Oddbean

You have a reason to be. I’m on the side of we need more energy, not less, but we’re sourcing it wrong and not using the tools we have to keep humanity from killing itself off. I think that’s an acceptable stance.

We can agree on more energy = good! The problem with the mainstream climate hysterics is their solutions involve coercion and violation of basic rights rather than voluntary cooperation. And over the past decade or more they have made everyone's lives worse and more expensive! Lots of new cantillionaires in the green washing industry though!

Ok say the person you live with is right. I disagree but let’s follow that thread given that’s where you are. China and India don’t give a fuck - they’re consuming more and emitting more CO2 than ever and have zero intention of slowing down. This is undeniably clear from their actions. Now what Daniel? We should keep destroying our energy production in favour of renewables? We can convince them to actually follow the western way of reducing energy consumption as we are? The West should restrict developing countries from pursuing abundant energy sources which highly correlate with wealth production? If the expert in your house is right - what is the solution?

I never said I had the right solution. The primary role of scientists is to do research and present information that others can use to make decisions. If we as a species don’t care that we’re going to lose our islands and coastal lands, that collapse of entire ecosystems (including drinkable water and food) is acceptable, and humans will be forced to migrate en masse to survive on an increasingly inhospitable planet, because the production of wealth is more important than our survival, that’s also a decision.

I didn’t say you did. You live with an expert - pose these questions to that expert who has seeded your mind with these ideas that you’re repeating even though you can’t steelman the counterarguments. Another question to ask is if our coastlines are so susceptible, why are our parasitic elite buying coastal property hand over fist? The experts know we’re going to lose this coastline but Obama and Oprah and Zuck and et al what, they forgot? They ignored it? Why did they buy oceanfront property at high prices if the experts know it’s just going to get washed away? What is “the expert’s opinion” on this? Are we worried about drinking water? Even though we have the tech to turn sea water into potable water and guess what, it’s done using ‘fossil fuels’ and works fine. I live in an island continent here in Aus - beachfront commands a massive premium despite our housing Ponzi. Are they all gonna lose everything? Why are there so many questions you can’t answer but the climate change expert you live with is so right? Have you considered this question?

The kind of people who can afford beachfront mansions and the insurance that is becoming harder to secure due to increasing climate-related risks are buying it for the view and also have other homes they can go to, so that isn’t really a discussion worth having. The more these conversations diverge into unrelated topics the less productive they become.

So they’re just willing to burn their money for a short term view then? Don’t tell me it’s not a discussion worth having, this is pure cop out from you and given how many questions you’ve ignored in this thread none of this is favouring you. You can’t steelman your opposition. You can’t say why India/China are ignoring this whole thing. You can’t argue against the suns impact on climate. You can’t argue about potable water. You can’t argue “what we should do”. You conflate 150 years of data with a million years of humanity. Your whole thing is based off what someone you live with told you. You refuse to question this but we should all believe that you and whoever you live with is right - nonsense. You don’t see how idiotic this is, because to do so would undermine fundamental things you’ve told yourself. So when someone like me comes in with no fucks given, you just want to dismiss it rather than address it because you can’t tackle it head on without exposing yourself. This whole thread is an expression of disappointment in your rationality. You believed an “expert” and that’s where you stopped. Everything that doesn’t fit in your expert’s bucket has to be ignored so you don’t look totally stupid. But you do, because you refuse to engage in anything in good faith.

I’m not the one who is all over the place. You are. This is exactly what I expect from someone who thinks science isn’t real, and it’s why I try to avoid having these conversations in the first place. Also my scientist wife can read these notes and she thinks it’s amusing that someone thinks I can be easily indoctrinated, and wonders why I can’t also be indoctrinated to make the bed and empty the dishwasher in the morning.

Believe it or not China is not ignoring it. It’s actually common knowledge it’s doing more with renewable energy than most people realise. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/jun/29/china-wind-solar-power-global-renewable-energy-leader

Interestingly they aren't reducing the amount of energy they use per person though. And they are increasing fossil fuel usage even with the renewables when you look at the data. The UK however is reducing energy per person, still with high reliance on fossil fuel. No wonder our energy bills are sky high here. https://ourworldindata.org/energy/country/china https://ourworldindata.org/energy/country/united-kingdom

Yep doesn’t surprise me. China is a rapidly growing and modernising country and energy demand is increasing per person. UK has lost the plot on so many levels I’m not even going to go down that road 😂

This is pretty funny mate. Haven’t heard the old “This is exactly what I expect from someone who thinks science isn’t real” since the heady days of Covid. As I recall it was a favourite refrain of those who demanded people wear masks, stay at home, and get experimental vaccines else you wanted grannies to die. After all, all The Experts™️ agreed on The Science™️ When that’s your line of argument, and you can’t steelman your opposition, you really ought consider if your argument is rock solid or is in fact just a castle made of sand.

A big problem with the climate debate is falsified data - especially before 1980. A PhD historian, John Robson researches the records and the history, and has the receipts. His website is https://climatediscussionnexus.com/ His expertise is history, records, archives - he does not claim to an expert on climate/atmospheric physics. No matter now expert, you get bad results from false data. One thing I found from my less than expert historical research is that the optimum global CO₂ level is 400 ppm. 300 is too low, and generally has resulted in famine. Greenhouses go for 1200ppm if possible, as that optimizes plant growth (not good globally). So the target they want to reduce CO₂ to is wrong - and no real justification is given. It's almost as if famine (without totally destroying ecosystems) is the point.