lee wrote on Nov 15^th, 2021 at 4:24pm:


Unfortunately  for you, in relation to the dominant mainstream New-Keynesian economic schools based on obsolete classical economics,  Feynman is referring to the pernicious stranglehold of this orthodoxy's "experts", caused by their failure to correctly describe economic reality.

http://bilbo.economicoutlook.net/blog/?p=48682&cpage=1#comment-73574

"UK Office of Budget Responsibility demonstrating the well-trodden GIGO format"


Note: economics is more sociology and politics than science. Whereas Einstein was a science 'expert' who correctly described physical reality eg E= mcc (until a deeper understanding of physics is achieved); meanwhile  climate scientists are undoubtedly refining their observations of the atmosphere all the time.

Btw, that you are still  asking me whether I can differentiate between CO2 "pollution" and poisonous, cancerous, particulate 'pollution', (and fossil-burning which causes acid rain, smog etc etc) after this lengthy debate, shows - at best -  your limited powers of comprehension. I clearly identified the distinction between the two types of "pollution"  several posts ago.   

In conclusion, relax; clean, free, electricity for the whole world is not too far away. Then we will all be able to adapt to whatever the climate throws our way, and live healthy lives.  Hint: start selling down your fossil shares....

thegreatdivide wrote on Nov 15^th, 2021 at 11:07pm:



perhaps you can provide the link to the "and thousands like him" of economists who champion MMT.

thegreatdivide wrote on Nov 15^th, 2021 at 11:07pm:


And yet you still believe them? Why is that?

Please provide a paper from a "climate scientist" who supports your views. You are the one saying they disagree. Just on what do they disagree? You say you are agnostic yet keep telling me I an wrong.  You have so far failed spectacularly to do that.

thegreatdivide wrote on Nov 15^th, 2021 at 11:07pm:


And you still believe them. They use models. Model output depends on their i puts. GIGO.

thegreatdivide wrote on Nov 15^th, 2021 at 11:07pm:


CO2 is not pollution. It is plant food. Indeed it is necessary for humans to live. CO2 is that tells the lungs to breath.

Rain is naturally acidic.

thegreatdivide wrote on Nov 15^th, 2021 at 11:07pm:


Poor petal. I don't own shares

thegreatdivide wrote on Nov 15^th, 2021 at 11:07pm:



Note: climate science is more statistics and computer modelling than science.

Having only a single planet at their disposal, climate scientists are unable to carry out any scientific experiments about the climate. All they can do is observe the weather around the world and make statistical assumptions and then build computer models, complete with those assumptions.

Also note that the complexity of planetary climate is not well understood. The interaction of all the known aspects of the climate is only partially understood and there are significant known contributors whose impact is not understood at all because they have not been measurable/measured (underwater volcanos, say. Do remember that 70% of the planet is under the sea).

The slogans about 'stopping global warming at 1.5 degrees or at 2 degrees" is laughable, arrogant stupidity.

Having walked the Franz Joseph glacier valley and seen how far the ice has receded in 50 years, I don't believe Industry could just pump CO2 into the sky for 200 years without effect. The retreat of sea ice in the North West Passage is another indication, at least to me, if other people want to believe its all a hoax.

But I cannot believe the chronic bias and sophistry of the Left and the ABC in demonising Morrison over the LNPs reluctance to hamstring Australia with CO2 restrictions when China is building new coal fired power stations. This is the China that the ALP and Greens say we should "work with" for better relations.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/08/25/china-to-build-43-new-coal-fired-power-pl...

Bobby. wrote on Nov 16^th, 2021 at 9:21am:


Is it available now, not in 10 years time (or more?)? And even if it were, we would still face resistance from the fossil industry who will want compensation to the tune of an estimated  $50 trillion for stranded fossil assets. And countries who rely on income from coal exports (like Oz).   
, and fossil workers who may not be able to successfully transfer to the green economy.

issuevoter wrote on Nov 16^th, 2021 at 1:16pm:


Agreed

Quote:


Agreed again, but I suspect you - like the Left -  don't have a solution to that conundrum.

China intends to peak CO2 emissions by 2035; but China simply cant build enough PV, wind turbines, backed by pumped hydro storage,  quickly enough to keep raising its living standards (and keep the lights on)  without building more coal plants over the next few years.

Note: Coal plants are quicker, easier and cheaper to deploy than fully backed renewables supplying an equivalent amount of (base load) power.

I've been explaining the solution to lee, but his ideology makes him blind, like an ISIS theologian interpreting the Koran .

The BIS hinted at the solution a few years back at Davos, when they said: "central banks might have to buy the fossil industry" (ie, using their unlimited currency-issuing capacity).

But no doubt free market ideologues would need to see their own real estate disappearing under the ocean, before acceding to that funding method.   

thegreatdivide wrote on Nov 16^th, 2021 at 6:42pm:


You do realise the amount of land required. Land is scarce in both India and China.thegreatdivide wrote on Nov 16^th, 2021 at 6:42pm:


And Germany is increasing lignite mining.

"Electricity demand in Europe rebounded from the pandemic-induced slump in 2020. At the same time, wind power feed-in in the first half of 2021 was very low compared to the average. In Germany, electricity generation by onshore wind turbines fell by 21 percent compared to the previous year, while offshore turbines fell by 16 percent. Thus, more thermal power plants have generated electricity. The rising fuel costs and also higher CO2-prices of over 50 EUR/tonne thus had a price-increasing effect on electricity prices as well.

The aforementioned effects of low generation from renewable energy and higher consumption led to a significant increase in coal-fired power generation, at least in Germany (source: Fraunhofer ISE). Lignite-fired power plants, which had to calculate with rising CO2 prices but not with rising fuel costs, experienced an increase in electricity generation of almost 38 percent in the first half of 2021 compared to the same period last year. Similarly, by the end of June 2021, generation from coal-fired power plants was 39 percent higher than in the first six months of 2020. However, generation from coal-fired power in the first half of 2021 was still below the levels seen in 2019. Figure 2 presents the percentage changes in net electricity generation from the different generation technologies in the 1st half of 2021 compared to 2020."

https://energypost.eu/germany-2021-coal-generation-is-rising-but-the-switch-to-g...

If there is little or no wind the turbines will still put out little or no power. But the wind always blows somewhere right?

thegreatdivide wrote on Nov 16^th, 2021 at 6:42pm:



So seeing as how not just Australia but the whole Southern Hemispher is a CO2 sink - how low should we go?

thegreatdivide wrote on Nov 16^th, 2021 at 6:42pm:


Not at all. I am all for them to continue to put CO2 in the air.