Deaths from climate change

[JohnRoberts]

Models have problems. "Projections" cannot be cited as evidence. The models are changed over time, lack a scientific underlying basis, and have artificial limits imposed by the model designers, so cannot be trusted.

So just to be clear you are dismissing the 12 peer reviewed climate models cited by the Council of Economic Advisers and the Office of Management and Budget, in this federal government report https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/CEA-OMB-White-Paper.pdf?

If not models like these , what then are you basing you judgement about climate change upon?

Koonin is just drinking at the teat of climate denialism.

Koonin is a data analysis guy, typically using the government's own data to hoist them on their own petard for making hyperbolic claims. In fact Koonin does not deny warming, just the flawed incorrect response to that climate warming.

Did I cover all the modeling bases? This should cut both ways, shouldn't it?

Yes indeed models are full of too much fudge. Koonin used to be involved in model design, too.

Koonin first studied climate models almost 30 years ago as part of a team advising the U.S. government on the prospects for high-powered scientific computers to advance climate prediction. He describes the way the models organize the physical layout of the atmosphere and oceans and the resulting proliferation of processes that need to be explained. The first problem is that many key phenomena, such as cloud formation, involve processes that are simply unknown. So modelers have to make educated guesses about what goes on. The next problem is that many processes are known but take place on too small a scale for models to be able to compute them all in a reasonable amount of time. So again, modelers resort to approximations. Then a further problem arises that to initialize the model requires detailed information about the history of the oceans and atmosphere and such data simply don’t exist. So… approximations again.

But the government is trying to make people change their lives based on a non concise data backed belief system (too much fudge makes a model worse than a guess, more like programmed propaganda).

JR

 

[user 37518]

 

[cyrano]

So you think they should donate their pension to charity, or STFU?

Obviously, any reason is good enough for deniers. Ah, well, believers will believe. Even the horse's mouth isn't good enough, because it's a rich horse...

 

[user 37518]

So you think they should donate their pension to charity, or STFU?

Obviously, any reason is good enough for deniers. Ah, well, believers will believe. Even the horse's mouth isn't good enough, because it's a rich horse...

No, I don't think he should donate his pension to charity. I just want to point out the hypocrisy of someone living off the oil business whilst virtue signaling and throwing soup at paintings and shouting just stop oil.

Also, what exactly do you mean by "believers will believe"? I read you saying it over and over but I am not entirely sure what you mena, also, does the phrase apply as well to the Greta Thunberg crowd and those who believe the Earth will die in a few decades, or not?

 

[JohnRoberts]

So you think they should donate their pension to charity, or STFU?

Obviously, any reason is good enough for deniers. Ah, well, believers will believe. Even the horse's mouth isn't good enough, because it's a rich horse...

No, I don't think he should donate his pension to charity. I just want to point out the hypocrisy of someone living off the oil business whilst throwing soup at paintings and shouting just stop oil.

Also, what exactly do you mean by "believers will believe"? Does that apply as well to the Greta Thunberg crowd or not?

I can't read minds but it appears modern marketing is pretty effective at manipulating public sentiment.

I see a parallel between the "climate crisis" (not a crisis) and the "dog food crisis" (also not a crisis). The latter is invented from whole cloth to sell more XYZ brand dog food. The former appears to be a blatant power grab, while I expect some fraction of the climate activists have good intentions.

As usual follow the money.

JR

 

[jabe]

As usual follow the money.

Not sure that's the best argument in favor of fossil fuels...
https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/big-oil-doubles-profits-blockbuster-2022-2023-02-08/

 

[JohnRoberts]

Not sure that's the best argument in favor of fossil fuels...
https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/big-oil-doubles-profits-blockbuster-2022-2023-02-08/

So you believe making fossil fuels more expensive and harder to extract will somehow hurt industry profits. The fossil fuel industry is already checking all the ESG/DEI boxes thrown in their path. Look at how much food (corn) has been diverted to ethanol making food/feed more expensive.
===
I just read a piece about how much oil Iran is selling to China right now despite international sanctions. OPEC (saudis) are trying to prop up oil prices by cutting back production, but Iran and Russia (part of OPEC+) are selling lots of oil under the table.

I have read the criticism of big oil industry profits literally for decades, it is the nature of selling huge amounts of a valuable commodity. Apparently it works to sway low information voters. Big money=evil...

JR

 

[jabe]

So you believe making fossil fuels more expensive and harder to extract will somehow hurt industry profits.

Respectfully, you do not get to state what I believe. I certainly said nothing like that.

Apparently it works to sway low information voters. Big money=evil...

You're the one literally saying "follow the money".

 

[user 37518]

So you believe making fossil fuels more expensive and harder to extract will somehow hurt industry profits.

Mind reading, John.

 

[AnalogPackrat]

Not sure that's the best argument in favor of fossil fuels...
https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/big-oil-doubles-profits-blockbuster-2022-2023-02-08/

"Big Oil" is how many companies?

Also...

 

[JohnRoberts]

Respectfully, you do not get to state what I believe. I certainly said nothing like that.

indeed... sorry, please explain what you mean.

You're the one literally saying "follow the money".

Yes... the money I refer to, is grants and awards for climate studies.Only the "scientists" (cough) who deliver the desired results, get the budgets.
===

Increasing world wealth with low cost fossil fuels, generally raises people out of poverty, increases their health and success in life.

===

Sorry this is such an old meme (big oil and all wealth is evil) that I skipped ahead.

Mind reading, John.

yes it appears so... mea culpa


JR

 

[jabe]

I am pointing out that fossil fuel companies have a record of directly funding climate change denial, and they have deep pockets. You are insinuating that nearly all climate scientists are peddling falsehoods for grant money rather than... speaking the truth (as you seem to see it) for a much more profitable industry. Let me know if I'm misrepresenting you, as I've no intent to do so, but otherwise... this doesn't add up for me.
I would consider any study that was directly funded by, say, a solar company to be worthy of suspicion as well.

I genuinely don't know what AnalogPackrat's charts are intended to demonstrate.

 

[JohnRoberts]

I am pointing out that fossil fuel companies have a record of directly funding climate change denial,

I am not aware of any serious, thoughtful denial of climate change. Temperature is an objective fact, while the chicken little crowd recently played some games with averaging temperature calculations claiming that this 4th of July was the hottest day "ever"!

and they have deep pockeys.

the government has pretty deep pockets too.

You are insinuating that nearly all climate scientists are peddling falsehoods for grant money rather than... speaking the truth (as you seem to see it) for a much more profitable industry.

I am surely repeating myself but the Koonin book "Unsettled" explores the numerous flawed conclusions made by climate spokespeople. I repeat, many probably have good intentions, even when fudging models to make more scary results to motivate the ignorant population to do the right thing.

Let me know if I'm misrepresenting you, as I've no intent to do so, but otherwise... this doesn't add up for me.
I would consider any study that was directly funded by, say, a solar company to be worthy of suspicion as well.

I have been writing about this subject right here for years. The real debate should be about what is a sensible response to the actual warming, that is an objective fact.

The modest low single digit reduction to GDP form the government's own forecast/analysis, suggests that shutting down cheap, plentiful fossil fuel will do more harm than good (especially to poor nations) While poor nations like India and China, are still building coal power plants because they aren't drinking the climate kool aid.

I am repeating myself but I just started reading Lomborg's latest book, " Best things first" with his short list of better things to do with our Trillions of dollars than aim for zero carbon.

I genuinely don't know what AnalogPackrat's charts are intended to demonstrate.

P&L profit and loss statements. Big oil sells lots of oil, for lots of dollars. Of course some people think wealth is evil.

JR

 

[scott2000]

Looking at some of the google reviews of our power company I see people freaking out about how their power bills are increasing even though their habits haven't changed. .....and the representatives tell them that it's been hot...
Looking at my bill, based on the usage compared to last year, it should have been about the same or maybe $2 more.... but it's $50 more... it's because of an increase in the fuel charge they use.

"Your bill separates the fuel and non-fuel charges to help you better understand what is included in your electric service. A fuel charge is the cost for fuel required to provide each kilowatt-hour (kWh) of electricity. A non-fuel charge is the cost other than fuel to produce and deliver electricity to your home or business, including the cost to operate equipment and maintain facilities."

 

[AnalogPackrat]

I genuinely don't know what AnalogPackrat's charts are intended to demonstrate.

You and others malign and mischaracterize profits and profit margins of "Big Oil" while failing to compare it to other large companies. In the comparative charts I included it is obvious that AAPL, corporate beacon of progressive values (and Chinese slave labor), with the largest market cap of any corporation on Earth, has both higher profits and higher margins than ExxonMobile which is the largest US oil company. Why aren't their obscene profits scrutinized and castigated in The Guardian, Vice, HuffPo, and here in The Brewery?

 

[jabe]

I am not aware of any serious, thoughtful denial of climate change.

I admit I am using the phrase "climate change denial" to refer generally to certain factions' shifting views on the matter, which went from denying temperature change, to admitting it's real but denying that it's result of human actions, to admiting it's man made but denying it needs to be addressed. It was not that long ago a certain Senator brought a snowball into floor to demonstrate that climate change is a hoax. Meanwhile the overall consensus in the scientific community has been consistent.

the government has pretty deep pockets too

I am unclear on what you think "the government" has to gain here. See also the existence of government actors like Senator Snowball...

P&L profit and loss statements. Big oil sells lots of oil, for lots of dollars.

Undisputed. Not clear on how that's a response to anything I said or why the charts are comparing ExxonMobil with Apple.

 

[ruffrecords]

I admit I am using the phrase "climate change denial" to refer generally to certain factions' shifting views on the matter, which went from denying temperature change, to admitting it's real but denying that it's result of human actions, to admiting it's man made but denying it needs to be addressed. It was not that long ago a certain Senator brought a snowball into floor to demonstrate that climate change is a hoax. Meanwhile the overall consensus in the scientific community has been consistent.

I have to pick you up on this point. It is the climate community that keeps changing the goal posts. In the early days they used to refer to anthropogenic global warming (AGW) which is quite specific that they mean man made warming. Later they changed it to global warming, presumably because by then they assumed everybody believed that only humans could contribute to increased global temperatures (false). Now they just call it climate change with the implication that any change in climate is our fault (also false).

The so called deniers have been consistent in their claim that their is no evidence for AGW. They have never denied that warming is possible, as evidenced by the many periods in ancient times when it was warmer than it is now.

Cheers

Ian

 

[jabe]

You and others malign and mischaracterize profits and profit margins of "Big Oil"

Not sure how I've done that. I have noted that the fossil fuel industry, like pretty much any industry, has a vested interested in protecting its profits and track record of doing so. If studies, think tanks, etc. are suspect because of their funding, i.e. "follow the money", surely this cuts both ways.

while failing to compare it to other large companies

Why would anyone do this when the topic is climate change?

 

[jabe]

It is the climate community that keeps changing the goal posts

They have changed the nomenclature but I don't see how that's moving the goal posts. They've been consistent in stating that the average temperature is not simply rising but is doing so at an abnormally high rate, and that this unusual rate of change will be disruptive, and is primarly caused by humans.

 

[AnalogPackrat]

Not sure how I've done that. I have noted that the fossil fuel industry, like pretty much any industry, has a vested interested in protecting its profits and track record of doing so. If studies, think tanks, etc. are suspect because of their funding, i.e. "follow the money", surely this cuts both ways.

If it indeed cuts both ways, how is it that companies that offshore their manufacturing to countries with no environmental controls, no labor protection, and which are thousands of miles away from their customers (petroleum-burning ships and planes transport the products) get a pass on their negative effects on the environment? Oil is in demand to move materials and products thousands of miles. Coal is in demand to power the facilities in China (and India) where manufacturing occurs.

I could also mention the purposefully difficult/impossible to repair product designs which are thrown out after a few short years because something as simple as a battery has failed. Or, worse, the latest (required) OS upgrade for "ecosystem" compatibility can't run on HW that is only 3 or 4 years old.

Why would anyone do this when the topic is climate change?

For the obvious reasons above and more.

 

[JohnRoberts]

I admit I am using the phrase "climate change denial" to refer generally to certain factions' shifting views on the matter, which went from denying temperature change, to admitting it's real but denying that it's result of human actions, to admiting it's man made but denying it needs to be addressed. It was not that long ago a certain Senator brought a snowball into floor to demonstrate that climate change is a hoax. Meanwhile the overall consensus in the scientific community has been consistent.

Consistent? You may not remember back in the 70s when Carl Sagan warned about "Nuclear Winter". This was anti nuclear weapons but again trying to scare the public with threat of global disaster. I see your "senator snowball" and raise you the Greta crowd who have been claiming that we would be underwater by now. Al Gore, has a nice little business making up BS about the climate.

I am unclear on what you think "the government" has to gain here. See also the existence of government actors like Senator Snowball...

Seriously? they want to control the public and everything they can about the private sector. By claiming that climate change is an existential threat they claim that it is an emergency that justifies extraordinary measures. Not unlike the imaginary dog food crisis.

Undisputed. Not clear on how that's a response to anything I said or why the charts are comparing ExxonMobil with Apple.

Probably trying to diffuse the theme that profits are bad.

Not sure how I've done that. I have noted that the fossil fuel industry, like pretty much any industry, has a vested interested in protecting its profits and track record of doing so. If studies, think tanks, etc. are suspect because of their funding, i.e. "follow the money", surely this cuts both ways.

Yes, everybody operates in their own self interest (including scientists and government bureaucracies).

Why would anyone do this when the topic is climate change?

In my judgement the topic is "what should we do about climate change". IMO we should be doing more research and less trying to scare the low information public into subservience.

They have changed the nomenclature but I don't see how that's moving the goal posts. They've been consistent in stating that the average temperature is not simply rising but is doing so at an abnormally high rate, and that this unusual rate of change will be disruptive, and is primarly caused by humans.

Yet only one of the dozen climate models used by our own government shows rapid temperature rise. the rest show only low single digit temperature (?) rises a century into the future. The 1.5'C temperature rise target is purely arbitrary used to help anchor a public response.

Cutting carbon emissions to zero will cost the world economy $T that would be better spent adapting to the modest temperature rise. Honest climate scientists will admit that even cutting carbon emissions to zero will make only a tiny difference to climate behavior.

JR

 

[JohnRoberts]

Looking at some of the google reviews of our power company I see people freaking out about how their power bills are increasing even though their habits haven't changed. .....and the representatives tell them that it's been hot...
Looking at my bill, based on the usage compared to last year, it should have been about the same or maybe $2 more.... but it's $50 more... it's because of an increase in the fuel charge they use.

"Your bill separates the fuel and non-fuel charges to help you better understand what is included in your electric service. A fuel charge is the cost for fuel required to provide each kilowatt-hour (kWh) of electricity. A non-fuel charge is the cost other than fuel to produce and deliver electricity to your home or business, including the cost to operate equipment and maintain facilities."

Me and my other local utility customers still have to pay for the white elephant "clean coal" power plant that was built to reduce carbon emissions into the environment. This power plant suffered massive cost over runs (in part because of changing government regulations) and now ironically it isn't even burning local coal, but is instead burning natural gas, because it is cheaper. The utility regulators didn't allow them to immediately charge us for the cost over runs, but converted it to debt that we must service and ultimately pay down over time. Gotta love that government help.

JR

 

[hodad]

the white elephant "clean coal" power plant

Undoubtedly cheaper than the half-functioning nuclear plant that we Georgians have had to pay for. It's been more than a decade that we (not the Southern Co., which gets to keep its profits high in spite of massive delays and cost overruns) have been paying for this thing, and just this year one of two units finally got connected to the grid--accompanied by yet another rate hike.