[wildmusings]

>Ah, yes, Trump's crazy theory that global warming was invented by the Chinese to cripple the US economy.

I'd really rather that you didn't put words in my mouth. And the actual risk and necessary responses to climate change are completely orthogonal to the point I was making.

Here's a more critical analysis of China's supposed "green leap forward": https://www.wsj.com/articles/a-green-leap-forward-in-china-w...

[woodandsteel]

>I'd really rather that you didn't put words in my mouth.

But you said: "Of course they want to tie the hands of their major economic competitors." How is that any different than Trump's crackpot theory that global climate change was invented by the Chinese to cripple the US economy? And you don't reject the idea climate change is a hoax, you try to duck the issue by saying it is orthogonal.

In an case, the question today is not why China signed the treaty back then, but it is doing now. As I explained, it is charging ahead with renewables. They are doing this because they are worried about global climate change doing damage to their own country, because coal is causing terrible air pollution problems, and because they see an opportunity to establish a major global industry. Your idea that they are doing it only to divert attention from their human rights abuses is completely cracked.

Oh, and if you are going to post a link supporting your position, it really ought to be one that is not hidden behind a paywall.

[wildmusings]

The fact that the Paris Accord demands deep emissions cuts of Western nations but not of China, and therefore economically benefits China at the expense of the West, has nothing to do with whether anthropogenic climate change is real.

[woodandsteel]

Yes it does.

Look, there are two stories here.

The conventional story starts with climate scientists discovering that human action is causing the climate getting much warmer, and this being very bad for humans. This in turn leads to a need to switch off of fossil fuels and onto renewable energy, which would after a while be cheaper than conventional energy and so cause no economic harm. The conventional story continues that nations around the world were persuaded, and so they have set on this path, and as part of this signed the Paris Treaty. China is included as believing climate change is real and supporting moving to renewables, and since the Paris Treaty was signed has done this at a very rapid rate. It is also doing this, as I said, because it has very serious air pollution problems, and also wants to make a lot of money selling technology for renewable energy.

Trump and his millions of supporters tell a completely different story. They claim the scientists did not discover human activity is making the world warmer, but this is instead a lie they made up for illegitimate reasons. They claim that renewable energy is vastly more expensive than conventional, and will continue to be so for a very long time. They claim that the Chinese government knows all this, but is pretending to believe it so as to undermine the US economy by driving up its energy costs. And they claim that China is itself making only minor efforts to convert over to renewables, and is basically charging ahead as fast as ever to increase fossil fuel use.

Now everything you have said fits into the Trump crackpot story, and so I am assuming you believe the whole thing. You claim I am wrong, but you never present anything contrary. My best guess is this is because you really do agree with Trump, but don't want to admit it. Or maybe you are just plain confused.

If you really do think differently from Trump, then you need to lay out your whole story of what is really going on, from the beginning.

And be sure to make clear what you think Trump is right or wrong about (you do care, I assume, about whether the most powerful man in the world is right or wrong on this most important issue).

[wildmusings]

I think it's really unfortunate that you're more interested in a witch hunt than in actually engaging in the points raised in the discussion. I don't play on those terms. I see no need to prove to you or anyone else that I pass some litmus test that the direct point I was making is not contingent on.

Explanations of reality are not neatly divided into two camps. One can believe that anthropogenic climate change is a major issue worth addressing with vigor, and also believe that the most recent attempts to reach an international accord to that end are terrible for the long term economic and political interests of the West.

[woodandsteel]

I am not engaged in a witch hunt. I am just asking you what you think on some very important matters.

I assumed that you believe the Trump position because it is one of the two main ones, and everything you said fit with it. If you agree with the Trump position on some points, but disagree on others, you should have made that clear.

You know, you have a whole set of views on this matter. I am quite puzzled as to why you don't want to lay them all out, like everyone else does.

>One can believe that anthropogenic climate change is a major issue worth addressing with vigor, and also believe that the most recent attempts to reach an international accord to that end are terrible for the long term economic and political interests of the West.

Ok, you are starting to state what you believe, but it is quite incomplete. To start, when you say, "worth addressing with vigor" do you think that means the world should be working now to rapidly switch off of fossil fuels and onto renewables? Or do you believe this is a terrible idea because you think renewable energy is far too expensive and will be for a long time, or for some other reason?

And if you believe that we should not now be rapidly moving off of fossil fuels and onto renewables, then what specific actions should be involved in addressing climate change with vigor?