. I honestly don't think the transition to renewable fuels will happen much faster or slower based on policy. Incentives and research were needed to get alternative energy cost-competitive... but now it is becoming a runaway snowball whether the tin foil hats want it to or not.

Anyway, I agree 100% with pursuing nuclear and fusion (and not just for the climate's sake). It is my understanding that fission just doesn't compare well right now on cost. It seems unlikely that large tokamaks would be able to compete on cost for fusion. I am hopeful and excited that one of the more recent alternative ideas for fusion that would be economical does pan out (that's why I visit here!)-- and I wish that we were spending more on this research. However, I became excited about fusion back where there was no other viable renewable energy. But solar, wind, and batteries continue to make dramatic progress that isn't going to stop anytime soon. Solar and wind are already winning many places solely on unsubsidized economics... and the same thing is likely to start happening in the next 5 years with batteries/cars.

So, yes, I want fusion to pan out. But it is also clear it is no longer needed for a paradigm shift on energy.

[krenshala]

i don't think you understand.

There is no "debate".

If you want to learn about climate science, there are plenty of resources to available. There are even courses available at a university. But you're not going to learn anything so long as you think you know everything.

We're not going to do this:




You can whine about it and cry about it all you want. It falls on deaf ears.

There is no "debate"? Really? In my experience, it is because the people that believe in anthropogenic Global Warming/Climate Change refuse to participate in any debate on the subject, instead doing just as you appear to have done above and simply claiming the other party is an idiot unworthy of joining your discussion.

I'm one of those neutrals that is willing to discuss the topic, but so far all I have seen on the Believer side (with very few exceptions) are people completely unwilling to hold an honest, rational discussion. On the anti-AGW side there are also folks unwilling to hold honest debate, but not nearly as many from what I have seen. To me that shows the "Deniers", as some folks love to disparagingly refer to them, have the more rational and coherent thesis.

[D Tibbets]

Two points I would like to make.

First, global warming is of course caused by humans. Actually, any animal, and in certain situations plants produce CO2 and thus increased greenhouse gasses. Additional CO2 harvested from sequestered sources like coal or oil adds to this. The real question is a complex play of interactions that determine the magnitude of the change. Various claims about forcing or magnifying effects are based largely on suppositions without firm data (my appreciation). This leads to uncertainty in the results. The oceans may rise one inch to over 100 inches based on these suppositions. So, global warming is a real issue, but the magnitude of the changes and the consequences of those changes are debatable.

Secondly, fusion research is of course a huge part of the picture. Any energy source not dependent on geothermal or tidal forces is at it's origin from fusion reactors, or from the Sun/ stars if you prefer. Even fission nuclear plants derive their useful energy from products cooked in fusion reactors like the Sun's bigger brothers. And even geothermal is not entirely derived from gravitational potential energy. Some fraction of it comes from radioactive decay of heavier elements cooked up in dying fusion reactors - old and exploding stars.
Fusion from the Sun reactor powers the wind turbines and the solar collectors, and through evaporation the hydroelectric power plants. As such development of these industries represents research on the harvesting side of the fusion energy system. The production side is what most think of when they mention fusion reactors, but it is important to maintain a perspective of the very large system that we live in and interact with.


PS: Some (like M.Simon in years past) have suggested that oil- hydrocarbons do not derive only from petroleum and coal from sequestered plant matter, but also from geological processes. That is, the hydrocarbons are not all produced by photosynthesis, but also by other processes, even before the Earth formed.The hydrocarbons of Titon and various other planets, comets, etc. support this. But, again the system must be considered. If you have a preponderance of natural hydrocarbons without free oxygen, they are useless as a fuel. Photosynthesis not only produced useful stocks of hydrocarbons (using the Sun's fusion energy as the ultimate power source) but also produced free oxygen so that we can actually utilize the hydrocarbons. It also helps with our breathing! Even useful petroleum products are derived from a fusion reactor.

Dan Tibbets

[JoeP]

Right, pragmatism. Its not as if we have any real choice anyway without some kind of fusion breakthrough that is rolled out in an unbelievably short time. Humanity will be consuming fossil fuels for a long time, and at an increasing rate.

[happyjack27]

i don't think you understand.

There is no "debate".

If you want to learn about climate science, there are plenty of resources to available. There are even courses available at a university. But you're not going to learn anything so long as you think you know everything.

We're not going to do this:




You can whine about it and cry about it all you want. It falls on deaf ears.

There is no "debate"? Really? In my experience, it is because the people that believe in anthropogenic Global Warming/Climate Change refuse to participate in any debate on the subject, instead doing just as you appear to have done above and simply claiming the other party is an idiot unworthy of joining your discussion.

On the contrary, climatologists and the like are constantly engaging in research and experimentation both in vitro and in situ, and constantly publishing their work and reviewing each others work, checking meticulously for errors. there is a high reward for finding an error and a high cost for making one.

This is altogether quite different than spewing "i feel in my guts" back and forth, which gets absolutely no where.

There is an active area of research about climate change, including how fast the earth is warming, what chemicals are doing it ("greenhouse gases"), and what the sources of these chemicals are.

For example, it was recently discovered that methane levels are rising faster than expected, and we don't really track the sources of methane all that well.

Now science is an open process, and I have invited "the other party" - more than once -- to submit their research to a peer-reviewed paper.

i don't really care about who it is doing the speaking. what matters to me is the process.

sitting on your armchair all day, i don't value that opinion. 3 years of research by a college grad in the field, i do. i do not equate the two. that would be unreasonable.


but go on, take offense. unless that offense publishes a paper comparable to general relativity in its impact, it's not going to do you any good.

[RERT]

Apologies: I'm sure my use of the term 'ludicrous' may have caused offence. I had in mind the throw away line about 'billions of deaths', which is obviously a measured, peer-reviewed, near as certain statement as you can get. And of course, none of the responses to me were remotely offensive. Further apologies for the potentially offensive use of sarcasm, which I know can be hard to understand.

It is not false balance to have a reasoned discussion on the implications for policy that ECS turns out to be 2 not 3, or that CO2 emissions have been falling not rising in recent years. Have you ever wondered why that debate is not possible? It would surely be useful, unless changing facts are not to be allowed to change opinions.

I'm not going to attempt to answer the insults and appeals to authority which purport to be a response to my post. I concur with the above poster that most sceptics seem more open to discussion than catastrophists. I'll leave it at that. If anyone wants to actually engage on the points I raised, I will respond.

Notice that I said that well engineered nuclear power (ie fission) could solve the problem: not fusion, which is how it seems to have been read. No sudden miracle is required.

[happyjack27]

Apologies: I'm sure my use of the term 'ludicrous' may have caused offence. I had in mind the throw away line about 'billions of deaths', which is obviously a measured, peer-reviewed, near as certain statement as you can get. And of course, none of the responses to me were remotely offensive. Further apologies for the potentially offensive use of sarcasm, which I know can be hard to understand.

It is not false balance to have a reasoned discussion on the implications for policy that ECS turns out to be 2 not 3, or that CO2 emissions have been falling not rising in recent years. Have you ever wondered why that debate is not possible? It would surely be useful, unless changing facts are not to be allowed to change opinions.

I'm not going to attempt to answer the insults and appeals to authority which purport to be a response to my post. I concur with the above poster that most sceptics seem more open to discussion than catastrophists. I'll leave it at that. If anyone wants to actually engage on the points I raised, I will respond.

Notice that I said that well engineered nuclear power (ie fission) could solve the problem: not fusion, which is how it seems to have been read. No sudden miracle is required.

Equating the uninformed not-even-knowledge-driven whims of willful science deniers with well-informed expert knowledge of tenured, published experts is THE VERY DEFINITION of false balance! I can't think of a more egregious example!

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Balance_fallacy

The balance fallacy is a logical fallacy that occurs when two sides of an argument are assumed to have equal or comparable value regardless of their respective merits, which (in turn) can lead to the conclusion that the answer to a problem is always to be found between two extremes. The latter is effectively an inverse false dilemma, discarding the two extremes rather than the middle.
While the rational position on a topic is often between two extremes, this cannot be assumed without actually considering the evidence. Sometimes the extreme position is actually the correct one, and sometimes the entire spectrum of belief is wrong, and truth exists in an orthogonal direction that hasn't yet been considered.
Balance is often a problem in the media, where confrontational or adversarial journalism might present more of a controversy about some topic than actually exists, giving equal time to fringe minority viewpoints to draw in viewers. It is effectively the opposite of bias—whereas bias over-emphasises one view to the detriment of another legitimate, well-supported view to give the impression of one being favoured, false balance over-emphasises a minority or unsupported view to the detriment of a well-supported view to give the impression that neither is favoured.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_balance

Other examples of false balance in reporting on science issues include the topics of man-made versus natural climate change, the relation between thimerosal and autism[5] and evolution versus intelligent design.[6] For instance, although the scientific community attributes global warming to the effects of the industrial revolution,[7][8][9][10] there are a small number of scientists who dispute this conclusion.[11][12][13] Giving equal voice to scientists on both sides makes it seem like there is a serious disagreement within the scientific community, when in fact there is an overwhelming scientific consensus that anthropogenic global warming exists.

[happyjack27]

Equating what you think or feel CO2 levels are or should be - even if you heard it on your favorite righ wing radio show or cherry picked one non-scientist blog post that supports your view - equating that with the overwhelming evidence that is a matter of public record - I submit that not only is that false balance, but it is just plain idiotic!

You can go talk amongst yourselves about co2 levels, meanwhile, I'll be reading them off the millions of actual empirical measurements constantly being compiled, aggregated, and checked by scientists around the world.

Maybe at the end we can compare our results and see which one better corresponds to physical reality. My money's on the latter.

[Maui]

Apologies: I'm sure my use of the term 'ludicrous' may have caused offence. I had in mind the throw away line about 'billions of deaths', which is obviously a measured, peer-reviewed, near as certain statement as you can get.

Absolutely no offense... amusing thought actually that in today's political climate calling someone's ideas 'ludicrous' be considered offensive. Heck, that's almost a compliment anymore, eh?

I concur with the above poster that most sceptics seem more open to discussion than catastrophists. I'll leave it at that.

Open to "discussion" and honest, open-minded and pragmatic discussion are very different things. In my experience, the anti-AGW "discussion" revolves around masterfully coordinated plots to line the pockets of governments world-wide. Or "facts" that purport to disprove AGW such as:

Now if you look into that you will find out that the Sun has a 11 year cycle, 200 year cycle and other suspected cycles that last thousands of years. And the 200 year cycle is about to bottom out in 2035.

How do you even begin to "discuss" distortions like that? By pointing them to credible research on solar activity and its influence on climate? As I said before, in my younger, less-jaded years I used to try. I've since realized the anti-AGW propaganda can spew these distortions (even outright lies) out at a much faster rate than you could ever hope to rationalize with the likes of those like pbelter.

I'm happy that there are some like you that actually seem interested in knowing what the facts are and make arguments based on them. Maybe it's just because the crazies yell (or tweet!) louder, but I feel its rare to find a skeptic willing to have a pragmatic discussion. (oh, but yes, they will "discuss"!)

Notice that I said that well engineered nuclear power (ie fission) could solve the problem: not fusion, which is how it seems to have been read. No sudden miracle is required.

The last time I tried to look into this, the answer basically seemed to be that nuclear (fission) power just wasn't cost effective. Or at least, not cost effective enough to warrant the very large investment needed to build a new plant. I would happily support new nuclear plants, tho.

[kunkmiester]

Isn't most of that cost red tape and over the top redundancy? The technical issues haven't changed much, just the environment.

[Maui]

Right, pragmatism. Its not as if we have any real choice anyway without some kind of fusion breakthrough that is rolled out in an unbelievably short time. Humanity will be consuming fossil fuels for a long time, and at an increasing rate.

From a global perspective, but that is absolutely not true from the developed world. In the U.S, coal has long since peaked and oil probably has peaked as well. Natural gas will probably continue to rise for some time, but so will renewables-- and fast. Wind, solar and batteries have consistently to decreased in cost at faster rates than expected. That doesn't mean the fossil fuel infrastructure is going to go away instantly or even in the next few decades. But it does mean the majority of new energy capacity is going to be renewables.

[Maui]

Isn't most of that cost red tape and over the top redundancy? The technical issues haven't changed much, just the environment.

Perhaps. But I feel like I remember reading that even in states where pro-nuclear policy was put in place, no one wanted to build.