My question is, why do we even care about CO2 emissions anymore. It seems to me there are so many more critical problems on which the world can focus than on this non-issue
Reasonable conclusion if you believe that carbon emissions don’t affect climate change. However if that’s not the case then changing weather patterns across the globe (increased drought in some areas and excessive rainfall elsewhere, for example) could negatively affect food production.
The thing is accepting the idea that a trace gas in the atmosphere is responsible for changes in weather has always been a tough call. And the history has shown that co2 rises and falls after temperatures have changed
Thanks. For me, the more I follow the debates on both sides the more I realize how little I know. Anthropomorphic climate change will someday be proven right or wrong but not in my lifetime I’m afraid.
One of the many issues re: the debate is that those who make the claim that Co2 is somehow the climate control knob have been caught manipulating data to support the claim and have worked to silence and smear anyone who challenges the them - those that challenge are the deniers - and they have been largely supported by a compliant media helping to spread the fear. Richard Feynman's quote is applicable here: “I would rather have questions that can't be answered than answers that can't be questioned.”
Consider this quote from Willis Eschenbach at WUWT: “The climate is arguably the most complex system that humans have tried to model. It has no less than six major subsystems—the hydrosphere, atmosphere, lithosphere, cryosphere, biosphere, and electrosphere. None of these subsystems is well understood on its own, and we have only spotty, gap-filled rough measurements of each of them. Each of them has its own internal cycles, mechanisms, phenomena, resonances, and feedbacks. Each one of the subsystems interacts with every one of the others. There are important phenomena occurring at all time scales from nanoseconds to millions of years, and at all spatial scales from nanometers to planet-wide. Finally, there are both internal and external forcings of unknown extent and effect. For example, how does the solar wind affect the biosphere? Not only that, but we’ve only been at the project for a few decades. Our models are … well … to be generous I’d call them Tinkertoy representations of real-world complexity”. But yeah, if we can control a single variable, a trace gas no less, we can control the climate - that is what the entire debate boils down to.
“I would rather have questions that can’t be answered than answers that can’t be questioned.” Love it!
I have read that some prominent climate researchers tried to suppress dissenting views from being published in journals. I’m not aware of data manipulation claims but I believe you. Some people are more interested in protecting their reputations than in telling the truth. That is true of any profession. I hope and trust that the majority of scientists involved in the climate debate, pro and con, are ethical.
Eschenbach really hit the nail on the head. The climate is extremely complicated and current modeling has flaws. I mean, Earth has gone through glacial/interglacial cycles for hundreds of thousands of years, so global warming is not a new phenomenon. The question is whether human activity is adding a variable over and above the natural cycle. I hear a lot of climate deniers saying that CO2 is only a trace gas. It’s true that 99% of the atmosphere is oxygen and nitrogen, but they are not greenhouse gases. CO2 is a GHG, but not in the bad sense. If all the CO2 in the atmosphere disappeared overnight temperatures would plunge across the globe. So CO2 has a significant effect on Earth’s temperature. Also, water vapor affects temperature but it follows CO2, not vice versa.
Now, I say the above as a lay person who is not a climate scientist. I am playing checkers while the experts on both sides are playing 3D chess. So why do I believe in anthropomorphic climate change? Because that’s what most experts believe. And I say that knowing that these researchers are not infallible. I think I have a lot of company.
Thanks, this is terrific. my analogy has been that another massively complex system that exists is the US economy, with hundreds of millions of variables and the added problem of trying to model human behaviors and responses. at least physics is consistent! but to continue, consider how much more money has been spent in an effort to model the US economy but the Fed, government agencies, banks, investors and international agencies, and this has been ongoing for decades, far longer than climate discussions. and there is no model that has demonstrated any consistency in forecasting how the economy evolves over time. while I don't know the number, I would wager that at least 10X if not 50X more has been spent on economic modeling than on climate modeling and it remains essentially a failure. with that in mind, why would we assume that a relative pittance spent on climate modeling with the attendant problems you highlight above, would have any hope of being accurate on any timeline?
These numbers don’t mean much. Very few people care, except those that can grift from them. When you take a look at emissions from coal fired power plants the harmful emissions have been reduced to almost zero. An amazing feat and exceptional trade off for the benefits a coal fired plant provides. Combined cycle gas plants are even “cleaner” when it comes to “harmful emissions “. Don’t have any stats of fuel oil but I’m sure it’s a decent trade off in the cost vs benefit category too, especially if you live where that is the only reliable option. Can’t we just admit the whole GHG is a massive grift and private industry does better at being clean and efficient than almost any overreaching regulations can provide. And if minimally hindered private industry will continue to make gains because often it creates more efficiencies in the process. Environmentalism is a phony and destructive business that raises costs and impedes technological advancement s but it keeps anti human flourishing people busy in courtrooms. They could find work doing something worthwhile.
I see where you’re coming from but remember that decades ago it was more efficient for polluting companies to dump their waste into rivers which resulted in some rivers catching fire. Politicians and environmentalists were the ones to stop this practice. And the “environmentalists” were not just large non-profits but also the poor and middle class people who wanted clean drinking water and clean waters for recreation. The goal of corporations is maximizing shareholder value, not doing what’s best for the greater community.
I've mentioned it before, but Google, at least, has known quite clearly since 2014 at the latest that wind and solar cannot meaningful reduce emissions.
They chose to ignore their own internally funded study, conducted by their own trusted scientists, so that they could continue to gaslight society with a destructive, suicidal narrative.
I leave it to the audience to decide whether having dozens of Obama's intelligence community operatives in Google's management had any effect.
You are clearly insinuating that the prior virtue signaling by corporate tech monsters was purely performative. Karen from HR will be contacting you shortly about next steps and your reeducation schedule.
Niece piece - The Google and Microsoft pivot emphasizes just how important energy is to their future business model and earnings. It remains puzzling how long selected European countries can maintain their renewable-centric focus while their economies struggle.
The European puzzle is indeed a mystery. My latest post started out with Net Zero-scathing statistics then ended up more about deep state geopolitical skulduggeries “seemingly modelled on Orwell’s dystopian 1984”, so named after the 1884-founded Labour Party’s Fabian Society: https://metatron.substack.com/p/unequivocal-proof-that-net-zero-is.
I believe such pledges are made to placate their green brainwashed staff and EU customers. Tie bonuses and prices to these outcomes and "priorities" would quickly rank (net) zero. Luxury beliefs were never affordable and should be exposed most of all to the believers. Showing the dirty accounting behind clean is a great start. Thanks for today's piece.
We all depend on the economy of workers and companies to use their energy to create the products that keep us alive. You could measure the amount of greenhouse gases of those companies by tonnage, or you could measure it but how important their commerce is to human life. The rule still is the more greenhouse gases they emit, the more benefit their energy provides to all of human life.
I don’t believe any of the numbers, which are theoretically derived. The constant confusing carbon and CO2 is irritating. And of course all the effluent they want to pump underground is highly refined so as to contain only CO2 and not NOxx, SOxx, etc. it’s phony game made up to be even phonier. We need CO2. We need electricity. We need fuel to generate the electricity. We need the derivative products for our modern lifestyle. All these calculations of class 1 or class whatever, based on assumptions, are a waste of time and remove focus on more important issues - oh say like pollution. If those desiring to be green would just reduce their own personal carbon footprint. . .
I believe that America’s energy security is more important than energy emissions.
America is so blessed with the amount of gas and oil and minerals that we have under our feet. We know how to use that energy to produce those fuels we need every day for travel and to power our industries and light our lives.
Was seems to be waning is the desire for increased energy efficiency. Especially for electricity. We are constantly needing more. Until President Trump’s 47 time in, did nuclear come back on the table.
If our residential market has high efficiency natural gas hot water heaters and hot water boilers, and some industries and large commercial buildings have applied the technology of condensing flue gas heat recovery bringing them into the 90% plus range, why haven’t our largest natural gas consumers not also strived to do the same?
What gets me right now is the AI Data Centers. The big money that’s behind it. The big talk by Meta and Google and Amazon over the emissions issue. In reality what is happening? Are they really so stupid. Solar and wind are going to supply all their electrical needs? They need water, so they TAKE from our communities sources. There are quite a number of “once upon a time” nice communities and subdivisions that now have industrial complexes across the street. They claim to be creating so many jobs. Yes, construction jobs, but when completed- a handful.
My opinion, for what it’s worth. There was no planning. No forethought. Money talked. City councils got all excited seeing money, but the blinders kept them from seeing the community members.
This is the reason that many people, even some considered conservative, are pushing back against the AI data centers. Supposedly, China is behind some of the protests, but there's some local pushback too, which shouldn't be dismissed.
Oh they knew very well that their proposed endeavors would fall flat on their face in just a few years when they made those Net Zero pledges, but they also knew that the world has a very short memory of those same type statements. The grift is falling apart faster than a house of cards in an F5 tornado. It doesn’t ever cause them any harm however because they simply pivot in the name of progress.
My question is, why do we even care about CO2 emissions anymore. It seems to me there are so many more critical problems on which the world can focus than on this non-issue
Actually, if we want a greener planet, we want more co2, not less given that it is essentially plant food.
Reasonable conclusion if you believe that carbon emissions don’t affect climate change. However if that’s not the case then changing weather patterns across the globe (increased drought in some areas and excessive rainfall elsewhere, for example) could negatively affect food production.
The thing is accepting the idea that a trace gas in the atmosphere is responsible for changes in weather has always been a tough call. And the history has shown that co2 rises and falls after temperatures have changed
Thanks. For me, the more I follow the debates on both sides the more I realize how little I know. Anthropomorphic climate change will someday be proven right or wrong but not in my lifetime I’m afraid.
One of the many issues re: the debate is that those who make the claim that Co2 is somehow the climate control knob have been caught manipulating data to support the claim and have worked to silence and smear anyone who challenges the them - those that challenge are the deniers - and they have been largely supported by a compliant media helping to spread the fear. Richard Feynman's quote is applicable here: “I would rather have questions that can't be answered than answers that can't be questioned.”
Consider this quote from Willis Eschenbach at WUWT: “The climate is arguably the most complex system that humans have tried to model. It has no less than six major subsystems—the hydrosphere, atmosphere, lithosphere, cryosphere, biosphere, and electrosphere. None of these subsystems is well understood on its own, and we have only spotty, gap-filled rough measurements of each of them. Each of them has its own internal cycles, mechanisms, phenomena, resonances, and feedbacks. Each one of the subsystems interacts with every one of the others. There are important phenomena occurring at all time scales from nanoseconds to millions of years, and at all spatial scales from nanometers to planet-wide. Finally, there are both internal and external forcings of unknown extent and effect. For example, how does the solar wind affect the biosphere? Not only that, but we’ve only been at the project for a few decades. Our models are … well … to be generous I’d call them Tinkertoy representations of real-world complexity”. But yeah, if we can control a single variable, a trace gas no less, we can control the climate - that is what the entire debate boils down to.
And one more from Willis - https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/04/25/wheres-the-emergency/
This is a fabulous summary of this extremely complex system, thank you.
“I would rather have questions that can’t be answered than answers that can’t be questioned.” Love it!
I have read that some prominent climate researchers tried to suppress dissenting views from being published in journals. I’m not aware of data manipulation claims but I believe you. Some people are more interested in protecting their reputations than in telling the truth. That is true of any profession. I hope and trust that the majority of scientists involved in the climate debate, pro and con, are ethical.
Eschenbach really hit the nail on the head. The climate is extremely complicated and current modeling has flaws. I mean, Earth has gone through glacial/interglacial cycles for hundreds of thousands of years, so global warming is not a new phenomenon. The question is whether human activity is adding a variable over and above the natural cycle. I hear a lot of climate deniers saying that CO2 is only a trace gas. It’s true that 99% of the atmosphere is oxygen and nitrogen, but they are not greenhouse gases. CO2 is a GHG, but not in the bad sense. If all the CO2 in the atmosphere disappeared overnight temperatures would plunge across the globe. So CO2 has a significant effect on Earth’s temperature. Also, water vapor affects temperature but it follows CO2, not vice versa.
Now, I say the above as a lay person who is not a climate scientist. I am playing checkers while the experts on both sides are playing 3D chess. So why do I believe in anthropomorphic climate change? Because that’s what most experts believe. And I say that knowing that these researchers are not infallible. I think I have a lot of company.
Thanks, this is terrific. my analogy has been that another massively complex system that exists is the US economy, with hundreds of millions of variables and the added problem of trying to model human behaviors and responses. at least physics is consistent! but to continue, consider how much more money has been spent in an effort to model the US economy but the Fed, government agencies, banks, investors and international agencies, and this has been ongoing for decades, far longer than climate discussions. and there is no model that has demonstrated any consistency in forecasting how the economy evolves over time. while I don't know the number, I would wager that at least 10X if not 50X more has been spent on economic modeling than on climate modeling and it remains essentially a failure. with that in mind, why would we assume that a relative pittance spent on climate modeling with the attendant problems you highlight above, would have any hope of being accurate on any timeline?
🎯
The big tech companies seem to agree!
You took the words right out of my mouth, Andy
This explains why Bill Gates now sounds more like Bjorn Lomborg instead of Al Gore.
These numbers don’t mean much. Very few people care, except those that can grift from them. When you take a look at emissions from coal fired power plants the harmful emissions have been reduced to almost zero. An amazing feat and exceptional trade off for the benefits a coal fired plant provides. Combined cycle gas plants are even “cleaner” when it comes to “harmful emissions “. Don’t have any stats of fuel oil but I’m sure it’s a decent trade off in the cost vs benefit category too, especially if you live where that is the only reliable option. Can’t we just admit the whole GHG is a massive grift and private industry does better at being clean and efficient than almost any overreaching regulations can provide. And if minimally hindered private industry will continue to make gains because often it creates more efficiencies in the process. Environmentalism is a phony and destructive business that raises costs and impedes technological advancement s but it keeps anti human flourishing people busy in courtrooms. They could find work doing something worthwhile.
I see where you’re coming from but remember that decades ago it was more efficient for polluting companies to dump their waste into rivers which resulted in some rivers catching fire. Politicians and environmentalists were the ones to stop this practice. And the “environmentalists” were not just large non-profits but also the poor and middle class people who wanted clean drinking water and clean waters for recreation. The goal of corporations is maximizing shareholder value, not doing what’s best for the greater community.
I've mentioned it before, but Google, at least, has known quite clearly since 2014 at the latest that wind and solar cannot meaningful reduce emissions.
https://www.theregister.com/offbeat/2014/11/21/renewable-energy-simply-wont-work-top-google-engineers/646978
They chose to ignore their own internally funded study, conducted by their own trusted scientists, so that they could continue to gaslight society with a destructive, suicidal narrative.
I leave it to the audience to decide whether having dozens of Obama's intelligence community operatives in Google's management had any effect.
Wait - are you telling me that massive companies can’t operate without loads of reliable power ? 😮
You are clearly insinuating that the prior virtue signaling by corporate tech monsters was purely performative. Karen from HR will be contacting you shortly about next steps and your reeducation schedule.
Niece piece - The Google and Microsoft pivot emphasizes just how important energy is to their future business model and earnings. It remains puzzling how long selected European countries can maintain their renewable-centric focus while their economies struggle.
The European puzzle is indeed a mystery. My latest post started out with Net Zero-scathing statistics then ended up more about deep state geopolitical skulduggeries “seemingly modelled on Orwell’s dystopian 1984”, so named after the 1884-founded Labour Party’s Fabian Society: https://metatron.substack.com/p/unequivocal-proof-that-net-zero-is.
I believe such pledges are made to placate their green brainwashed staff and EU customers. Tie bonuses and prices to these outcomes and "priorities" would quickly rank (net) zero. Luxury beliefs were never affordable and should be exposed most of all to the believers. Showing the dirty accounting behind clean is a great start. Thanks for today's piece.
Hope Bad Boys break down the new Lazard LCOE report.
They be using a meaningful amount of BTM generation here in Ohio.
We all depend on the economy of workers and companies to use their energy to create the products that keep us alive. You could measure the amount of greenhouse gases of those companies by tonnage, or you could measure it but how important their commerce is to human life. The rule still is the more greenhouse gases they emit, the more benefit their energy provides to all of human life.
I bet if they grease government hands they won't care about emissions either. Especially Australia's Chris Bowen!
This article was hilarious. Well done, fellas.
I don’t believe any of the numbers, which are theoretically derived. The constant confusing carbon and CO2 is irritating. And of course all the effluent they want to pump underground is highly refined so as to contain only CO2 and not NOxx, SOxx, etc. it’s phony game made up to be even phonier. We need CO2. We need electricity. We need fuel to generate the electricity. We need the derivative products for our modern lifestyle. All these calculations of class 1 or class whatever, based on assumptions, are a waste of time and remove focus on more important issues - oh say like pollution. If those desiring to be green would just reduce their own personal carbon footprint. . .
I believe that America’s energy security is more important than energy emissions.
America is so blessed with the amount of gas and oil and minerals that we have under our feet. We know how to use that energy to produce those fuels we need every day for travel and to power our industries and light our lives.
Was seems to be waning is the desire for increased energy efficiency. Especially for electricity. We are constantly needing more. Until President Trump’s 47 time in, did nuclear come back on the table.
If our residential market has high efficiency natural gas hot water heaters and hot water boilers, and some industries and large commercial buildings have applied the technology of condensing flue gas heat recovery bringing them into the 90% plus range, why haven’t our largest natural gas consumers not also strived to do the same?
What gets me right now is the AI Data Centers. The big money that’s behind it. The big talk by Meta and Google and Amazon over the emissions issue. In reality what is happening? Are they really so stupid. Solar and wind are going to supply all their electrical needs? They need water, so they TAKE from our communities sources. There are quite a number of “once upon a time” nice communities and subdivisions that now have industrial complexes across the street. They claim to be creating so many jobs. Yes, construction jobs, but when completed- a handful.
My opinion, for what it’s worth. There was no planning. No forethought. Money talked. City councils got all excited seeing money, but the blinders kept them from seeing the community members.
This is the reason that many people, even some considered conservative, are pushing back against the AI data centers. Supposedly, China is behind some of the protests, but there's some local pushback too, which shouldn't be dismissed.
Oh they knew very well that their proposed endeavors would fall flat on their face in just a few years when they made those Net Zero pledges, but they also knew that the world has a very short memory of those same type statements. The grift is falling apart faster than a house of cards in an F5 tornado. It doesn’t ever cause them any harm however because they simply pivot in the name of progress.