Skepticism about Climate Change

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

The Earth doesn't care about per capita only about the total CO2.    Per capita is just an excuse to blame America.

It's not to blame America, but it's a bloody disgrace to America. People should stop buying American products if they weren't so affordable (because they are made in China, and other places)...

Thank goodness China is moving ahead faster with renewable energy than the USA, so maybe it's a good thing the jobs stay there...

Cheers,
Bart

[Alan Klein]

It's not to blame America, but it's a bloody disgrace to America. People should stop buying American products if they weren't so affordable (because they are made in China, and other places)...

Thank goodness China is moving ahead faster with renewable energy than the USA, so maybe it's a good thing the jobs stay there...

Cheers,
Bart

Well, since you always prefer to look at per capita, let's examine the charts you provided.  Using, 1,400,000,000, 330,000,000 and 81,000,000 population for China, USA and Germany respectively, the per capita results are as follows:

Newly installed Jan-Dec, 2015
China 21.9 per capita
USA 26.0 per capita
Germany 74.0 per capita

Cumulative through Dec, 2015
China 104 per capita
USA 225 per capita
Germany 555 per capita

So the result in both cumulative and one-year created clean energy in 2015 is greater in the USA than China.  So much for your complaints about the USA sitting on our butts. 

What's interesting is that Germany has the best per capita in both categories.

[LesPalenik]

Well, since you always prefer to look at per capita, let's examine the charts you provided.  Using, 1,400,000,000, 330,000,000 and 81,000,000 population for China, USA and Germany respectively, the per capita results are as follows:

Newly installed Jan-Dec, 2015
China 21.9 per capita
USA 26.0 per capita
Germany 74.0 per capita

Cumulative through Dec, 2015
China 104 per capita
USA 225 per capita
Germany 555 per capita

So the result in both cumulative and one-year created clean energy in 2015 is greater in the USA than China.  So much for your complaints about the USA sitting on our butts. 

What's interesting is that Germany has the best per capita in both categories.

Let's hope they didn't use the same measurement methods as in their diesel emission tests.

[Alan Klein]

Good point.   😀

[Alan Klein]

Actually Les you have raised an interesting point about German auto diesel figures.   How does anyone know really what countries do with clean energy?  Who supplies the figures?  Does anyone really trust the Chinese communists to provide true numbers? You can issue all kinds of regulations.   But if the government doesn't enforce it,  it's all BS.  While the USA would,  does anyone believe the Chinese would provide accurate numbers? 

[LesPalenik]

Another good point.

[Alan Klein]

Actually Les you have raised an interesting point about German auto diesel figures.   How does anyone know really what countries do with clean energy?  Who supplies the figures?  Does anyone really trust the Chinese communists to provide true numbers? You can issue all kinds of regulations.   But if the government doesn't enforce it,  it's all BS.  While the USA would,  does anyone believe the Chinese would provide accurate numbers? 

So I decided to check into enforcement.  It didn't take long to find out its a joke as is the implementation of the Paris Agreement.

...most developed and emerging economies have systematically resisted international enforcement mechanisms. China (the world’s biggest emissions producer), Russia, the U.S., Canada, India, Japan, Australia, and major energy exporters, resisted the toughest climate change countermeasures over the years, including international monitoring and sanctions. Some in these countries have bemoaned the loss of sovereignty from transparency and enforceable international climate deals...

...The countries most responsible for lagging in their pledges and policies since the Paris Agreement include Russia, Canada, Japan, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates. The U.S., China, India, Brazil, and E.U. countries also lag in their pledges and policies to achieve a climate-neutral future. Those countries that most opposed enforcement, unsurprisingly, also lag in their policy measures to achieve the Paris goals..."

https://www.forbes.com/sites/anderscorr/2016/12/01/expect-climate-catastrophe-paris-agreement-lacks-enforcement/#68f384473313

It's all a joke.  All the major players are cheating or going to cheat.  That's why America has to pull out.  Because we won't cheat and will become the patsy again.  It sounds like NATO's 2% deal that no one actually meets.

[pegelli]

The Earth doesn't care about per capita only about the total CO2.    Per capita is just an excuse to blame America. 

Nonsense Alan, of course it's per person, otherwise all small countries would be off the hook. Why do you as an American citizen claim the right to have double the emissions of a person in China and almost 10 times more then someone in India and still demand them to reduce more and do little yourself. You don't have "historical rights" based on the enormous emissions of the past, to the contrary, your enormous emissions of the past should drive you to do lots more reductions then what the US is showing today. So the per capita numbers are not an excuse to blame America, no need top play victim when you are the biggest emitter of warming gases and are called out on this behaviour.

[Ray]

Debunked drivel from Global warming deniers. The Medieval Warm Period was NOT A GLOBAL event, but was restricted to certain locations in the Northern Hemisphere. Also, the causes for that more local medieval event are reasonably well understood and it is not what is causing the current warming. The current GLOBAL warming is a direct result of human activity which produces more greenhouse gasses than the ecosystem can remove in a short timespan, thus anthropogenic climate change is the result.

How does the Medieval Warm Period compare to current global temperatures?
https://www.skepticalscience.com/medieval-warm-period-intermediate.htm

Bart,
The very name of the above-mentioned site is deceptive. Skepticism is a fundamental trait and requirement of the scientific process. Without it there would be no progress. Yet, under the title of this site, it is explained that the site is skeptical about skepticism (as it applies to global warming).
In other words, to the discerning viewer who has some understanding of the scientific process, this site, skepticalscience.com, is sending a clear message that it is not about the scientific 'holy grail' of finding the truth, by considering all options, all opinions, all views and all research, but is biased towards a scientifically unjustified degree of certainty about the negative influences of CO2 emissions on climate change.

Let's consider the subject of this thread from skepticalscience.com you've linked to, specifically the part I've highlighted in bold.

"Climate Myth...
Medieval Warm Period was warmer
The Medieval Warm Period was warmer than current conditions. This means recent warming is not unusual and hence must be natural, not man-made"

Can you see the deception here, Bart? I'm not a climate change denier. Climate is always changing. I'm merely skeptical about the dangers of current CO2 rises, and skeptical about the alarm that any warming of the climate will be bad for humanity as a whole.

A skeptic would not claim, "recent warming is not unusual and hence must be natural, not man-made"
Those are the sorts of statements of certainty that tend come from the biased alarmists. The true skeptic, such as myself, says, "recent warming is not unusual and hence is possibly mostly natural, with some slight influence from human emissions of CO2."

Do you see the difference, Bart? Can you not recognise this description of the so-called Climate Myth, for discussion, as a type of 'straw man argument' that is a misrepresentation of the opponent's view in order to more easily debunk it?

I see this type of tactic used regularly by the alarmists. The commonly-used term 'denier' is itself a type of 'straw man', whereby a genuine, natural and scientific attitude of skepticism is misrepresented as complete denial in the category of holocaust denial.

Do you really think that the relatively new science of climatology, with its multitude of different disciplines, struggling to accurately quantify past temperatures based upon proxies such as ice cores, tree rings, fossil pollen, ocean sediments, corals, and so on, is totally reliable and unquestionable?

To give you an idea of the complexity and uncertainty involved in merely assessing past CO2 levels from air bubbles trapped in ice cores, read the following research article.
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Reference_Docs/CO2_diffusion_in_polar_ice_2008.pdf

"The integrity of an ice core as a reliable archive depends on the incorporation followed by the preservation of the original atmospheric signal. It is well known that atmospheric records are smoothed, due to diffusion in the firn column and gradual air trapping in the bubble close-off zone
(e.g. Schwander and others, 1988; Trudinger and others, 2002; Spahni and others, 2003).

However, CO2 diffusion in ice after the air is trapped in bubbles is poorly understood, because the diffusion coefficient is too small to be precisely measured in the laboratory (Hondoh, 1996).

This uncertainty also limits our understanding of rapid CO2 changes in the atmosphere.
Recent results from a molecular dynamics simulation (Ikeda-Fukazawa and others, 2004) show that CO2 molecules can diffuse orders of magnitude faster in ice than indicated by previous estimates that were based on an interstitial mechanism (Ikeda and others, 2000)."

When a counter argument is presented on any issue, the scientific process is to examine the accuracy of the data and the logic and rationality of the interpretations of the data. Everything has to be interpreted before any conclusions can be drawn.

If a skeptic were to present the argument, as I have done, that CO2 is essential for all life, that increases in CO2 since the beginning of the industrial revolution have greened the planet and increased crop production, and that it is not convincing to suggest that a very small quantitative increase in CO2 levels (from 0.028% to 0.04% or even 0.06% in the future) will have disastrous effects on our climate, then I will deeply consider the merits of the counter arguments.

That's what my skepticism is based upon; the quality of the arguments presented by the apposing camps. If the alarmists counter such arguments with statements, as you have made, and posters on skepticalscience.com have made, that a doubling or tripling of strychnine or arsenic, can result in death, therefore a doubling or tripling of CO2 levels could also be disastrous, then my intelligence, nous and general understanding rings very loud warning signals.
Do such people really not understand the difference between a poison and a substance which is essential for all life?

It's really simple. Progressive insight (based on better instrumentation, and calibration between different observations, and more peer reviewed research on past events) shows that the 'hockey stick' is an actual GLOBAL observation. See at the bottom of the following page:
How is Today’s Warming Different from the Past?
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/GlobalWarming/page3.php
Bottom of the page shows an updated 'hockey stick'.

I see! Now I understand the reasons for your alarmist belief! You think climate science is simple! Wow! 

A few years ago, biologists thought they'd cracked the human genome by unravelling just 2% of our DNA which is protein-encoding. The other 98% which doesn't have the role of encoding protein was considered to be junk, a left-over from our evolutionary heritage. However, it is now thought that such non-protein-encoding DNA serves a vital role. We have a lot more work to do before we understand the human genome.

Also, just a few years ago, with the development of the Hubble telescope, puzzling observations of the behaviour of distant galaxies indicated that the expansion of the universe is accelerating, contrary to the existing theory that the expansion is slowing down.

The consensus of opinion among physicists and astrophysicists is that a huge proportion of the matter and energy in the universe (about 95%) is currently invisible and undetectable, and that it is this invisible matter exerting a gravitational effect which is the cause of the accelerating expansion of the universe.

There are even hypotheses that past climate-change events might have resulted from the Earth passing through particularly dense areas of Dark Energy, since Dark Matter and Dark Energy are not necessarily evenly distributed throughout the universe, and it would be reasonable to presume there is a continuous flux of such Dark Energy, presuming it exists, which is not certain of course, except for those who believe in the scientific validity of a consensus.

On a more down-to-earth level, consider the uncertainty about the effects of common ingredients on human health, analogous to the effects on climate of slight increases in atmospheric CO2.

It would be impossible to determine if the Earth's climate system is as complex, or even more complex than human biology, but I suggest it is reasonable to suppose that they are similarly complex.

Consider the effects of the humble aspirin which has been around for many decades. There is no certainty among the experts that taking aspirin on a regular basis will be beneficial for health. Some studies show that it reduces the risk of cancer and is good for the heart. Other studies show that it could be dangerous and cause internal bleeding.

Consider the eternal debate about the dangers of saturated fats. A huge industry has been built on the creation of low-fat substitutes for the wholesome products of full-cream milk and butter.
Despite all the research over many decades, the arguments are not conclusive. I personally go for natural products, such as full cream milk, genuine butter, coconut oil, and grass-fed beef. At the age of 75 I have no health problems, take no medication for any condition, and enjoy life. A few years ago, at the age of 71, I climbed to a height of 5,400 metres in Nepal, with no problems, apart from a shortness of breath, which is understandable, considering I was not wearing an oxygen mask.

In short, the effects of so many medications, foods, spices, and artificial supplements on human health is uncertain, because of individual variability and the impracticality of fully controlled experiments involving humans for a significant period of time.

Need I go on, Bart? I'm reluctant to call you naive, because I don't believe in ad hominem attacks, but I can't help getting the impression that your viewpoint on climate change is emotional rather than scientific.

Regarding this longstanding court case initiated by Michael Mann, the latest news is that Mann is in serious trouble because he refuses to reveal his data relating to the 'Hockey Stick' graph to the court.
http://principia-scientific.org/breaking-fatal-courtroom-act-ruins-michael-hockey-stick-mann/

"Penn State climate scientist, Michael ‘hockey stick’ Mann commits contempt of court in the ‘climate science trial of the century.’ Prominent alarmist shockingly defies judge and refuses to surrender data for open court examination. Only possible outcome: Mann’s humiliation, defeat and likely criminal investigation in the U.S".

It'll be interesting to see the outcome. Will the judge be influenced in his decision by climate-change alarmists?

Finally, your assertion that all recent studies confirm the Hockey Stick graph is not credible. There are hundreds of peer-reviewed studies that suggest the MWP was a global phenomenon, although it's perfectly understandable that any global warming or cooling does not take place simultaneously over the entire planet, in all locations at the same time. Why would anyone think that should be the case?

The following site attempts to gather all the available research on the Medieval Warm Period to show that it really was a global phenomenon. However, since the author is employed by the petroleum industry, I expect you will ignore the evidence, on the basis that the scientific process is always directed to the personal qualities of the scientist rather than the soundness of the data. 

"Climate reconstructions of the 'Medieval Warm Period' 900-1200 AD. Legend: MWP was warm (red), cold (blue), dry (yellow), wet (green), no trend or unclear (grey). In case data exists for both temperature and precipitation, the temperature symbol is plotted."

Link to MWP map: http://t1p.de/mwp

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

Well, since you always prefer to look at per capita, let's examine the charts you provided.

Sure, if your method of comparing (by country irrespective of size, economic or inhabitants) works against you, do switch to something that looks better. However, you then also need to allow for the fact that the USA has been building wind-powered generators for a longer time than China which is catching up (and thus needs to provide for its current energy demands with existing coal plants). You can't have it both ways.

Using, 1,400,000,000, 330,000,000 and 81,000,000 population for China, USA and Germany respectively, the per capita results are as follows:

Newly installed Jan-Dec, 2015
China 21.9 per capita
USA 26.0 per capita
Germany 74.0 per capita

Cumulative through Dec, 2015
China 104 per capita
USA 225 per capita
Germany 555 per capita

So the result in both cumulative and one-year created clean energy in 2015 is greater in the USA than China.  So much for your complaints about the USA sitting on our butts.

So you'd have to compliment the Obama administration for that achievement, wouldn't you?

I wonder what this year will turn out to have achieved with an administration that calls Global warming a hoax, and tries to change regulations (e.g. the Clean Power Plan, and by defunding of the EPA) to improve coal prospects. In fact, that is already mentioned in the 2015 GWEC report as a threat to further emission reductions in the USA, the frequent policy changes that affect the behavior of investors in a negative way.

What's interesting is that Germany has the best per capita in both categories.

Well, they do have a clear vision for the future (no Nuclear power, reduction of fossil fuel emissions, and generation of loads of renewable clean energy) and they act accordingly. BTW Germany is much smaller (in size and in number of inhabitants), so their progress is also huge compared to the USA, as the per capita numbers show.

Stability with regards to government energy policy is reflected in the attached chart as more erratic growth due to re-elections that might reverse earlier policies. That's not good for investors who need long-term predictability and stability.

Cheers,
Bart

[Alan Klein]

Nonsense Alan, of course it's per person, otherwise all small countries would be off the hook. Why do you as an American citizen claim the right to have double the emissions of a person in China and almost 10 times more then someone in India and still demand them to reduce more and do little yourself. You don't have "historical rights" based on the enormous emissions of the past, to the contrary, your enormous emissions of the past should drive you to do lots more reductions then what the US is showing today. So the per capita numbers are not an excuse to blame America, no need top play victim when you are the biggest emitter of warming gases and are called out on this behaviour.

Were out of Paris.   Its phony.   You can send your money to China of you want too.  If you're that concerned about global warming,  do the right thing and shut off your air conditioner and sell your automobile.

[LesPalenik]

Were out of Paris.   Its phony.   You can send your money to China of you want too.  If you're that concerned about global warming,  do the right thing and shut off your air conditioner and sell your automobile.

Alan, you have to get occassionaly out of New Jersey (at least in your mind).
In Netherlands, there are very few homes equipped with air conditioners, and most people don't travel by car, but on a bicycle.

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

A skeptic would not claim, "recent warming is not unusual and hence must be natural, not man-made"
Those are the sorts of statements of certainty that tend come from the biased alarmists. The true skeptic, such as myself, says, "recent warming is not unusual and hence is possibly mostly natural, with some slight influence from human emissions of CO2."

"possibly mostly natural, with some slight influence from human emissions of CO2"

That's not scepticism, it is denial. Some slight influence, you've got to be kidding (yourself).

I see this type of tactic used regularly by the alarmists. The commonly-used term 'denier' is itself a type of 'straw man', whereby a genuine, natural and scientific attitude of skepticism is misrepresented as complete denial in the category of holocaust denial.

By denying the blindingly obvious you do not become a skeptic, you become a denier instead.

Do you really think that the relatively new science of climatology, with its multitude of different disciplines, struggling to accurately quantify past temperatures based upon proxies such as ice cores, tree rings, fossil pollen, ocean sediments, corals, and so on, is totally reliable and unquestionable?

To give you an idea of the complexity and uncertainty involved in merely assessing past CO2 levels from air bubbles trapped in ice cores, read the following research article.
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Reference_Docs/CO2_diffusion_in_polar_ice_2008.pdf

This is not news, it has been known for years that meltwater contamination affects the accuracy. The report from 2008 is obviously also dated because science has not stood still in the 9 years since then. Besides, one typically uses additional sources of information that show good correlation with CO2 in atmosphere, in order to validate the ice-core data.

When a counter argument is presented on any issue, the scientific process is to examine the accuracy of the data and the logic and rationality of the interpretations of the data. Everything has to be interpreted before any conclusions can be drawn.

Not really, the conclusion is part of the hypothesis that's tested. Whether it will stand after further peer review is open unless it's ultimately uncontested. When I drop a fresh egg, I'm pretty sure that the hypothesis that it will break on impact with a hard surface, in almost all cases. I do not need to wait for someone to prove that hypothesis wrong because, 1. it would take a very long time to disprove and 2. It is wise to not drop eggs in the mean time assuming it might be fine.

If a skeptic were to present the argument, as I have done, that CO2 is essential for all life, that increases in CO2 since the beginning of the industrial revolution have greened the planet and increased crop production, and that it is not convincing to suggest that a very small quantitative increase in CO2 levels (from 0.028% to 0.04% or even 0.06% in the future) will have disastrous effects on our climate, then I will deeply consider the merits of the counter arguments.

Strawman arguments and Red herrings are not befitting of a real skeptic, and very fitting for a denier. Nobody claims that there are no possitive acpects to CO2 (otherwise it would be much colder on average, in fact the CO2 feedback loop is what ends Ice ages). And the small percentage doesn't mean its effect aren't significant, on the contrary. The small percentage increase has caused an unprecedented rapid increase in global temperatures, despite that we're in an interglacial period and slowely cooling (if it weren't for CO2).

I'm reluctant to call you naive, because I don't believe in ad hominem attacks, but I can't help getting the impression that your viewpoint on climate change is emotional rather than scientific.

I really couldn't care less what your impressions are.

Finally, your assertion that all recent studies confirm the Hockey Stick graph is not credible.

There will obviously be some who try to disprove the consensus. Untill they are successful, and I'm not holding my breath, I'll go with the consensus amongst scolars in the field of investigation (a small number of whom are known crackpots, according to their colleagues).

There are hundreds of peer-reviewed studies that suggest the MWP was a global phenomenon, although it's perfectly understandable that any global warming or cooling does not take place simultaneously over the entire planet, in all locations at the same time. Why would anyone think that should be the case?

So by definition it was not a global event, while the current Global warming is Global (and from different causes).

Cheers,
Bart

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

Alan, you have to get occassionaly out of New Jersey (at least in your mind).
In Netherlands, there are very few homes equipped with air conditioners, and most people don't travel by car, but on a bicycle.

There are indeed relatively few air conditioners in the Netherlands, especially in private homes. Not that there are none. After all, temperatures are rising and heat-related mortality is rising as well.

We already had our first Tropical temperature period (defined by meteorologists as days with 30+ Celsius temperatures) this year at the end of spring, despite being roughly at the same latitude as the Canada/USA border. I had painters over doing the outdoor woodwork, and they were working in 43-47 degree Celsius temperatures (110+ F), so they had to start working at 6 in the morning and quit at noon.

But we're adjusting by gradually building differently than before. The principles are known are the Trias Energetica in the builders world.
Step 1 is to improve isolation and ventilation. This will save energy needed for heating in the winter and cooling in the summer.
Step 2 is to use renewable energy wherever possible/economical. This includes weaning from natural gas as a heating source, e.g. by using heat exchange pumps if possible or using waste heat from industrial processes, or Geothermal heat. It also includes power generation from Wind and Solar and Geothermal used for auilliary cooling if still necessary after step 1.
Step 3 is only after first exhausting the steps 1 and 2, and involves the use of less clean power sources, but then still the better ones rather than fossil fuelled ones. The aim in my municipality is to all be energy neutral (use no more energy than we generate ourselves) by 2030.

As for bikes, we are in the specific/lucky circumstance that our country is rather flat, so bicycles are an easy way to bridge moderate distances is a short time. Now with an exploding number of Pedelecs (electric bikes that only support muscle-power), larger distances can be covered with higher speed in the same amount of time with more ease (even on hilly terrain). Most are purposely limited in speed, although the number of Speed-Pedelecs is growing, so we need to make adjustments in our infrastructure and road/traffic laws (to physically separate different speed flows). One learns as one goes, and we get lots of foreign visitors (including Chinese who are no strangers to bikes either) to learn from the latest developments.

Cheers,
Bart

[Jim Pascoe]

The Earth doesn't care about per capita only about the total CO2.    Per capita is just an excuse to blame America.  Each country has to deal with total CO2.  The fact is China is at 31% (up from 27% in 2011) and America is 14% down from 17%.  So you're going to allow China's increasing pollution trend to continue for 12 years to 2030 before they even have to start cutting back.    By that time their total will be 40% and America will be down to maybe 10-11%.  China is increasing their automobiles by millions and millions every year adding to the CO2.  And yes, their per capita is going to jump by leaps and bounds as well.

Pieter, it's about the money.  This Ponzi scheme makes Bernie Madoff look like a piker.

It's a pity because Alan sounds like a bright sort of guy and has some very valid observations, some of which I agree with.  However I cannot see the majority in this thread agreeing with his reasons for the USA pulling out of the Paris agreement.  Sometimes one has to take the broader view and not just think of short-term self-interest.  Alan - if we don't help the rest of the world to catch up to our western living standards - they will try anyway.  If we allow unrestricted use of non-renewable energy for ourselves - China and India may just give up any attempt to limit their own use and the whole world will suffer.  Those of us with the highest living standards will have the furthest to fall.  A big proportion of the world cannot sink much lower anyway.  Self-interest is the reason most countries signed up to the agreement - because global warming threatens to end our way of life.  You have utter faith in the market - personally I think governments have to pull together to try to offset further damage.  I know you will not change your mind - and without another ten years of evidence neither will I.

Jim

[Alan Klein]

Alan, you have to get occassionaly out of New Jersey (at least in your mind).
In Netherlands, there are very few homes equipped with air conditioners, and most people don't travel by car, but on a bicycle.

You know, most of the world admired America's high standard of living since WWII.  They've been trying to catch up for decades.  But there seems to be a love-hate affair going.  Emulation vs. jealousy.  I understand that.  If the Dutch don't want A/C's and cars, well that's OK.  But that doesn't work in the US, even if we wanted it. 

America is huge.  You can't get around easily without personal transportation.  Not every lives in a big city and can use public transportation.  The south is HOT,  It wouldn't have developed as much as it did without AC's.  Florida would still be empty.  Even with AC's, many people who live there during the winter, flee back to the north where the weather is cooler. (They're called "snowbirds".)  The summer heat is oppressive.

Meanwhile the Chinese are moving full steam ahead buying cars by the millions with no regulation to begin for them until 2030.  And the argument is America, Europe, Australia, and the rest of the world should go backwards and give up the standard of living we and you all worked for so the Communists can catch up and pollute as much as we do.  Is that the Plan?

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

Meanwhile the Chinese are moving full steam ahead buying cars by the millions with no regulation to begin for them until 2030.

Source?

Cheers,
Bart

[LesPalenik]

You know, most of the world admired America's high standard of living since WWII.  They've been trying to catch up for decades.  But there seems to be a love-hate affair going.  Emulation vs. jealousy.  I understand that.  If the Dutch don't want A/C's and cars, well that's OK.  But that doesn't work in the US, even if we wanted it. 

America is huge.  You can't get around easily without personal transportation.  Not every lives in a big city and can use public transportation.  The south is HOT,  It wouldn't have developed as much as it did without AC's.  Florida would still be empty.  Even with AC's, many people who live there during the winter, flee back to the north where the weather is cooler. (They're called "snowbirds".)  The summer heat is oppressive.

Meanwhile the Chinese are moving full steam ahead buying cars by the millions with no regulation to begin for them until 2030.  And the argument is America, Europe, Australia, and the rest of the world should go backwards and give up the standard of living we and you all worked for so the Communists can catch up and pollute as much as we do.  Is that the Plan?

It's not so much emulation vs jealousy as simply that before A/C's in western and central Europe were not needed. Although some folks are even now skeptical about the climate change, as Bart writes, the weather patterns have indeed changed and the summers there are now hotter than before. 

When it comes to switching from cars to other means of transportation, you might be surprised to learn that nowadays also many cities in the high-standard countries have banned cars in favor of bicycles and pedestrian zones. Both in Europe and North America. Not so much in Florida (with the exception of two small areas in Miami South Beach and St. Augustine), but there are several places in USA, totally free of cars, such as Mackinac Island, Catalina Island, and some downtowns in Denver, New York, and many other cities.  On the other hand, there is a free shuttle bus in the northern part of Miami and also some other US cities. Of course, all these high living standard cities pale in contrast to Tallin in Estonia (population just over 400,000) which offers free rides to all their citizens.

As far as the jealousy, I really get jealous about Ireland, which provides free travel by train to all their citizens over 66. Even to their foreign spouses - catholic or other denominations. That's much better than renting a car there, because as an older foreigner renting a car you'll get hit twice - one surcharge for your age and another one for coming from a country where they drive on the wrong side of the road.

[Ray]

Quote from: Ray

There are hundreds of peer-reviewed studies that suggest the MWP was a global phenomenon, although it's perfectly understandable that any global warming or cooling does not take place simultaneously over the entire planet, in all locations at the same time. Why would anyone think that should be the case?

So by definition it was not a global event, while the current Global warming is Global (and from different causes).

Bart,
Try reading the following article from the governmental NOAA site, which should appeal to you because it's very pro-AGW.
https://www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/does-global-warming-mean-it%E2%80%99s-warming-everywhere

“Global warming means Earth's average annual air temperature is rising, but not necessarily in every single location during all seasons across the globe.

Natural variations in our climate system cause temperatures to vary from region to region and from time to time, leaving sporadic fingerprints in the long-term temperature record.

Some parts of the U.S. Southeast have experienced little net change or even a cooling trend since the early part of the 20th century, as seen in the map below. Other areas have warmed more than the average."

As Confucius said, “Real knowledge is to know the extent of one’s ignorance”.

As William Shakespeare said, “The fool doth think he is wise, but the wise man knows himself to be a fool”.

As Charles Darwin said, “Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge”,

As Bertrand Russell said, “One of the painful things about our time is that those who feel certainty are stupid, and those with any imagination and understanding are filled with doubt and indecision".

I guess I fall into the category of having imagination and understanding, regarding climate change. What category are you in, Bart? 

[Robert Roaldi]

When it comes to switching from cars to other means of transportation, you might be surprised to learn that nowadays also many cities in the high-standard countries have banned cars in favor of bicycles and pedestrian zones. Both in Europe and North America. Not so much in Florida (with the exception of two small areas in Miami South Beach and St. Augustine), but there are several places in USA, totally free of cars, such as Mackinac Island, Catalina Island, and some downtowns in Denver, New York, and many other cities.  On the other hand, there is a free shuttle bus in the northern part of Miami and also some other US cities. Of course, all these high living standard cities pale in contrast to Tallin in Estonia (population just over 400,000) which offers free rides to all their citizens.

There is some blowback against the banning of cars in inner cities in favour of walking or cycling, but that's just because people can't accept change in general. I have often been stuck in automobile traffic that doesn't move, trips that should take 30 minutes taking 2-3 hours. We're reaching the point in many cities of both population and automobile density that we have de facto gridlock. It's not 100% gridlock, but it's close enough. Building more roads is increasingly simply not an option, there is not enough square footage left to build anything. So city after city will have to ban cars in some (or many) areas because they won't have any choice. If they don't, they will not have a functioning city. If we'd had some foresight, we could have designed the infrastructure to accommodate this more easily, but we largely didn't, even though the evidence and the examples (where cities did it right) were there for all to see.

But gasoline is so cheap in North America that it almost guarantees that we plan our transportation badly. We seem to be incapable of long-term planning horizons, and yet that's exactly what's needed.