I think it is mostly tribalism. Solar / Wind = liberal = bad Nuclear = liberals don’t like (in the past ) = conservative = good. Texas is second only to CA in wind and solar and it’s a significant business and provides significant power, especially during the scorching summer months. From a conservative perspective that ought to be good right? No TX politicians have to make negative comments about wind and solar and pro fossil fuel even as wind and solar exponentially expand.
This is the first post that I remember over the many contentious posts and threads that says “a cause”. I don’t doubt that we contribute to the problem. I just worry that our contribution might not be the only reason, and that economically costly “solutions” might not be effective enough to warrant them. The developing world largely not worrying enough to change their trajectory seems to me to be a larger worry; and telling them they can’t have the cars and factories and air conditioning and a better way of living that they will gravitate towards won’t fly. Humans have had to adjust where and how we have lived over the eons, and we just might end up doing so again after some major devastation of one kind or another. I don’t have anything better to add and I’m not giving up my AC or 8-cylinder truck.
You are seeing changes in the developing world as well. For example, one of the fastest growing markets for EVs is Ethiopia. They banned gas powered cars from being imported, so they are buying a lot of EVs. https://www.cnn.com/2024/08/17/climate/ethiopia-evs-gas-car-ban-climate/index.html Essentially, they struggle to import gas but have tons of electricity from hydro power. So an electric fleet makes sense for them. You are seeing electric vehicles, especially two-wheelers, taking off in many other countries. It helps deal with local air pollution and noise. The mobile telephone comparison in that story is a good one. Countries that are just building up vehicles fleets are highly likely to skip gas powered vehicles, which requires gas that is challenging to import for developing countries (due to price and a lack of facilities) and head straight to electric vehicles the same way they skipped land lines in favor of mobiles.
I had a class in college where there was a book that had the thesis that technological problems have technological solutions. The technological problem is burning fossil fuels, the evolving solution appears to be renewables and battery storage. Non biodegradable plastics which are showing up all over the ecosystem seems to being fixed too. It’s going to cause disruption but disruption is another word for opportunity.
I think there certainly are many doomsdayers that have hurt their own mission by exaggerating the extent and speed of climate change. I also think it was a huge mistake for Al Gore to become the spokesperson for the movement, as it made the issue even more political and polarizing. If our information systems are terrible at sorting wheat from chaff, we have to wonder how we citizens are supposed to accomplish this task. When the left and right present divergent narratives, how can we decide which, if either, better reflects reality? Even in the story of the little liar, The boy who cried wolf, the wolf really came, and the people ended up being wrong in both directions.
I am an engineer. I have had a very successful career smelling bullshit from miles away. The actions being forced upon the world by a vocal group of “activists” ( red flag right there) are gigantic leaps from what is actually known. I’m actually looking for a better adjective there because these leaps are much, much bigger than the one that Neil Armstrong already used”giant” for. There is a grave danger in implementing a solution for a problem that is not accurately diagnosed for causation. The solutions being forced here are both large is size and duration for a problem whose causation is not proven and which its ramifications are not understood. Living organisms adapt, and humans have a tremendous ability to develop solutions. To spend $T’s thinking that we currently have all the answers is not only foolish but very dangerous. Anyone care to look at how much was wasted on ventilators for COVID????
Engineers and doctors often seem to think their knowledge translates to other fields and it gives them overconfidence in areas they really aren’t well versed on. The basic science of climate change is pretty straightforward. As to the efforts to mitigate seems to me all the efforts are positive even if you didn’t think they will make a difference with climate change. We are investing in cleaner (less pollution) and more diversified energy sources, more energy independence - some sources of which are virtually unlimited and driving the cost of energy toward zero long term. Why would we not want to do that?
Determining precisely how much climate forcing comes from all environmental factors is a major scientific challenge indeed. In the 2010s, it seemed as if scientists might have well overestimated the sensitivity of the climate to CO2. Today, many seemed worried that have underestimated it. This clearly shows that we don’t have a firm grasp on all the variables. However, we do know that CO2 is the one major contributor that shows a steady increasing trend, and many of the other factors are likely varying in more short term time frames. I do agree with you about dealing with developing countries. I look at the 100s of millions in India whose live could be improved by development of their nation and can’t feel good about asking them to sacrifice their growth by eschewing the cheap fuels that the US and rest of the west used to propel their economies. By the same token, I am no fan of activities in these rich countries imposing environmental costs on other smaller nations either. Again, I think this political situation is extremely tricky, and I don’t have good answers. However, this shouldn’t justify us promoting that the scientific theory is a Chinese hoax.
You need to consider that engineers and doctors are the ones that put the “science” into practical usage. They often take theory, and put it to use. It is during this time that the engineers and doctors find that some of the assumptions made in the science models for unknown variables weren’t very good. It is a very similar phenomenon to what we will soon learn about AI. One errant calculation early in the AI process could lead to a disastrous end result. I am disappointed that you specifically would choose to denigrate two noble professions to protect a political position. I wouldn’t be surprised at all if it came from others here. But I am with it coming from you.
You realize that your claim that combustion engines only produce CO and not CO2 is completely false, right? That would be a good example of your middle paragraph.
This lecture on respecting “practitioners” is a bit rich from a guy that tried to tell us burning fuel doesn’t produce CO2. Is that the consensus in your engineering office??? I don’t think it’s fair to say he singled out those fields. You volunteered that info. Can’t speak to engineers, but I’ve definitely been acquainted with a few doctors who were know it all assholes (and in a couple cases the word from colleagues and subordinates was they were actually lousy doctors too). That being said, anyone is potentially susceptible to Dunning-Krueger but perhaps certain fields attract more know it all assholes. Obviously if reading internet messages boards lots of “YouTube PhD’s” everywhere. That’s what the internet is to some extent, so it’s more of a broad societal problem (perhaps captured perfectly with “I know more than the generals”). Another example that pops up in my mind is Dr. Ben Carson. I’m sure that guy has forgotten more about medicine or neuroscience than I would ever hope to know. But I also l know from hearing him speak as a politician i wouldn’t let him manage a small business, let alone support him for ANY political office. He always came off to me as slow and unwilling to learn. Perhaps at some point when he decided to leave medicine and get into politics he checked his brain at the door or just wasnt the same person who went through med school? It was not surprising to me his only “accomplishment” with HUD was spending outsized amounts of money redecorating his office.
The lower layer of the atmosphere, the troposphere is about 7.5 miles thick. The upper layer of the atmosphere the expsphere is over 6,000 miles thick. The tallest building on the planet is around 2700 ft.. We occupy 2700 feet of over 6000 miles. To think we are much more than a pimple on the ass of mother earth is asinine. When mother earth is done with us she will shake us off like a dog shakes off a flea.
I’m not denigrating the professions, it just seems like a non trivial percent of them think their knowledge is applicable to other fields, and make sweeping errant conclusions. An example is doctors and money - while there are some doctors who have learned to be very good with money, there are others who are easy marks for financial scams and make horrible personal financial planning decisions. As to engineers it seems like they are often lead astray on issues like climate science or medicine, like vaccines. Also estate planning attorneys are driven nuts by engineers who think they know better and can control life’s unpredictable outcomes. It is really weird how someone like you doesn’t get this climate stuff. I can only guess that it doesn’t fit your political agenda, and your engineering background gives you the confidence to rationalize away what is otherwise obvious.
exactly how is this relevant to anything here? Greenhouse gases concentrations are very measurable. It’s an accepted scientific fact that greenhouse gases warm the earth up enough to make it inhabitable. Are you dismissing this otherwise known fact?
This phenomenon is probably applicable to any field with extensive specialized knowledge. Look at the current “tech bro” phenomenon. People like Elon, David Sacks, Peter Theil etc think that their model of their tech world can be placed onto the normal world and that they somehow have some special insight. Just watching Elon tanking twitter and now Tesla is a good example of what they obviously don’t know about business.
And if I offered to inject you with not much more than an ass pimple’s worth of Ebola, you’d have no problem with that?
It’s very simple for me. When the lines don’t line up, then I’m not buying. In the case of global warming, or climate change, or whatever the next thing is, not only do the technicals not align, but it is brought to us by many of the same people who told us in the 70’s that the earth would be out of oil by the turn of the century, told us the world would stop in Y2K, and several others before, between, and since those.
