
Germany’s Failed Climate Goals a Wake-Up Call for Governments Everywhere - ericdanielski
https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2018-germany-emissions/
======
tonysdg
Honestly, is there actually any chance of there _not_ being an environmental
disaster by the end of the 21st century? I'm not saying we shouldn't keep
trying, but the political willpower just doesn't exist. Significant portions
of the worlds' population either:

\- Depend on CO2-emitting technologies for their daily sustenance and/or
existence

\- Flat-out deny that humanity is exacerbating climate change

\- Are completely apathetic to the issue since it doesn't affect their lives
(at this time)

IMHO, there's an argument to be made that researchers are better off coming up
with "band-aids" that can be applied in 50-60 years when first-world countries
finally run out of ways to ignore the problem (i.e., when Wall Street floods,
French vineyards stop producing, Saudi oil wells spontaneously combust, and
sunbathing for more than 5 minutes, even with SPF 50 applied, results in 2nd
degree burns).

~~~
anovikov
Don't depend on political willpower. If it happens it will happen because
traditional carbon-intensive energy sources will become unprofitable because
of renewables getting cheaper.

And when any of that nasty stuff happens, first-world countries will be a drop
in the bucket in the world's energy consumption structure and whatever they do
or not do, will no longer matter. Basically this is why climate change efforts
don't work so much now: OK you can implement these unprofitable measures, it
will only result in your industry reducing due to incompetitiveness and third
world countries displacing it - using whole lot less efficient, dirty, carbon-
intensive technologies - making things worse.

So, just wait for renewables to actually become cheaper with no subsidies and
drive carbon-based energy out of business. Which is likely to happen,
especially as the main missing link - batteries - are making huge progress in
cost in the recent couple years, finally. World energy landscape will look
totally different if they get 3x cheaper than now, and that is more than
likely. If it doesn't ever happens there is nothing we can do and we'll just
have to learn to live with the climate damaged to whatever point it happens.

------
mikevp
Germany's shutting down all its nuclear power in favor of "sunny days when the
wind is blowing" energy. And people are surprised that this doesn't work out
so well?

"I am not so much pro-nuclear as I am pro-arithmetic." \-- Stuart Brand.

------
delbel
“The human fingerprint on rising temperatures was clear in the heatwave this
year,” said Michael Mann, a professor of atmospheric science at Penn State
University.

the famous "hockey stick" actor was exposed using temperature adjustment code
with a comment called "fudge factor" to "hide the decline" that we found out
from climategate leak

In two other programs, briffa_Sep98_d.pro and briffa_Sep98_e.pro, the
"correction" is bolder by far. The programmer (Keith Briffa?) entitled the
"adjustment" routine “Apply a VERY ARTIFICAL correction for decline!!” And he
or she wasn't kidding. Now IDL is not a native language of mine, but its
syntax is similar enough to others I'm familiar with, so please bear with me
while I get a tad techie on you.

Here's the "fudge factor" (notice the brash SOB actually called it that in his
REM statement): yrloc=[1400,findgen(19) _5.+1904]

valadj=[0.,0.,0.,0.,0.,-0.1,-0.25,-0.3,0.,-0.1,0.3,0.8,1.2,1.7,2.5,2.6,2.6,2.6,2.6,2.6]_0.75
; fudge factor

[https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2009/11/crus_source...](https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2009/11/crus_source_code_climategate_r.html)

~~~
tonysdg
Not to be rude, but the science appears to be against you here. Wikipedia
covers the "hockey stick controversy"[1] in rather meticulous detail, with the
end of the introduction noting:

> More than two dozen reconstructions, using various statistical methods and
> combinations of proxy records, have supported the broad consensus shown in
> the original 1998 hockey-stick graph, with variations in how flat the
> pre-20th century "shaft" appears.[12][13] The 2007 IPCC Fourth Assessment
> Report cited 14 reconstructions, 10 of which covered 1,000 years or longer,
> to support its strengthened conclusion that it was likely that Northern
> Hemisphere temperatures during the 20th century were the highest in at least
> the past 1,300 years.[14] Over a dozen subsequent reconstructions, including
> Mann et al. 2008 and PAGES 2k Consortium 2013, have supported these general
> conclusions.

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hockey_stick_controversy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hockey_stick_controversy)

~~~
delbel
Hi thank you, I don't think your comment was rude in fact it was one of the
nicest interactions of my day I do, however disagree. The source you gave me,
specifically ... "Over a dozen subsequent reconstructions, including Mann et
al. 2008 and PAGES 2k Consortium 2013, have supported these general
conclusions." subsequentally refers to the same exact persons ("Mann et all")
data that I am referring to, -- so to speak, we have come full circle: my
source shows a flaw, your argument refers to the flawed data, as true. Do you
see this? I am pointing to data showing Manning doctored the data, and you are
giving me the same doctored data as proof. I would be honored if you
understand my point here. Also I encourage you to read the link [1] and find
any flaws. I encourage you to engage critical thinking and play a "contrarian"
view on the subject matter. You might be extremely surprised to what you find.

1\.
[https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2009/11/crus_source...](https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2009/11/crus_source_code_climategate_r.html)

