We're talking about the growth rate of energy usage. California's weather has not changed since 1975 in a way that would reduce per capita energy usage.
I'm not talking about the weather changing. I'm talking about the growth of climate control using electricity in states that aren't California has led to continued energy demands.
Honestly your reply is frustrating because you sound like you don't understand my point. Please re read my comment from before.
Even in your scenario, we wouldn't expect per capita energy usage to increase faster than population growth (as the physicist claimed) because now everybody who wants climate control has it. The whole point is that per capita energy usage isn't growing exponentially in the developed world.
The point I made was regarding electricity usage in california from 1975 until now and how that comparison to the rest of the country isn't valid because it's a bias measure. In 1975 everyone who wanted climate control didn't have it, and that slowly changed to everyone being able to afford year round climate control. That drove huge growth in energy demands in most of the country. In that scenario we would certainly expect per capita energy usage to increase faster than population growth.
Your original claim about California doesn't hold because it's bias.
> In that scenario we would certainly expect per capita energy usage to increase faster than population growth.
But it won't continue to grow now, which is what I showed with California. You have fundamentally misunderstood my example. The physicist claimed exponential per capita energy consumption growth, but California shows that isn't happening.
Honestly your reply is frustrating because you sound like you don't understand my point. Please re read my comment from before.