I can't speak for Dr. Pielke, but I have asked similar questions. Have you read Judith Curry's "Climate Uncertainty and Risk." In one of her blogs (I think) she said the "urgency is the stupidest part of the whole thing – that we need to act now with all these made-up targets. The transition risk is far greater than any conceivable clima…
I can't speak for Dr. Pielke, but I have asked similar questions. Have you read Judith Curry's "Climate Uncertainty and Risk." In one of her blogs (I think) she said the "urgency is the stupidest part of the whole thing – that we need to act now with all these made-up targets. The transition risk is far greater than any conceivable climate or weather risk."
I also share your concerns about the expense and behavioral modifications necessary for energy transition. That said, I believe it not only should happen, but will happen. It is a natural progression of our civilization. Fossil fuels will eventually dwindle to a smaller part of our energy mix, but only after we recognize the importance of reliability and affordability, and after we have the technologies to assure that moving from fossil fuels will not diminish those goals.
Hope this helps. Always ask questions; it is the only way to learn.
Thanks for the link to the Friedman post. (The link doesn't state the original title, which is "Externalities: Climate and Population") . Hadn't been aware of it.
One of the best short - form introductions I've run across for politicians (who won't read it) or for climate-anxious adolescents (who might).
When he compares the IPCC projections to the difference between Minnesota and Iowa, it does put things in perspective.
Thank you for your response. Yes I also have Dr Curry's book, but I was unaware of David Friedman's substack. Progress in any civilization is inevitable, but I see the current push toward the utterly inadequate state of renewables as far more potentially catastrophic than the slow increase of CO2, which may or may not result in temperatures we cannot handle, mitigate or adapt to. Fossil fuels still are the best energy choice for now, and nuclear would be vastly preferable if only the uneducated anti-nuclear forces could be ignored and preferably just disappear.
I can't speak for Dr. Pielke, but I have asked similar questions. Have you read Judith Curry's "Climate Uncertainty and Risk." In one of her blogs (I think) she said the "urgency is the stupidest part of the whole thing – that we need to act now with all these made-up targets. The transition risk is far greater than any conceivable climate or weather risk."
I would also suggest David Friedman's Jan 23rd post, "https://daviddfriedman.substack.com/p/my-first-post-done-again" which offers a slightly different take on your questions.
I also share your concerns about the expense and behavioral modifications necessary for energy transition. That said, I believe it not only should happen, but will happen. It is a natural progression of our civilization. Fossil fuels will eventually dwindle to a smaller part of our energy mix, but only after we recognize the importance of reliability and affordability, and after we have the technologies to assure that moving from fossil fuels will not diminish those goals.
Hope this helps. Always ask questions; it is the only way to learn.
Thanks for the link to the Friedman post. (The link doesn't state the original title, which is "Externalities: Climate and Population") . Hadn't been aware of it.
One of the best short - form introductions I've run across for politicians (who won't read it) or for climate-anxious adolescents (who might).
When he compares the IPCC projections to the difference between Minnesota and Iowa, it does put things in perspective.
You're welcome
Thank you for your response. Yes I also have Dr Curry's book, but I was unaware of David Friedman's substack. Progress in any civilization is inevitable, but I see the current push toward the utterly inadequate state of renewables as far more potentially catastrophic than the slow increase of CO2, which may or may not result in temperatures we cannot handle, mitigate or adapt to. Fossil fuels still are the best energy choice for now, and nuclear would be vastly preferable if only the uneducated anti-nuclear forces could be ignored and preferably just disappear.
I completely agree