RealClimate logo

Forced Responses: May 2018

Filed under: — group @ 4 May 2018

The bimonthly open thread focused on climate solutions, mitigation and adaptation. Please keep this focused.

301 Responses to “Forced Responses: May 2018”

  1. 51
    JRClark says:

    37 Dan DaSilva, there’s a difference between holding to an Ideology and possessing and living to Ideals.

  2. 52
    Killian says:

    #44 nigelj said JRClark #32, you obviously don’t like renewable energy, and that’s your right of course, but please go away and stop spamming everyone with your repetitive views on the subject, and your endless patronising bullshit.

    So often you complain about perceived rudeness, etc., then make your own unprovoked attacks like this if your ego is bruised just a little.

    Interesting is the intensity of the abuse you spout. Ah, could you be anything BUT a conservative? No.

    For the record, you weren’t attacked by what JRClark said. The tendencies spoken of in the paper are well known. Authoritarian thinking has been studied for decades, and you are a perfect example. You toss out labels regularly for yourself and onto others because it helps you shape your world view to fit your preconceptions. You use stupid phrases like “you don’t like solar”, as if solar were a person that might sit at your table, pick their nose and wipe it on your table cloth.

    You say dumb things for ideological reasons.

    JRCLark did not patronize you, he held a mirror to your face, and you lashed out. But he’s right. Your loyalty to a proven failure, capitalism, prevents you from understanding the problem and the solution. It is as the paper states, because people choose their mental comfort over reality, we speed toward extinction, and you are one of those pushing from behind to help get us there. You do not understand this. Likely, you never will because you choose a socio-political world view rather than an evidence-based world view.

    You do the same with more prosaic issues. You advocate all this building of stuff that is not needed. We tell you so, you tell us we are horrible anti-renewablers!!! Nasty peoples!!!!!

    No, we understand math.

    You are being encouraged to look to Nature first, not your own addled beliefs.

  3. 53
    Killian says:

    #25 Ray Ladbury said MPassey,
    A 20th century electric grid makes no sense for 21st century Africa. Local solar grids supplemented with some sort of storage is a lot more appropriate.

    The same is true of the entire planet. Utility-scale power is a very bad idea. it kills people, is fragile, and keeps power concentrated in few hands.

  4. 54
    nigelj says:

    JRClark @49, apologies for being wrong about your views on renewable energy, but frankly its very hard working out what you are saying.

    Yes parts of Africa are urbanised but the majority live in rural areas as below. This is the point I would have thought.

    I never suggested we ‘tell’ Africa what they have to do, but I see nothing wrong with making suggestions, or simply discussing things like renewable energy. Some of us like to just discuss things that interest us.

    You have written plenty of posts making suggestions on what people should do – and in the rudest and most patronising and condescending whay possible, and thus guaranteed to have the exact opposite effect of what you intend.

  5. 55
    nigelj says:

    Al Bundy @48, I’m very sorry to hear about your poor health. I’m very flattered with your offer, but I’m probably not the best person for this. I’m getting old, and other reasons. There are many good people and foundations.

  6. 56
    Ray Ladbury says:

    The problem with African–and to a lesser extent Asian–megacities is that they don’t offer much opportunity to the mostly young people who come in from the countryside, and so wind up being pretty miserable. The countryside is a lot more livable. And even in the cities, there simply isn’t the infrastructure to develop a Western style power grid.

    It makes a lot more sense to develop solutions that build on what exists now and consider what can really improve people’s lives. The imbeciles trumpeting the benefits of fossil fuels have never been to Africa.

  7. 57
    JR says:

    A little myth busting couldn’t hurt.

  8. 58
    JR says:

    52 Killian you really nailed the broader issue that needs addressing and changing fast, like yesterday.

    “Because (people) choose a socio-political (ideological) world view (belief) rather than an evidence-based world view (that’s real!)”

    They are lost in bullshit mythical beliefs that have no end. Lazy content overly conservative ego-driven data extremist climate science perfectionists included.

    No one needs an engineering degree nor 10,000 new science papers about hull design to work out a ship is sinking.

  9. 59
    JR says:

    56 Ray Ladbury ” The imbeciles trumpeting the benefits of fossil fuels have never been to Africa.”

    I am not advocating for or against anything to do with fossil fuels or renewables in Africa. That’s for African people to decide, not imbeciles on an internet forum or anyone else for that matter. In regards climate change issues there is an existing international forum for that called the UNFCCC and the Paris Treaty.

    It is equally true that imbeciles trumpeting the benefits of renewables, solar panels on huts, and zero nuclear power plants have never been to Africa.

    Your point about mega cities being a different kind of city and society than found in mega rich western nations the gulf states and asian dragons is fairly accurate. I do not abide with the notion of blaming poor people for being poor. They are poor for multiple reasons that has nothing to do with the poor people themselves. Part of the reason is that the USA uses 25% of the wolrd’s resources and have a great knack of keeping the big boots on the necks of smaller poorer nations while sucking the fossil fuels and minerals and diamonds out of the ground at a rate of knots for a century or more and paying the poor people a subsistence wage while backing in warlords and criminal thugs as governments. Not just the USA many in Europe too, but the US is the Gorilla in the Room by far. The US didn’t back in Apartheid for half a century because they loved democracy and the freedom for other people. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

  10. 60
    JR says:

    54 nigelj, that’s ok. forget about it. We all have our aged care moments. RC is a really useful public service for those of us who no one wants to listen to anymore. (smile)

  11. 61
    nigelj says:

    Killian @52,

    I disagree with all that.

    JR Clark’s posts (and the other names he appears to use on this website)are almost all full of patronising language and rude, aggressive criticism of scientists on this website – their website I might add. It doesn’t seem to me like its a great way of persuading people. It becomes tedious to listen to, and makes it hard to think constructively.

    His commentary is also sometimes very unclear, but then so is mine sometimes.

    I agree with some of his actual commentary, and I disagree with some. What exactly is the problem with this? Its supposed to be a discussion isn’t it?

    I completely accept with the idea of ‘simplification’ in principle ( in the sense of reduced consumption of resources, more egalitarian living etc). However I think you push it too far in terms of the degree of cuts to energy use, and I’m not sure about some other aspects of things we have discussed.

    You react to my partial agreement by calling me every name you can think of. I think you are the first person ever to have accused me of being conservative.

    The other problem you have is simplification is obviously being adopted at a very slow rate. For example my country of NZ has a very fine Green Party, and it has promoted a light weight version of all your ideas for years, but has been stuck with about 10% support for 25 years, despite plenty of visibility and media exposure. This is unfortunate, and I can only hope it improves and the message does need to be repeated.

    KM has also pointed out reasons why rapid simplification would be challenging.

    However because of this slow rate of simplification, it seems to me it is unlikely to solve the climate problem as you would ideally like, because the climate problem is very time critical, so I think we are stuck requiring full scale promotion of renewable energy. I don’t totally like this, because it is using a lot of resources, but to me its more likely to be adopted than asking people to make 90% cuts to their consumption of resources and energy.

    However I go along with promoting a combination of renewable energy and less consumption.

  12. 62
    nigelj says:

    JR @59

    “I am not advocating for or against anything to do with fossil fuels or renewables in Africa.”

    I’m not so sure. Your previous posts were very heavy with language that Africa is adopting coal as an energy source, and if climate sensitivity is low why would that matter? Sounds like subtle advocacy- but why apologise for advocacy anyway?

    The point I made is renewable energy is cheap enough, so is not going to impoverish Africa, and it also suits their stage of development. Local solar power is ideal for rural communities, and might also be right for megacity style shanty urban development. It also keeps use of mineral resources low and minimises the requirement for large predtatory corporate power suppliers, so should keep Killian happy. So whats the problem?

    “Part of the reason is that the USA uses 25% of the wolrd’s resources and have a great knack of keeping the big boots on the necks of smaller poorer nations…”

    Yes true enough, the colonialism and imperialist mentality, but the blame game becomes tedious. My view is we should take a positive and rational approach, and help the poor at home and abroad with foreign aid, government programmes and payments and private charity, but all targeted as much as possible to ensure it doesn’t get squandered. And poor people need to wake up, have smaller families, and stop supporting authoritarian tryrants who promise the earth, while actually robbing their own people. My point is we can and should help people, but we cannot save fools from themselves either.

  13. 63
    Al Bundy says:

    Nigel, let’s not go binary based on incomplete data and thoughts. More to the core of my point is that I trust your judgement light years more than my own. Yes, unfortunately I’m beyond brilliant, ( as my father told me while grinning from ear to ear when I was four, “You’re just like your uncle George, destined to blow your brains out because you’re too smart to live in this world”.

    No, I’m too abused to live in this world – or more specifically to make any human interaction decision.

    So let’s modify and improve. Would you consider helping find a place to place my life’s work? What do you think of JRClark’s offer?

  14. 64
    nigelj says:

    Al Bundy @63, well I hope your trust in me isn’t misplaced, and I’m not sure what I have even done to deserve it.

    I’m sorry to hear of your being abused. My own childhood involved some negative stuff and being bullied as well. It’s horrible beyond words and quite scarring, so I understand your issues – at least a little bit.

    I hope you dont beat yourself up over it as some people do, and just understand there are some people out there who are just plain nasty. Sooner or later we all come crashing into one of them.

    I have had a few little disagreements with JR Clark, but he or she sounds like a sincere and decent person and worth communicating with. Your other alternative is some well meaning and well reputed foundation, and this would mean less reliance on just one individual.

  15. 65
    Killian says:

    #69 nigelwaaaah,

    I use the alteration above because rather than respond to what I wrote, you continued your angry rant to JR*.

    You literally failed to respond to a single point I made.

    * I said nothing of JR*s usual postings, I spoke only of this one. You in no way responded to the specifics of the two posts I commented on.

    * I pointed out the article was accurate and that his comments were not in any way rude. They were not. Your response was drenched in ego, meaning it was consistent with the criticism.

    * I said nothing of your or my policies on renewables, I commented that you have accused both of us of not liking renewables (as if they were ice cream flavors?), which is less than childish, it’s stupid. And false. You did not address my point in any way.

    * You present yourself as conservative: 1. You like to toss “liberal” around as an epithet,or the very least a gross exaggeration completely irrelevant on this forum. 2. You are a Capitalist. At this point in history, being a Capitalist puts one, at the very least, in the centrist camp. 3. Your reasoning rejects facts in favor of ideology and assumptions. 4. You think gov’t must be involved.

    Ergo… you are a conservative.

  16. 66
    nigelj says:

    JR@59, just adding to me previous reply, I had you a bit confused with someome else. I’m having a bad week, and you shortened your name and so I got confused. However the points made stand alone ok I think.

  17. 67
    Killian says:

    Al Bundy,

    I am in contact with/working with/associated with a number of international projects, climate scientists and one particular inventor/creator who happens to also be a JD and long-time ecovillager. The smartest person I have ever personally known, imo.

    I’d like to know more about the contents before dumping it on someone, tho.

  18. 68
    Ray Ladbury says:

    I agree that a renewable-based grid is a better approach for all–and not just for reasons of sustainability. However, it is often easier to build a new, modern infrastructure where there is none than to adapt an old, out-dated infrastructure to modern technology. Leapfrogging is a thing.

  19. 69
    Killian says:

    #68 Ray Ladbury said Killian,
    I agree that a renewable-based grid is a better approach for all–and not just for reasons of sustainability. However, it is often easier to build a new, modern infrastructure where there is none than to adapt an old, out-dated infrastructure to modern technology. Leapfrogging is a thing.

    Sure. Consistent with localizing, microgrids, self-reliance, and building new governance.

  20. 70
    Al Bundy says:

    First, I respect you and feel some kinship with you. Write me at

    Nigel, the fact that you don’t understand what I see in you is just further evidence. Either of your worth or my lack of skill in human interaction. :-)

  21. 71
    Al Bundy says:

    Ray, you’re right. Nigel’s “urbanized like”‘s core is ” like”. A walrus haul out isn’t the same as a colony of walruses on ice. And there is nothing that prevents a modern solution like a more-or-less solution that’s already in place. Not leapfrogging is fatal.

  22. 72
    Al Bundy says:

    Scott Strough,
    As you know, when we exchanged agricultural emails, our thoughts were very similar, though yours were more technical and mine were more Killianesque. I’ve completed a year of test plots and pondered. Everything looks grand. Now I can articulate why my method will work where you’d would be an almost. Hank found the answer

    Please give me a shout

  23. 73
  24. 74
    nigelj says:

    Killian @65

    You say I didn’t address your “points”. Your points were rather hard to comprehend, but here goes.

    I was wrong about JR Clarks views on renewable energy and admitted that above. Big deal, only you are making an issue out of it.

    You claim JR Clarks comments were not rude, but sorry they are sometimes rude and patronising towards me and also scientists on this website, which probably explains why he is getting some heat from various people. There are ways of criticising people, without being patronising, agressive or rude, especially the people who run this website. Dont bite the hand that feeds. Not saying Im perfect by a long way.


    A perfct example of your own rudeness,

    You wrote “* You present yourself as conservative: 1. You like to toss “liberal” around as an epithet,or the very least a gross exaggeration completely irrelevant on this forum. 2. You are a Capitalist. At this point in history, being a Capitalist puts one, at the very least, in the centrist camp. 3. Your reasoning rejects facts in favor of ideology and assumptions. 4. You think gov’t must be involved.”

    All complete nonsense, or “baloney” as you Americans would say.

    I can’t make sense of most of it, but thinking government must be involved in environmental or economic issues is a liberal / centre left position. Liberals prefer government stay out of our sex lives etc. With conservatives its a little more the other way around sometimes.

    I lean liberal / centre left fwiw , and I sometimes find the conservative view “frustrating”. However I’m near the middle of the “bell curve” and pretty moderate, and I make a CONSCIOUS EFFORT to objectively and fairly evaluate conservative points of view, because its absurd to suggest conservative ideas are all without value. This probably makes me look conservative sometimes.

    The last thing we need is labeling people, and creating further divisions, because right now I sincerely think America is slowly heading towards civil war due to partisal divisions – so please stop making it worse.

    What relevance is my politics anyway? You are again trying to discredit me on my ‘beliefs’ rather than addressing the substance of what I wrote. So if anyone puts ideological concerns ahead of “evidence and reasoned discussion” you have just done so!


  25. 75
    nigelj says:

    Killian, one of the problems is human beings are status seekers, and demonstrate this through material assets. The climate and resource scarcity issues are asking people to go in the opposite direction with reduced consumption, so its a difficult psychological conflict.

    Some people have done the right thing and reduced consumption, and recycle, or walk away from the current system. They find the commitment to stand up to these pressures and do the right thing. I find myself in the middle having made some changes, and I own less stuff than previously. I admit I have a way to go, however the question is what extent of changes actually makes sense, and its a tough question.

    It’s all particularly challenging, because people dont generally like making sacrificies or even just changes unless everyone does. This is why I think carbon taxes are important, because they impel everyone. Yes its a “government thing” and would be part of the current econmic paradigm, but probably worth it as a useful measure that would be temporary anyway, and helps with your own stated simplification goals.

  26. 76
    Carrie says:

    From Sweden recently, Solutions or Non-solutions that is the question!

    Kevin Anderson’s speech (20 min) at Klimatriksdagen 2018-05-05, as a presentation of proposal 224, which he and Isak Stoddard wrote and was included among the 12 winning motions on Klimatriksdagen:

    Basera Sveriges klimatlag på en koldioxidbudget för 2-gradersåtagandet – Kevin Anderson 2018

    quote KA ending words; “at the absolute core of that must be the idea of integrity.” (see ref below)

    Reported by this Alt Eco friendly news site worth bookmarking

    Call for a sharper climate policy in Sweden and the World

    “The Paris Agreement’s 2-degree goal will not be achieved by the political commitments of the world’s countries. Instead, the forecast points to 3-4 degrees global warming in 2100 if the countries are holding their Paris commitments. Or 4-8 degrees if commitments are not held, so that there will be a delayed or missing global emission reduction.”

    The reasonable way is to redirect all fossil-dependent sectors in society to completely fossil-free technologies at a faster pace, as well as to ensure that the 10% of the world’s population who account for 50% of carbon dioxide emissions rapidly reduce their emissions.

    We therefore demand that Sweden:

    1. ceases to account for unproven future negative emissions in emissions targets

    2. set 2035 as the goal of 100% fossil-free economy

    3. immediately invest what is required to reach at least 10% reduced CO2 emissions each year

    4. uses more direct means of control (for example, stated fossil-free annual figures in different sectors of the economy) in addition to price mechanisms (eg, increased carbon tax) to reach the targets

    5. does not prioritize GDP growth before the climate targets, but instead prioritizes qualitative welfare measurments such as Genuine Progress Indicator (GPI) or Happy Planet Index (HPI)

    6. acts vigorously internationally for this kind of sharper climate policy

    7. takes action to ensure that the 10% of the world population who account for 50% of carbon dioxide emissions will rapidly reduce their emissions

    End of quotes from ecoequality

    Facts from e.g.
    Climate researchers Kevin Anderson och Alice Bows-Larkin, lecture feb 2016:


    Overview (in Swedish):

    On negative emissions:

    Temperature increase reduces global yields of major crops:

    Integrity is the quality of being honest and having strong moral principles, or moral uprightness. It is generally a personal choice to hold oneself to consistent moral and ethical standards.

    In ethics, integrity is regarded as the honesty and truthfulness or accuracy of one’s actions. Integrity can stand in opposition to hypocrisy, in that judging with the standards of integrity involves regarding internal consistency as a virtue, and suggests that parties holding within themselves apparently conflicting values should account for the discrepancy or alter their beliefs. The word integrity evolved from the Latin adjective integer, meaning whole or complete. In this context, integrity is the inner sense of “wholeness” deriving from qualities such as honesty and consistency of character. As such, one may judge that others “have integrity” to the extent that they act according to the values, beliefs and principles they claim to hold.

    Professor Kevin Anderson and those like him really Rock!

  27. 77
    Killian says:

    Tech-preppers think Doomsday will mean a war of all against all. But there’s no evidence of this.

    In 2009, Rebecca Solnit wrote “A Paradise Built in Hell: The Extraordinary Communities That Arise in Disaster.” In it, Solnit debunks the “thin veneer of civilization” theory — the notion that authority and a strict social order are all that are keeping us from descending into barbarism.

    In that book, Solnit studied the unusual solidarity demonstrated in catastrophes as varied as the 1906 San Francisco and 2008 Tang Shan earthquakes, the 2003 European heat wave, and the 1917 Halifax munitions explosion. And she found the same result, every time. When chaos arrives, the human reaction is cooperation and innovation.

    “Disaster,” Solnit wrote, “is when the shackles of conventional belief and role fall away and the possibilities open up.” This “unshackling” arrives in unusual ways. On 9/11, half a million people were ferried from Lower Manhattan by a spontaneous rescue armada of individual boats.

    Solnit argued disaster solidarity is what led many survivors of the 1940 London Blitz to regard the bombing as a high point in their lives. Catastrophe creates communal feeling where none existed before. Given our evolution as nomadic social animals, this makes sense. Homo sapiens spent 300,000 years as equal creatures facing danger together. The current order, with a few rich and many poor, is relatively new in the history of our species.

    If human societies draw together in times of peril, what are the tech-preppers concerned about?

    Hmmm… people won’t pull together if they understand the tragedy coming…? It takes a hundred or two years?

    Maybe not.

  28. 78
    Nemesis says:

    nigelj, #75

    ” Killian, one of the problems is human beings are status seekers, and demonstrate this through material assets.”

    Then I am not human, as I give a f*** about funny, stupid “status” 8) Anyway, may them seek for funny “status” on their way to the boneyard :’D Happy “status seeking” everyone.

  29. 79

    Currently, steelmaking is responsible for quite a lot of carbon emissions, even though quite a lot of steel (~30%, last I heard) is recycled using electric tech.

    Here’s a Swedish plan to do carbon-neutral steelmaking using renewable energy; they aim to have a demo plant operating at industrial scale by the middle of the next decade:

  30. 80
    mike says:

    to N at 75: I think it’s helpful to recognize that most humans are caught up in the world where “status seeking” is a strong motivator. Most of us probably think we are exceptions to that kind of thing and we may be right or we may be wrong about that. good to be somewhat non-reactive and attempt to really understand what others are saying. Asking for clarification is good of course.



  31. 81
    nigelj says:

    Interesting article: “Almost half of Australian big business moving to renewables”.

    Another example of the impact of the increasingly competitive costs of renewable electricity.

  32. 82
    nigelj says:

    One for Killian. “Living Energy Farm: An Answer for Climate Change. Living Energy Farm (Louisa, Virginia) is a community of people who support themselves without the use of fossil fuel….”

    And another: “Permanent (self governing) floating communities are possible climate change answer”

  33. 83
    nigelj says:

    Mike @80, agreed, yoda. Believe me I have tried.

  34. 84
    Hank Roberts says:

    Al Bundy says:
    14 May 2018 at 12:09 PM
    … Hank found the answer

    Huh? What?

  35. 85
    Scott E Strough says:

    Al Bundy @72

    You will need to contact me again because I seem to have lost your email and/or number. It is probably somewhere but I even forget your real name! LOLZ

    PS I did send a email to your address but I am certain this is a different email than we originally conversed on. (I checked the history)

  36. 86
    nigelj says:

    “Could resurrecting mammoths help stop Arctic emissions?”

    Not quite literally resurrecting mammoths, but an important idea of introducing various similar animal species because 1) it could enhance grassland cover and protect the permafrost from melting and 2) sequester soil carbon.

  37. 87
    Mr. Know It All says:

    22 – nigelj
    From your Guardian article: “There’s been a general acceptance that people who have broadly conservative or rightwing ideologies tend to rail against climate science because it rubs their worldview up the wrong way. That is, that tackling climate change will require broad interventions from governments.”
    I think there is a lot of truth in that statement. One of the biggest problems is that we in the USA are not interested in any way in being ruled by international “rulers” on climate or anything else – we get more than enough “ruling” from our own government in Washington DC. We want to keep what little sovereignty we have left. If there is a need for action on CC we can do it within our own borders. Germany is highly touted on renewables, but only has 72.4 TW electric generation from renewables, while the USA has 357.5 TW. Source is here – scroll down for the numbers; from the graphs you can see that renewables are barely a drop in the bucket for world electricity generation – think about how that fact goes over when alarmists say “we must go solar now or we’ll die” – it isn’t a cheap proposition – it’s happening, but it will take time.

    From the article: “These campaigns often develop as a collaboration between the fossil fuel industry and conservative thinktanks, media and politicians, and are designed to “coach” conservatives to believe that the climate science is not yet settled.”
    Fact: climate science is not settled. No one here can provide a description of how the AGW models work. (I haven’t looked yet at HR’s link – but it’s in my favorites – I’ll get to it.) Lots of arguments about various aspects of climate science just on this one website.

    Another one: “Second, America has an unusually intense brand of conservatism, one that has a particularly strong opposition to government interference in the free market. Climate science is a nightmare for these people, because in some ways it does imply a big-government response designed to regulate industry.”
    Nailed it – we do not want big-government. Our free market system is the best in the world – that’s why we have a huge immigration problem. Big government rarely gets anything right. Our biggest problems – government debt, poorly educated kids, inner city decay and crime, unemployment, ridiculous levels of bureaucracy, and more, are all caused by, or made worse by, government.

    We don’t want to be like Europeans or Australians, or anyone else – I hope those living in those places are very happy with their system – I do not want anything to do with it. For those living here, who do want those types of systems I say: please, make yourselves happy – move there. Funny how the world keeps turning. :)

  38. 88

    KIA, #87–

    ” No one here can provide a description of how the AGW models work.”

    I think several folks have done so. In fact, I suggested a book, but was told that books were ‘too much.’

    So, here’s something digestible:

    And more from the same blogger:

  39. 89

    KIA: No one here can provide a description of how the AGW models work.

    BPL: You’ve either got the attention span of a rhesus monkey or you’re a dreadful liar. We’ve all tried to explain it to you numerous times. The fact that you don’t get it is no reflection on the people here.

  40. 90
    Carrie says:

    87 Mr. Know It All says “We want to keep what little sovereignty we have left.”

    And you will have it in spades for eternity in your grave with a little headstone that reads:

    “He lies one of the millions of Know It All Americans who refused to listen to reason and the scientific facts about how deadly climate change is to humanity.”

    If there’s anyone left to bury you or still cares about your precious little sovereignty mythology you lived and died for.

  41. 91
    Hank Roberts says:

    Please make the effort to google your beliefs before posting them. You may well find you have been mistaken and haven’t bothered to check.

  42. 92
    nigelj says:

    Mr KIA @87,

    You say “we” don’t like government intervention or international organisations. Lets be accurate, you are referring to conservatives and the GOP only. Its clear many american’s are democrats and are quite comfortable with a reasonable level of government intervention and international agreements.

    In fact majority public opinion is towards intervention, if you look at polls and for example issues like a desire for better gun control. It tends to be politicians captured by lobby groups that have a different view so right now your country is not terribly democratic. So there’s a powerful data based argument that the overwhelming majority of Americans favour intervention and international agreements etcetera. Of course that’s not to say they are naive about it, and sign up to just anything.

    I admit I lean liberal, but I think competition, private ownership and free markets are great things in most cases, but there are obvious cases where governments should intervene, set regulations, and / or own things. I have to be honest, I think people who can’t see this are sometimes a bit narrow minded, impractical and aren’t thinking it through.

    You seem to be claiming America has more renewable energy than germany despite America being a more capitalist leaning country in your view. You are comparing countries of completely different size, so when you correct for this the level of renewable electricity generation is very similar on a per capita basis. Renewable energy in both has been driven by subsidies and other modest government interventions so your argument falls down.

    You keep on complaining that nobody can explain how agw models work, but numerous people here have provided you links information on agw models. They are not responsible for your not reading or understanding them. I have explained to you before these things are very complex, and its hard to give a simplified description, and you need a lot of advanced atmospheric physics to really grasp them, so go learn some if you haven’t got those skills. Otherwise you just have to trust the experts.

    I don’t have enough specialised knowledge to understand the maths and physics in these climate models, although I intuitively get the general idea of how they work, and I read a simple one provided by BPL. But then I was an ‘A’ grade school student in virtually everything.

    I do know enough so that I can tell you the crazy dismissive types of criticisms made of models are nonsense, the sorts that claim are curve fitting or totally data driven. The models are built around well proven heat balance equations and build feedbacks into these as well as is best currently understood. They have made good hindcast prediction but also good forward predictions over the last couple of decades. You need to appreciate that REGARDLESS of the maths and physics and how its derived when models make good predictions you need to take notice of them. Models are based on equations that’s all they are, and the main thing about equations is they describe physical reality and make predictions, and predictive ability is the main test of their correctness. Think of something like e=mc2.

    You claim you have a huge immigration problem because of your successful capitalist free market system which you say is the best in the world. But Europe has an even bigger immigration problem. My country doesnt have an illegal immigration problem but levels of immigration are approximately 5 times higher per capita than America. I mean with respect you dont seem terribly well informed on the realities of other countries.

    Also, you criticise big government in Europe, but if you consider the size of your federal and also state governments combined you are not much different to quite a number of european countries.

    And you talk about Americas great wealth etcetera, and I admire it’s wealth, but please also appreciate Americas salaries and wages are not much different than many european countries. You just aren’t that much better. In fact the highest incomes globally are in countries like Norway, Luxumbourg, Ireland, Switzerland etc.

    You say :”Our biggest problems – government debt, poorly educated kids, inner city decay and crime, unemployment, ridiculous levels of bureaucracy, and more, are all caused by, or made worse by, government.”

    Actually your unemployment levels are reasonably low at around 4% compared to double that in some European countries.

    Its a matter of opinion. Others people say your biggest problems are huge levels of inequality ( and America is very high if you look at gini coefficient data), people on such low wages they live in tent cities, an inadequate frayed social security system, leaving the Paris accord, gun violence, etc.

    And how much is “government” responsible? Government debt has often been driven high by Republican presidents and congresses and reagon is a classic example. Clinton cut government debt.

    So the problem is not government, it is who is in charge.

    I don’t see that you can blame crime on “big government”. Sadly crime is a function of flawed human nature. America has smaller government than Europe however America has higher crime. Perhaps the problem in America is inadequate gun control, but that is the fault of politicians.

    You refer to Americas great free market system, but what is it you really mean by that? Truly free markets would mean open global immigration so a borderless world, yet you oppose this. So would I anyway.

    If you mean people owning private property and healthy competition, many countries are the same as America in this respect.If anything the number of monopolies forming in america is far from healthy competition (a problem not unique to America).

    If you mean free markets free from excessive regulation, the levels of regulation in America are not excessive and are actually not that much different from anywhere else. Its more a question of having the right sort of regulation and the areas to focus on are surely product safety, the environment and financial stability, plus ensuring empoyee’s have some basic protections.When it goes beyond this there can be problems.

    The term free markets was actually developed by the economist Adam Smith in his ground breaking book Wealth of Nations to mean no tariffs. Oddly Trump is going in the opposite direction. Adam Smith did not oppose a reasonable level of government intervention and accepted governments should provide basic education. In fact the private sector does very well providing consumer goods but is less effective through history with provision of education and health care, research in the hard sciences, provision of road networks and these are areas where governments have provided very effective roles.

    Likewise while the private sector is effective at producing consumer goods, it tends to do a poor job of protecting the environment, as this sort of problem can be passed onto other parties, so hence the need for some combination of government regulations and court processes.

    You criticise Americas state schools yet they have to be one of the main reasons for Americas wealth.Where do you think people get their basic knowledge and motivation and values if not schools? (as well as parents). Your schools do of course have problems, but the basic state education system is tremendous and accessible to everyone.

  43. 93
    Dan says:

    re: 87. “Nailed it – we do not want big-government. Our free market system is the best in the world – that’s why we have a huge immigration problem. Big government rarely gets anything right. Our biggest problems – government debt, poorly educated kids, inner city decay and crime, unemployment, ridiculous levels of bureaucracy, and more, are all caused by, or made worse by, government.”

    Wow, anyone would be hard pressed to find a comment (other than those by scientifically clueless Victor) that is more pure bunk than that. On many levels. Let’s see, over the past 50 years government has excelled in providing voting rights, women’s rights, clean air, clean water, roads, and social security just for starters. As for your list, education is far better than it was 50 years ago across the board. Crime is not worse. In fact, it went down the past 10 years. And unemployment after the Great Recession and the GOP Recession both declined due to specific government action. With all that, it is clear your comment that “problems” are “all caused by, or made worse by, government” is a. not based on any sort of objective data, and b. is really nothing more than thinly disguised hate.
    Clearly that makes you part of the problem in the USA. Seriously.

  44. 94
    Nemesis says:

    @Mr. Know It All

    “We want to keep what little sovereignty we have left.”

    Omg, you need to tell that the vertebrates:

    Souvereignity means facing reality just like it is:

    Life’s a bitch and then you die.

  45. 95
    Hank Roberts says:

    In the last two days, there have been two laughable claims about sea level rise. The first was yesterday when the Wall Street Journal published a ridiculous piece by Fred Singer claiming that climate change had nothing to do with sea level rise. Today, North Alabama Congressman Mo Brooks suggested that it was rocks falling into the ocean. Interestingly, Brooks represents the district where NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center is located.

    From based on NOAA/NASA data.

    Just to be clear here (and there is no scientific debate about this), the global rise in sea level is overwhelmingly due to two things.

    Melting glaciers.
    Thermal expansion of sea water due to the global temp.increase….

  46. 96
    Hank Roberts says:

    For those wondering who’s making what effort to answer KIA’s repeated pleas for help,
    here’s a short quote from the second source recommended to him above:

    You want a long answer, pose your question to a smart young enthusiastic scientist.

    … while comparisons of the output of global climate models are very common (for example, CMIP5: Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 5), nobody has really sat down and compared their software structure. We tried to fill this gap in research with a qualitative comparison study of seven models. Six of them are GCMs (General Circulation Models – the most complex climate simulations) in the CMIP5 ensemble; one, the UVic model, is not in CMIP because it’s really more of an EMIC (Earth System Model of Intermediate Complexity – simpler than a GCM). However, it’s one of the most complex EMICs, and contains a full GCM ocean, so we thought it would present an interesting boundary case. (Also, the code was easier to get access to than the corresponding GCM from Environment Canada. When we write this up into a paper we will probably use that model instead.)

  47. 97
    JR says:

    Is thompson reuters a reliable data source?

    “To meet the Paris climate agreement goal of keeping global warming to well below 2 degrees Celsius, countries have to stick to commitments they have made to peak their emissions by 2030 or sooner.”

    Graphs and Data

    Beware those African fossil fuel development ideologues outside of South Africa! Greedy selfish unscientific that they are!

    But the Balkans look at what they are doing too! Bosnia and Herzegovina, the Serb Republic, Armenia and others nearby.

    Take for example the nine or so new coal-fired power plants planned by Western Balkan countries at the moment. Of these, at least five – Kostolac B3 in Serbia, and Tuzla 7, Banovići, Gacko II and Kamengrad in Bosnia-Herzegovina – are expected to involve Chinese companies and receive financing from the China Exim Bank, the Industrial Commercial Bank of China and potentially other Chinese banks.

    BELGRADE, Nov 20 (Reuters) – A Chinese company started construction on Monday of a new 350-megawatt unit at Serbia’s second largest coal-fired power plant, the first new electricity capacity in the Balkan country in nearly 30 years.

    Criminals I say, this must be stopped because Serbia accounts for 0.18% of total GHG emissions!!! Armenia 0.02%; Bosnia and Herzegovina 0.08%; Azerbaijan 0.13%; Albania 0.02%; Angola 0.17%; Central African Republic 0.01%; Croatia 0.07%; Kenya 0.06%; Macedonia 0.03% and so on.

    No way should these nations be allowed to build a new coal fired power station anywhere for any reason. It’s solar panels on slum huts and eating cake for them!

  48. 98
    JR says:

    Total GHG emissions by nation from

    A narrowed focus shows this comparison of reality today

    Indonesia 1.49% Pop. 261.1 million (2016)

    South Africa 1.46% Pop. 55.91 million (2016)

    Australia 1.46% Pop. 24.13 million (2016)

    Nigeria 0.57% Pop. 186 million (2016)

    Bangladesh 0.27% Pop. 163 million (2016)

    No Fossil Fueled power stations for them please. Except Australia maybe because they really need them.

    Nine (9) Planned Fossil fueled power stations in Australia to be connected to a grid


    and keeping an old giant going past it’s use-by date

    versus this reality of International Chinese coal projects in “climate denying criminal nation states” like Bangladesh, Pakistan, Indonesia and Nigeria, Vietnam, Bosnia and Serbia.

    Renewables are clearly a winning strategy now! So cheap!

    Maybe Nemesis has it right? There’s a systemic problem going on globally.

    I think that there is an slightly unconscious but powerfully narcissistic greedy selfish racist problem too.

  49. 99
    Mr. Know It All says:

    92 – nigelj

    On the AGW models, yes, I need to look at some of the links above – and the one from HR a few weeks ago:

    I do acknowledge that Germany has a greater percentage of electricity production from renewables than the USA, but because of our huge hydro production, we have a larger absolute amount. AND the main point was that, from those graphs, solar and wind are just a drop in the bucket. I realize they are growing, but they’re tiny.

    Agree with you that some government is necessary. If we cut the number of regulations by 75% it would be getting to a reasonable level; and if we cut all government (local,state,fed) employment by 50% we would not even miss them.

    “… so right now your country is not terribly democratic.” We are a republic, not a democracy. Thus, the electoral system. I do acknowledge that many want to be like Europe – and they should move there so they’ll be happy. We fought England to get away from their system – France helped us.

    “..But Europe has an even bigger immigration problem. My country doesnt have an illegal immigration problem but levels…” Europe’s problem is because the EU invited them, against the wishes of most of the citizens. Where are you – NZ? If so, that big moat helps. :)

    Free market means within the borders – has nothing to do with open borders. A nation without borders is not a nation. Most nations have strict immigration controls.

    Don’t believe the 4% number. 35% on welfare:
    Our inequality is caused BY welfare. Families become dependent on it and it becomes a way of life which includes crime. Most of our crime is in inner-cities run for 6 decades by the D party. Has nothing to do with gun control – we have over 300,000,000 of them – if they were a problem you’d KNOW it. ;)

    Clinton didn’t do anything to debt – Newt Gingrich, and the R congress did that – combined with the late 90s dot com bubble which increased revenue. Your graph conveniently stopped in 2008. Clever!

    Education used to be good here. Not really that great today. Values – going down hill at a rapid rate here – I’d place blame on schools and parents both.

    Hopefully we’ll get thru it all, and whip AGW too! Keep fighting.

  50. 100
    Mr. Know It All says:

    93 – Dan

    Whew! I’m as bad as Victor? Yikes! :)

    That was not a GOP recession – it was caused by Ds who insisted that mortgages be provided to certain groups who did not qualify for them. Barney Franks and Clinton got the ball rolling with perhaps help from BHO (before his presidency) and Rs failed to stop it:
    I love that Youtube video: “Peter Schiff Mortgage Bankers Speech Nov/13/06” where he predicts the whole thing and people laugh at him. You scientists may be doing the same one day with respect to AGW! :)

    Basically my comment is correct, but this is not the place to have that discussion.