AMA: Let's Discuss
We've covered a lot of ground recently at THB
A reader suggested that I should occasionally open up a post to all, not just subscribers, to encourage discussion, debate and disagreement. I think it is a very good idea and I am ready to experiment.
Lately there has been a lot going on where science meets politics — to put it mildly — and here is just a sample of what I’ve discussed lately at THB:
Covidgate and the Proximal Origins Cover-Up
Energy policy realities
Misinformation vs integrity in climate science and journalism
My recent Senate Budget Committee testimony
Extreme weather and its impacts, always in the news, my popular series on:
Podcasts, podcasts, podcasts
A conversation on climate with U.S. Representative Dan Crenshaw (R-TX)
I interview President Trump’s science advisor, Dr. Kelvin Droegemeier
I sat down to talk climate with a prominent climate skeptic
Over the next few days, in the comments below I am happy to discuss these issues or anything. There is also a lot to draw on in the THB Series and Archive. Please feel free to ask me anything and if I don’t have the appropriate expertise, the readership here has amazing depth and breadth of expertise as well.
I do ask for your help in moderating the discussion. I will open this post to everyone to comment and I expect that our discussions will be respectful even when disagreeing. Hopefully, it won’t be necessary, but I’ll remove comments that cross the line, no warnings. Let’s have some good conversations.
It is an experiment! Let’s see how it goes. If it goes well, I’ll make it a regular feature.
I certainly agree that any "net zero" fantasy without nuclear is just that - fantasy, and that the benefits of nuclear are being studiously ignored. Woe be to any true believer who utters the fatal phrase "what about nuclear?
BUT, all this still carries the assumption that "net zero" or anything like it is a GOOD thing, and I have YET, despite Roger's protestations, to hear a single concrete argument that the presumed benefits (and they are ALL presumed - lacking any sort of falsifiable experiments or solid data) outweigh the KNOWN benefits of moderately (or even significantly) higher C02 concentrations.
Actually, I think anyone who isn't already wedded to the "C02 is BAD" religion might well come to the conclusion that a higher C02 concentration might well be limited by the increased biomass generated by commensurately greater plant growth. Imagine a world where the world's great deserts disappear underneath a green carpet, capable of productive agriculture. There are innumerable archeological records that show that many places that are desert today were thriving civilizations in the very recent (in geological terms) past. I suspect (but cannot prove) that the 'desertification' process closely correlates to the recent (again in geological terms) DECREASE in global C02 levels.
So, we have the following 'facts'
- Current global C02 levels are near the minimum required for plant survival; if C02 levels decrease significantly from here, most plant life on earth will go extinct. Now THAT would be a catastrophe!
- global C02 levels have been MUCH higher in the geological past, and the earth didn't shrivel up and die - in contrast, the high C02 periods were marked by rapid biological development. You might say that Mother Nature has already performed the "high greenhouse gas" experiment, and rather than "an existential disaster", it was quite the opposite.
- there has been significant 'greening' of previously arid lands due to the slight C02 concentration rise that has the global elite up in arms. This 'greening' is a very well understood consequence of plant biology - more C02 means plants lose less water while acquiring sufficient C02 to continue growth; a 10% higher C02 concentration means 10% less water loss, or conversely, plants can thrive in areas where they couldn't before.
So, why all the bluster about 'decarbonization'? (looking at you Roger). I personally think it is because a)C02 is a invisible gas b)Is difficult or impossible to measure except by "experts", and c) can be used to frighten citizens into "taking action" at huge cost to themselves and the planet, just so the elites can jet around the world.
Covidgate and the Proximal Origins Cover-Up are so egregious that some type of accountability is clearly needed. Certainly for the Principals but for the scientific journals and government bureaucrats that facilitated the travesty as well. I'm not talking about hanging them by their thumbs or canceling them but certainly some type of reckoning is due.
What say you RJPjr?