The Great Global Warming Swindle

[kandrathe]

China is doing much more on renewable energy than we are doing. Of course they are also catching up and consuming more and more but next to that they do much more than most western countries (except for countries such as Sweden and Denmark).

Wait. In looking at consumption, you want to view them per capita, but in production you look at them en masse?

https://cleantechnica.com/2013/06/26/sol...y-country/

or

https://cleantechnica.com/2013/06/27/top...es-update/

If the goal is to find the stats putting China in the best light, you are winning.

How about... "China’s coal power generation capacity will grow as much as 19 percent over the next five years even as the world’s biggest energy consumer expands use of non-fossil fuels."

The lobby against climate change is only about 800 times bigger than the total funding for scientists that are working on serious climate change.

Or, is it 856 times? Where is this stat coming from?

It is also not even a very difficult piece of science....if there wasn't such a big interest of old money to keep digging coal and oil we would have had consensus already in the beginning of the 90s.

More than that. Fossil fuels are "power packed" and portable (i.e. fuel tanks). The issue is more that the replacement for the range and power of 40 liters of petrol is non-existent, until recently. Coal is also energy dense, and cheap per ton. It was the go to fuel for electric steam generation, until pollution (not just CO2) controls, and fracking made NG a better, cheaper alternative. Wind and solar are great, and getting better, but still there is darkness, and cloudy, and windless days requiring the backup generation of a dependable source.

Most people working on climate change are working on estimating how much the temps will rise when we do thing a or thing b. Nobody is working on evidence because it is already as clear as is gravity......there might be some details slightly of but it is a solid piece of work.

I think it is important to know if the temp will go up 1 degree C, or 4 degree C.



and, I think it is important to understand how natures systems of sequestration will respond."From a global mass balance perspective, net uptake of atmospheric CO2 has continued to increase during the past 50 yr and seems to remain strong. Although present predictions indicate diminished C uptake by the land and oceans in the coming century, with potentially serious consequences for the global climate, as of 2010 there is no empirical evidence that C uptake has started to diminish on the global scale. Therefore, to improve our understanding of carbon–climate interactions, more process studies focusing on mechanisms and regions of increased net CO2 uptake are required, uncertainty in the global C budget must be reduced by better constraining estimates of fossil fuel emissions, and the global network monitoring atmospheric CO2 must be expanded to include regions where C uptake is sensitive to climate variability. "

Regardless of whether we survive it, I believe the ecologic change process is rapid enough to precipitate a massive species extinction event due to rapid climate change.

Again.....climate science is not the most difficult thing scientists are investigating...far from that.

And yet, they get it so wrong sometimes.

https://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1988/198...02700w.pdf