The climate change consensus extends beyond climate scientists

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

I believe the science currently exists to solve some of the bigger issues, but not necessarily the technology or proof of concept.

A molten salt Thorium reactor probably can be feasible, but there's not a full working example of one yet. Then there's the question of economics; can they be built such that the cost per unit energy delivered is economical?

That all remains to be seen, and I expect the future will answer those questions, but at the current moment things are uncertain.

Cost wasn't an issue when we entered WW-II.I believe we can navigate that issue if we ever launch an assault on global warming.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

The pen has no power; it's the presumption of authority that gives the pen the illusion of power. If people don't feel that what the pen prescribes is in their best interest, it loses all authority. Proclaiming something is also a long ways away from implementing strategy to achieve the proclamation too. For those reasons, we are locked into an extremely difficult to move paradigm.

Check it out

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

I already pointed out some of the cherry picking they did in the latest report but the true believers didn't want to hear it. Also the numerous temperature scenarios the ipcc had where clearly it wasn't going to be the end of the world.

Reading ipcc reports has absolutely confirmed that the climate cult true believes don't read the reports in their entirety for them selves. They might control F browse them for the most sensational bits and that's if they ever lay eyes on a report.

Riddle me this, the morning that the last ipcc report came out the cultists were in full melt down. The report had only been out for several hours at that point. How did they read 1,170 pages in a few hours?
Do you really expect someone to browse the report for maybe an hour and be able to give a rational assessment?

How about the The "quantification in oceann heat up take from changes in atmospheric O2 and CO2 composition" paper retraction?
That was the main paper used to make the ipcc oceans and cryosphere report.
None of them dare comment on the retraction, which tells me all I need to know.

The worst thing that could happen to the climate change movement is for people to read these reports for them selves. The true believers won't try to weaponize the reports and the children stressing out, needing mental health help because they are worried about climate change ending the world will be way better off. People on the fence will jump on to the rational side where climate change does happen but it's not any where near being able to kill even a slightly inconvenient number of us.

It's quite possible that draft reports were disseminated to the press before the official report release.Just so timely reporting could be made.
Also,the actual research reported would have been available to the public 24-months before the report was issued.
I get a very strong confirmation bias vibe from your reporting.Almost,if not obsessive.
The scientists are extremely careful about their claims.And first to show the weakness and recommended additional research they feel needed.I've yet to pick up any conspiritorial sense from any of the published literature.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by sendler

That is ridiculous. Built out infrastructure doesn't change with the stroke of a pen. Data does not lie. Denying it does nothing to suggest wise and pragmatic actions that can lead us to change. Energy load is dependant upon many considerations. Even with an institution of worldwide Marshal Law and extreme imposed authoritarian austerity. Mainly at this point being, the infrastructure that uses it. Which must be totally rebuilt to change from liquid fuel and natural gas, to electricity. Of which many industrial processes, mining and refining, and agriculture have no practical electrical possibility in sight at this scale for 7.6 billion people. This will take hundreds of trillions of dollars and several decades. It has taken us 70 years of the Great Acceleration to grow this big and it will take just as long to build it into something else all over again with a controlled degrowth at a rate that does not seem so much like a total collapse.

If I take an uninsulated smudge-pot heated country and convert it to a xeroscaped,reduced footprint,passive-solar,superinsulated envelope,using state-of-the-art HVAC,appliances,and lighting,synchronize all traffic,end congestion and gridlock,and put every driver in a car with a BSFC of 0.14-lbs/Bhp-hr,and do the same with container ships,cruise ships,railroads,trucks,and buses,and go after aircraft,and keep going,I'm pretty certain that the US can enjoy a higher standard of living on less energy.I've watched my own friends cut their carbon footprint by 80% already.And they didn't suffer the loss of any standard of living.It's scalable on a global level.
Again.Get to know a mechanical engineer.

[redpoint5]

That assumes people are smarter than average, and that they have different priorities than they do.

Change will happen, but it will take time. The solution isn't a simple "stroke of the pen", or get angry like we're fighting Nazis Kamikazes .

One thing for sure, dictating the small details of a solution is a surefire way to increase overall suffering for any given goal. It's likely one of the issues Tesla has/had with Musk.

[sendler]

Originally Posted by aerohead

I've watched my own friends cut their carbon footprint by 80% already.And they didn't suffer the loss of any standard of living.It's scalable on a global level.
Again.Get to know a mechanical engineer.

Carbon footprint at home does not equate to a person's total carbon footprint unless you truly move off grid to a remote cabin, never to be seen again. This is another prevalent blindspot. As long as you are a member of society and avail yourself of any social infrastructure and government, you still are a part of all of that footprint.
.
Very strange that a self proclaimed engineer is so reticent to understand any of this. In my previous experience, engineers and physicists were the most likely to understand and write about energy scale.

[sendler]

And.
.

Originally Posted by aerohead

If I take an uninsulated smudge-pot heated country and convert it to a xeroscaped,reduced footprint,passive-solar,superinsulated envelope,using state-of-the-art HVAC,appliances,and lighting,synchronize all traffic,end congestion and gridlock,and put every driver in a car with a BSFC of 0.14-lbs/Bhp-hr,and do the same with container ships,cruise ships,railroads,trucks,and buses,and go after aircraft,and keep going,I'm pretty certain that the US can enjoy a higher standard of living on less energy.Again.Get to know a mechanical engineer.

You just named 100's of trillions of dollars. Your magic pen ran out of ink after the first idea.

[freebeard]

Originally Posted by aerohead...

If I take an uninsulated smudge-pot heated country and convert it to a xeroscaped,reduced footprint,passive-solar,superinsulated envelope,using state-of-the-art HVAC,appliances,and lighting,synchronize all traffic,end congestion and gridlock,and put every driver in a car with a BSFC of 0.14-lbs/Bhp-hr,and do the same with container ships,cruise ships,railroads,trucks,and buses,and go after aircraft,and keep going...

If so, then I would be very impressed. Do it.

Switching gears to philosophy will require a trip home.I've only read one work by Nietzsche.I wasn't impressed.And I'm not sure that he had the magnitude of impact on philosophy as you infer.I'll have to revisit Wooten's work.

Don't forget the French Existentialists; they corrupted everything.

[oil pan 4]

Originally Posted by aerohead

It's quite possible that draft reports were disseminated to the press before the official report release.Just so timely reporting could be made.
Also,the actual research reported would have been available to the public 24-months before the report was issued.
I get a very strong confirmation bias vibe from your reporting.Almost,if not obsessive.
The scientists are extremely careful about their claims.And first to show the weakness and recommended additional research they feel needed.I've yet to pick up any conspiritorial sense from any of the published literature.

I know the true believers aren't reading the reports and I know they aren't reading the supporting papers.
You your self had no idea what The "quantification in oceann heat up take from changes in atmospheric O2 and CO2 composition" paper was before we told you about it or that it had had been retracted in nature which means it's straight up junk science.

No conspiracy theories here. Just pointing out really obvious cherry picking. If any one counter argued with a very conveniently short 50 year time period as the base line for post industrial climate the believers would absolutely call them out on cherry picking.

I think everyone should read ipcc reports, my conformation bias does nothing at that point.
My confirmation bias didn't cause the foundational paper of the ipcc report to be retracted. It was the guys who made the paper, blame their self righteous confirmation bias.
Obviously these guys weren't very careful.
They were careless, screwed up, screwed up a lot and got caught.

So you don't want to talk about the report, cherry picking, retraction of base studies ect?
Just dodge, dodge, dodge.

My best find is a mechanical engineer. He says don't ever trust a computer model if you can't see all the source data and the programming.
The problem with mechanical engineers is the bean counters don't listen to them.
The higher ups almost always want the cheapest fastest future be damed solution the engineer can eek out.

[freebeard]

The higher ups almost always want the cheapest fastest future be damed solution the engineer can eek out.

'Eke out', surely.

Ask your mechanical engineer 'find' what they think about generative adversarial AI. Wear a raincoat in case their head explodes.