[natermer]

Sure. If you are willing to torpedo the economy you could accomplish a lot.

At least until people start showing up with pitchforks and torches.

And by 'torpedo the economy' I mean raise energy costs up to the point were all this energy pipe dreams becomes viable.

Of course if people were interested in actually solving the problem then we would be building nuclear power plants left and right and wouldn't have to worry about insanely long transmission lines.

[Dylan16807]

Taking 3 cents per kWh from coal and giving it to wind would not torpedo the economy.

Nuclear power plants are fine too.

[adrianN]

You know what else will torpedo the economy, with nothing we can do about it at all? Catastrophic climate change.

[southern_cross]

> Catastrophic climate change.

Which is probably just not going to happen, for the most part. The people pushing this stuff are generally just lying about it (lies of omission in many cases), and they should be ashamed of themselves. And we as a whole should be treating them quite harshly for it, rather than accommodating them.

By way of example, lately they've been talking a lot about how melting permafrost will release lots of CO2 and methane (greenhouse gases), as biological activity kicks in which causes old organic matter to break down. But what they fail to mention (and this is an intentional omission on their part, in my opinion) is that pretty much as soon as that starts happening, other biological activity will kick in which mitigates those emissions, since a lot of things use that stuff for food. So while some extra CO2 and methane might very well be emitted, this will be far more limited in scope than they let on. It's just scare tactics, mostly.

[adrianN]

That's just wishful thinking on your part. All the experts disagree with you. Do you really think there is a vast conspiracy going on? With what goal?

[southern_cross]

No, I think most of the folks spewing this stuff are mostly just functionally incompetent, a position which you might agree with yourself if you'd actually read any of their research and understood the "data" which they try to use to justify it. (Don't get me started!)

But some of them are also clearly dishonest, too, IMO. Michael Mann, for example, who is generally considered an esteemed climate scientist, got caught some years back attempting to commit perjury by claiming in court documents that he was a Nobel Peace Prize winner, which he clearly was not. (The situation with him - and a few others who made similar claims - got so bad that the Nobel folks eventually had to step in and put a stop to it.) And those who looked closely at the tree-ring data which he used to help build his famous "hockey stick" temperature chart found a lot of problems with that data and how he used it, but I don't remember all of the details. I do remember it being stated that tree ring growth responds primarily to changes in precipitation, though, rather than temperature.

I recently read a paper where two of the authors (out of several) are considered to be among the most esteemed climate scientists in the world. And I just shook my head at how bad that paper was, the ridiculous claims that it made, and at how seriously it was being taken, at least at first. One of those esteemed authors has of late taken to making such outrageous claims that even his own acolytes don't really want to talk about it much, so I was a bit surprised to even see his name on that paper to begin with.

Of course, in the press the paper was being hailed as breakthrough research at the time. But I noticed that it kind of fell off the radar pretty quickly, so I guess a lot of other folks had quietly come to the same conclusion as to how bad it was. I have to see any public acknowledgement of that, though.

BTW, I read somewhere that there are something like 200x as many climate papers being published today as there were a generation or so ago. So if there is a research bandwagon that someone might want to jump on in order to get funding and get their papers published, that's probably a good one to go for. But it turns out that an awful lot of so-called "climate experts" publishing such papers actually have little to no formal training in matters of climate, which I find very telling. Some of them have little to no STEM training at all, in fact.

[adrianN]

These are exactly the same arguments that creationists offer against evolution. I find it extremely unlikely that the entire climate science community is less competent in climate science than you. If it were that easy to refute, don't you think that the billions of dollars that the fossil fuel industry spends on lobbying would be more effectively used for publishing refutations?

[southern_cross]

> These are exactly the same arguments that creationists offer against evolution.

That's a rather bizarre association to make! I suggest that you refrain from making any further comments on the matter until you've done a little digging for yourself - looked at the backgrounds of the so-called "experts"; read some of the history of the matter, going back decades to centuries; and read some of the papers and critiques of those papers - instead of just depending on whatever the headlines tell you.