Paris Climate Conference

Leaning right??!! Dennis Prager is a full-on loon. He writes a column for WND, for heaven’s sake.

As for Richard Lindzen, he’s a serial contrarian (he still disputes cigarette smoking is known to cause lung cancer) who is funded by fossil-fuel interests. It is my understanding that his alternative hypotheses regarding climate change are widely considered discredited.

Dr Curry is a legit scientist, and does not seem to be either a knee-jerk contrarian nor a puppet of the fossil-fuel industry. Still, hers is a lonely voice in the woods. The fact that she and a small handful of other credible scientists are not in full agreement that AGW is a clear and present danger does not detract from the scientific consensus on the subject. (I dare say you would be shocked at some of the settled scientific issues that lack 100% consensus among legit scientists.)

People such as yourself–that is, people who seem drawn to the heterodox opinion re AGW–would do well to ask themselves why this is so. That is, when the scientific community is so obviously and overwhelmingly of one opinion, why do you feel such a strong compulsion to seek out and prop up dissenting opinions? Put another way, why does your credulity run against the consensus scientific opinion? That is, why are you credulous regarding the nakedly partisan agitprop produced by Prager ‘University’ (I have a hard time typing that term, even with the scare quotes), but deeply skeptical of the work done by people at the most prestigious institutions in the world? Shouldn’t your credulity run in the other direction?

Thought experiment. Assume the situation were reversed, ie, that the scientific consensus was that AGW was not credible (let’s say 97% of climate scientists rejected it). Assume further that only partisan organizations like Greenpeace, along with a few crunchy-granola tree-huggers, were promulgating it. Question: Would you be comfortable accepting that scientific consensus? And if you would, why do you suppose that is?

I’m not sure that describes me. I don’t think getting into the rest of your post will get us anywhere, so I won’t.

Did you have issues with what Aragorn wrote in this thread? Do you think he’s wrong? I liked what he wrote, a lot. Including his remarks about the problems with the process in this comment. For some reason I can’t get the quote function to work.

Begin Aragorn -

Meyer’s piece was actually a very good layperson overview of the general fracas. He gets some of the details wrong and there is much more to the story (naturally, as complex issues are almost always that way) but overall very good.

Very few–actually none–of the educated skeptics are “science deniers”. That is a strawman beaten to death, restuffed, then beaten to death again by media and political activists, as well as activist scientists (much like activist judges). And the occasional conspiracy theory loon who is an actual denier. You simply do not become the head of School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences (Judith Curry, formerly), or the MIT School of Earth, Atmospheric, and Planetary Sciences while being a crackpot or subpar scientist (Richard Lindzen, formerly). These scientists are some of the best in the world–although in my opinion Lindzen is a bit too crotchety in his statements these days, which allows his enemies to make total hay out of his public statements. He’s a scientist not a politician, and the people playing political activist are much better at it because they have been doing it so much longer.

As an aside here, think about the term “denier” or “science denier”. Meyer mentions it at the opening of his article. That is not a scientific term. That is a naked appeal to emotion and a tactic right out of “Rules for Radicals”.

Scientists don’t demonize their opponents. Politicians and demogogues do that. Scientists respond on the SCIENCE. The material at hand, and they do it with reason and supported arguments. And the adoption of these political terms by certain of the scientific community in this matter shows us what is happening: the politicization of science into “science activism”, an insidious perversion of scientific inquiry. It’s not just something “big oil” or “big pharma” or “big [insert conspiracy theory here]” does. In fact, most of these companies are far LESS guilty of this than the Greenpeace, save-the-world crowd.

In any case, on a material level this is what it basically breaks down to:

Agreement:

  1. Surface temperatures have increased since 1880
  2. Humans are adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere
  3. Carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases have a warming effect on the planet

Disagreement:

  1. Whether the warming since 1950 has been dominated by human causes

  2. How much the planet will warm in the 21st century

  3. Whether warming is ‘dangerous’
    a) How to globally define ‘dangerous’, which Meyer touched on: northern countries may well like longer growing seasons, have positive changes, etc.

  4. Whether we can afford to radically reduce CO2 emissions, and whether reduction will improve well-being

And scientists disagree because:

  1. Insufficient & inadequate observational evidence
  2. Disagreement about the value of different classes of evidence (e.g. global climate models)
  3. Disagreement about the appropriate logical framework for linking and assessing the evidence
  4. Assessments of areas of ambiguity & ignorance
  5. Belief polarization as a result of politicization of the science

It is worth noting that the last point is the most destructive force there is when trying to move towards a more perfect understanding of the problems and potential problems we face with climate science, measurement, and our changing climate. This polarization started in small nuclei and infected–on a widespread scale–first the laypeople and media, and then looped back to the scientists and academic crowd to complete the epidemic. We are now in a spot where it has metastasized.

It is also worth noting that even if the threat of catastrophic climate change is as bad as the most alarmist state, and the evidence is mounting that it is not, there are HUGE shortfalls in the proposed solutions from not only technological, but also economical, health and ethical standpoints. These shortfalls do not receive the attention they NEED because the debate has become a shouting match over a strawman and the political activists are screaming to “Do something!” without considering if it is even possible or beneficial (sound like any other debate you’ve heard of?).

NOTE: the bulleted lists here are Dr. Judith Curry’s, used in presentation, and used to describe the debate. Although I agree with them I did not come up with the phraseology. If I had done it it would have been more verbose lol.

NOTE 2: one thing Meyer overlooks is the wobbly and questionable nature of much of what is happening in the climate science sphere as a result of the politicization. That is beyond the ken of this post and his article, but you can look back at it (ClimateGate email scandal, FOIA blockages, manipulation of peer review process to stifle dissenting views, shitty statistics, non-compliance with journal regulations to make data freely available for criticism, delay of dataset release by 10 years, shoddy bookkeeping that can easily hide overt manipulation of data, etc etc). These are direct results of the political atmosphere that permeates the subject–they did not exist 25 years ago. None of them.

End Aragorn -

My main point in the other thread was to say that politicians and journalists often make some unmerited statements regarding data and what it means. I noticed you didn’t take any issue with Neumark’s point about the Obama White House’s use of the “no negative impact” assertion with relation to the minimum wage, or with the numbers regarding insurance and the ACA. I’m going to assume that you agree with me on those?

2 Likes

No prob, we can drop it. Have a good evening.

1 Like

I think we were pointing out that the consensus you are using in this case doesn’t actually support the “clear and present danger” you are stating. The 97% consensus is an often stating fact without knowing the origin of the study and where there was agreement and where there still is room for disagreement.

There have been instances (referenced in the thread) where scientists have left those institutions stating specifically that the political environment made it so they were no longer able to approach climate change in an objective scientific way. I am skeptical when such things happen along with email scandals showing data manipulation (fun fact, I’m distantly related to one of the scientists who was in that scandal), manipulations such as the hockey stick graph with data issues that have been debunked but are still used as today, and more or less anytime politics grabs ahold of an issue such as climate change.

1 Like

Forget that study if you don’t like it. Doesn’t change the fact that there’s a consensus.

Most of this is misleading (the rest is either anecdotal or just plain wrong), but it doesn’t matter. The fact is, most climate scientists agree re AGW. Intimations of a ‘conspiracy of silence’ (which is what you’re doing) among thousands of scientists across hundreds of institutions in dozens of countries are ludicrous on their face. If evidence causing fatal damage to AGW existed, the scientist(s) who discovered it would be shouting it from the mountaintops, as glory and Nobel prizes (to say nothing of fame, money, and their pick of tenured positions around the world) would be theirs. In science, being first-past-the-post is everything. No one would sit on such information, if for no other reason that the fear that they would be beaten to the punch.

What you don’t seem to realize is that it is those of you on the heterodox-opinion side of this issue who have allowed politics to cloud their judgment.

Consensus on what? Definitely not on what the solution should be and what the overall impact would have. Refer to Aragon’s post above where there are agreements/disagreements, along with plenty of grey area among the simplified bullet points.

What was wrong? Data manipulation didn’t happen? Scientists haven’t left top institutions stating that the environment has become purly political? There weren’t emails documenting scientists pushing an agenda instead of being objective about the data? The hockey stick graph was not debunked?

When things like that are happening I think being skeptical is not “clouded judgment”, blindly believing it and ignoring those instances would be.

I’m not saying there is such evidence, as it is a complex problem that is not solved with one ah-ha. As a side note, when any evidence points to the contrary the fact that they are shouted down as a “denier” unless they get in line doesn’t help.

If predictions continue to not come true how long do you think everybody should continue to believe? When would you think it would be ok to be skeptic?

1 Like

Consensus that AGW is real, and will be impactful. As for what the solution(s) should be, that is a work in progress.

To the extent of having a meaningful impact on the issue of whether AGW is accepted as scientific consensus, all of that is wrong, yes.

For whatever reason, you have been duped into believing in the significance of the “things like that are happening.” They are not significant.

That doesn’t happen in the scientific community, unless the individual in question is operating well outside the accepted bounds of the community.

The very fact that you are of the opinion that ‘predictions are not coming true’ is testament to the degree to which you have lost sight of the big picture. Ask yourself this: How is it that you, a non-climate-scientist, are aware of massively significant developments in climate science (ie, ‘predictions are not coming true’ that are consequential enough to undermine the veracity of AGW), but the extant community of actual climate-scientists, apparently unmoved by these developments, remains committed to the veracity of AGW? I see only three possible explanations:

  1. the climate-science community is involved in a massive cover-up;
  2. the climate-science community is composed of gibbering idiots too dense to realize that recent data have discredited the AGW position; or
  3. your assertion that ‘consequential predictions are not coming true’ is incorrect.

Now, which of these three seems the most plausible?

Again, I’m not arguing if it is real or not. I’m arguing that the alarmism associated with it is overblown. If you don’t care that things are manipulated to present a story that the data isn’t telling itself… well, we’ll have to disagree on how to use data.

To you? Why should we just shrug it off?

Except it has. And the scientific cmmunity on this issue is not just the scientific community anymore, as we stated, politics and activism are driving the narrative.

Edit: 7 climate scientists were singled out in a “witch hunt”, none were found to have engaged in any wrongdoing but one decided that due to the politics of the issue, he would change his studies:

So when someone like Al Gore gets a nobel prize related to climate change yet his dramatic/alarmism predictions don’t come true, that’s all irrelevant? What do you believe the big picture is?

I’m not, never claimed to. You keep defaulting to this straw man of me arguing against AGW and I have an ace up my sleeve. I’m trying to objectively learn about the issue. So far all you can give me is believe one side of the story, ignore all its faults, ignore anything it got wrong, and continue to believe. I don’t find your logic convincing.

I think we are off track of the key issue as you keep trying to brand me with ridiculous comments such as your “3 possible explanations”. Do you believe the the community that you are referencing (not exactly who, just scientists in general?) has a consensus on the rate, impact, and what needs to be done in regards to climate change?

1 Like

I suppose the reasonableness of this argument is a function of what you mean by ‘the alarmism.’ For example, I don’t consider NASA an alarmist organization.

Again, without knowing the source of this observation, I’m unable to comment.

To the only people whose opinion counts vis a vis evaluating climate-science data–the climate scientists themselves.

I reject the unsupported assertion that politics and activism are “driving the narrative” of the science itself.

From your “Dem ‘Witch Hunt’” link:

"University of Colorado climate scientist Dr. Roger Pielke, Jr. has been targeted by Arizona Democratic Rep. Raul Grijalva, the ranking liberal on the House Natural Resources Committee, for his research challenging the claim that global warming is making weather more extreme.

This investigation, and other attacks, have forced Pielke to stop researching climate issues."

Boo hoo. I don’t see where he was ‘forced out’ of anything (deciding to pick up his toys and go home doesn’t count).

I have focused solely on the scientists, of which Gore is not one.

You said “If predictions continue to not come true…” What does that mean, if it is not an evaluation on your part of the climate-science data?

No, I’m the one holding the ace. I’ll play it in due time.

The sum total of my argument is that the vast majority of experts in the field consider AGW to be a real threat to the global community, a threat that requires expedited action if it is to be ameliorated. When it comes to a subject as complex as climate, this is the only logically defensible position for a non-expert to take. In other words, there is no ‘other side of the story’ for a non-expert. You may think you are “trying to objectively learn about the issue,” but absent an extensive stint in grad school, that is not a goal you are going to meet. The following puts it better than I could:

"For anyone trying to take a scientific approach to knowledge about the world, we must rely heavily upon experts, or those who are more knowledgeable than we are. There is no choice – there is simply too much specialized scientific knowledge for anyone to be an expert in everything, or even a significant portion of scientific disciplines.

Further, being an educated layperson is usually not enough to form your own opinions on specific scientific questions. Forming a reliable opinion often requires a level of detailed knowledge that only an expert in the field can obtain. Even experts can be wrong, of course, and since lay opinions are likely to span all possibilities, some are bound to be correct. Experts, however, are far more likely to have an opinion that accurately reflects the evidence and to understand how to incorporate new evidence as it comes in."

In general terms, yes.

1 Like

If you can’t acknowledge that the politics of investigating and putting somebody through legal proceedings on no basis other than they have a different interpretation of the state of climate change, I’m not sure we’re going to come to any type of understanding of the issue.

Here’s another:

“What was Ridd’s crime? He found out two of the world’s leading organizations studying coral reefs were using misleading photographs to make the case that global warming was causing a mass reef die-off. Ridd wasn’t rewarded for checking the facts and blowing the whistle on misleading science. Instead, James Cook University censured Ridd and threatened to fire him for questioning global warming orthodoxy.”

I’m talking about climate model’s and their failure to predict the pause in warming.

I’m sorry to inform you, but that just isn’t true. Referencing Aragon’s post above, there is still debate about:

  1. Whether the warming since 1950 has been dominated by human causes
  2. How much the planet will warm in the 21st century
  3. Whether warming is ‘dangerous’
    a) How to globally define ‘dangerous’, which Meyer touched on: northern countries may well like longer growing seasons, have positive changes, etc.
  4. Whether we can afford to radically reduce CO2 emissions, and whether reduction will improve well-being

The consensus on the three issues Aragon highlighted have been leveraged to apply to everything, which isn’t an accurate portrayal of the situation.

If you care to deep dive into the issues with such a “consensus” as you have appealed to, you might find this interesting:

As a side note, I found it amusing your link referencing a scientific consensus specifically mentions to be wary if a consensus emerges from a highly political or ideologically charged atmosphere.

Don’t hold out on me now.

1 Like

That is a highly biased description of what transpired. First, unless I mis-read (or missed) the relevant parts of the link, he was not “put through legal proceedings.” Second, he was not being scrutinized for ‘having a different opinion’; rather he was (per your link) being investigated “for allegedly taking money from the fossil fuels industry in exchange for research.”

First off, if your plan is to drag this conversation from one biased anecdote of purported academic suppression to the next, you can spare yourself the trouble, as I find it an utterly pointless and misleading exercise. (For one thing, the ratio of such ‘academic injustice’ cases relative to the total number of climate scientists approaches zero.)

As for Ridd, your highly biased source assumes he was censured for ‘questioning AGW,’ whereas in fact he was censured for (from the link) “failing to act in a collegial way and in the academic spirit of the institution.” Based on the link, we have no way of knowing what that means. Thus, you have no way of knowing what the precise nature of the academic charges against him were; rather, you are accepting the author’s unsubstantiated claim that they stemmed from his “fact checking” AGW.

Exactly my point. What makes you think you are in a position intellectually (ie, in terms of training, expertise and experience) to assert that climate models are failing to make acceptably accurate predictions? On what basis have you drawn this conclusion? Is it because you have poured over the climate data yourself, comparing it to the error bars on the predictions made by multiple models? Or (be honest now) is it because you read on a ‘skeptic’ website that the models are failing to make accurate predictions, and are simply parroting that assertion here?

This bears repeating:

“For anyone trying to take a scientific approach to knowledge about the world, we must rely heavily upon experts, or those who are more knowledgeable than we are. There is no choice – there is simply too much specialized scientific knowledge for anyone to be an expert in everything, or even a significant portion of scientific disciplines.”

Vis a vis AGW science, the debates are primarily at the edges of the topic, not the central assertion itself. And there will always be debate around the edges of topics as complex as this. Again, this doesn’t change the fact that the expert consensus is what it is.

I took a deep dive into this subject a long time ago–likely before you were born. But even a cursory glance at the link indicates it is flawed. For example, the statement “Consensus, in and of itself, is not necessarily a bad thing” is as ignorant a comment as I have read in a long time. Not necessarily a bad thing!!! Consensus is everything when it comes to non-episodic (ie, stuff not experienced directly by an individual) knowledge. Allow me to expand.

Consider what would seem to be a trivial-to-the-point-of-banal question: Who was the 16th POTUS? If you said ‘Lincoln,’ I have to ask: Why did you say that? You weren’t alive in the 1860s, so you couldn’t have episodic knowledge of it. I profoundly doubt you’ve done original research into the subject (eg, accessed and evaluated original documents pertaining to his election). But despite your complete and utter lack of direct or indirect knowledge on the subject, I’d wager you feel 100% secure in asserting that Lincoln was POTUS #16. Whence this confidence? It derives from nothing but consensus. That is, the people who make a living studying such issues have told you that Lincoln was the 16th POTUS, and because the consensus among them is so broad and deep, you believe them. And the same process applies to literally 99% of your non-episodic knowledge. That is, virtually EVERYTHING you know (or think you know) about the world that falls outside of your personal experiences is based entirely on consensus. For example, you have never seen the earth rotate about its axis; you believe it does because of scientific consensus. Similarly, you have never seen the earth orbit the sun. Ditto.

When it comes to non-episodic knowledge, academic consensus is the coin-of-the-realm. Now, does that mean the current consensus is always correct? Of course not. But that’s where the smart money goes.

Never play an ace until/unless you have to.

Which was unfounded. They come up with nothing (as I noted, but you seemed to skip over that part).

You said it doesn’t happen in the scientific community. With 10 minutes of searching I can find that it has happened. No, I don’t think hammering that point home anymore will benefit the conversation.

I’m not. I’m pointing out that there is debate and disagreement among the experts you keep referring to.

I’m acknowledging where there is agreement and disagreement in different areas, and one of the areas of disagreement is the amount of effect mankind has had on temperature change since the 1950s, which is the central assertion of blaming CO2 as the control knob of our global climate change.

In regards to the consensus, it appears you entirely missed the point made. I’m not really sure where you want to go from here as I believe we’ve reached a point where we aren’t adding anything to the conversation. Most climate debates end up here, so not entirely surprising.

While this is a forum (a place to meet and argue) and all the navel-gazing and minutia is certainly entertaining, the focus of the AGW debate is in the wrong place. Not just in this forum, but everywhere it is framed incorrectly.

Humans like energy. They like living in houses that are 72 year round with lights and tv’s etc… They like being able to commute to work 30 miles away. They like being able to fly places at 600mph while sipping a bourbon. This isn’t just the west, all people want energy.

So all humans like energy, and producing energy usually produces C02. C02 affects climate to some extent (this isn’t disputed, it’s the extent that’s disputed).

So can we produce energy without C02? The answer is yes. Fusion works. France gets 80% of their power from nuclear energy. The problem is it just isn’t cost effective compared to fossil fuels. I’ve grappled with whether this was solely due to regulations and permitting expenses for nuclear or if it just isn’t competitive.

I think China answers that question. They have mastered fusion, don’t care about ionizing radiation/worker safety/pollution at all. Yet they only produce about 1.4% of their power through nuclear. In the mean time they mine 3.9 Billion Tons of coal per year, and they import some more to burn. Carbon based energy is just more cost effective.

So if you are looking for a solution to C02 emissions you need to improve nuclear or come up with renewables that can compete without subsidies. All the carbon tax shell games in the world won’t reduce world-wide C02 output at all.

If we invent solutions that compete with fossil fuels without subsidies then the Chinese and other emerging markets will copy them. Until then nothing we do will reduce C02 emissions. If we magically deleted the entire landmass of north america and europe and all their inhabitants C02 emissions for the whole world would still keep rising.

Sorry for the long post, I just get annoyed by this argument. Humanity has had the solution since 1945. We just need to optimize it and make it safer. That’s what visionary billionaires like elon musk should be up to. Not grabbing tax credits for cars that basically run on natural gas and coal with batteries in between.

3 Likes

So? Are you suggesting an investigation is warranted only if the individual is ultimately found guilty? The rationale for your umbrage at this situation continues to elude me.

You found two contested examples, neither of which prove your point. I agree it would be to the benefit of all to drop this line of inquiry.

Let me see if I understand. You are suggesting that disagreements among experts is evidence that the science is not settled. Fair enough. However, the link you provided states the opposite:

“In our view, the fact that so many scientists agree so closely about the earth’s warming is, itself, evidence of a lack of evidence for global warming.”

So to sum up the position you’re putting forward: If experts disagree that AGW is real, it suggests it isn’t. On the other hand, if experts agree that AGW is real, it suggests it isn’t. Looks like I’m going to have a hard time winning this argument.

Please cite your source for the assertion that “the amount of effect mankind has had on temperature change since the 1950s” is “the central assertion of blaming CO2 as the control knob of our global climate change.”

I purposely didn’t address the main thesis of the link for several reasons:

  1. the authors lost considerable credibility with that dumb comment pooh-poohing the importance of scientific/academic consensus (to which, BTW, I note you have failed to offer a rejoinder or defense);
  2. my comment was already approaching tl;dr status; and
  3. quite frankly, their main thesis is even more cynical, misleading and tendentious than is their comment about consensus.

You’re too smart to play this dumb.

I showed examples of something happening that you said doesn’t happen. Agreed, nothing else to say.

There are aspects that are agreed upon, and aspects that are not. We covered this already.

This really is going nowhere. Disappointing, I thought you would offer something better.

Richard Lindzen, until recently, was the head of MIT’s climate science department. He has more than 200 peer reviewed articles, and is EXTREMELY accomplished. I don’t agree with many things that he says and he is, yes, a serial contrarian. HOWEVER, climate science is in his wheelhouse and he has absolutely legitimate laurels…you don’t get to head a department at MIT without them. I would be very cautious to flatly retort against a scientist in their subject area of expertise in the specific way that you did.

I would also like you to reconsider the idea of “consensus”. Have you analyzed the Cook paper? Do you know how they got those numbers? Have you spent a decent amount of time digging into the literature? Because the end statistic doesn’t matter as much as HOW they got that statistic in the first place.

Keep in mind I believe that man affects the climate and can and has caused warming in the past.

He is a serial contrarian who has been generously funded by fossil-fuel interests. Even with his climate-science bona fides, these facts go a long way toward mitigating the impact of his opinion on the debate. Consider: If he were a passionate proponent of AGW, but had received $2500/d for a time from ‘Big Solar,’ would you defend him as vigorously as you do now?

Further, his is a voice in the wilderness. We both know that scientific consensus does not require 100% agreement even among undisputed experts.

I have not. I also do not think the notion of a scientific consensus vis a vis AGW depends upon the conclusions of the Cook paper.

This is absolutely, 100% wrong. It does happen and I am around people who are also inundated.

Look, you are a very intelligent person. However you do not have a clear idea of what “science” is. I say this not because you’re unaware of the scientific method–which is the basis, or supposed to be, for all science. I say it because “science” is not one giant monolith. That’s like saying “athletes all use steroids”. In what? Corticosteroids or anabolics? what sports…ALL sports and ALL athletes? like…Curling? Or ski jump? Or chess–is it even a sport? What about marathoning? You see where I’m going with this?

Do you see what I’m getting at? One of the most destructive forces for understanding the nature of interplay between scientists and their institutions and politics is this media driven charade that its all the same. Think of how many headlines you see along these lines: “SCIENTISTS say meat gives you cancer”, “SCIENTISTS declare Pluto a planet again”, “SCIENTISTS determine creatine kills your kidneys”. Handily lumped as one gigantic group that has to act as a unit…like Congress. “Congress passes a law…” Except that’s not how it works. Not how any of it works.

There is VERY real politicization of science in numerous fields, and climate science is most likely the worst of the bunch my several leagues. But it happens in a lot of other areas…nobody sees it because nobody hears about it in the media–and nobody hears about it in the media because nobody cares, unless you’re a post doc struggling through a university fracas.

Then you don’t understand the nature of scientific funding and how it is allocated, or how survival in a science career is determined (in any field, not simply climate). Pielke Jr and Sr are both EXCELLENT scientists and have published extremely numerous papers in widely read and respected journals. The Pielke story goes deep, and it doesn’t require a cover-up or a gigantic conspiracy. It only requires dirty play and politics, and those are in abundance.

Please excuse me but “Fusion” is not the way nuclear energy is made–it’s “fission”. Fusion is still experimental and unless I missed my journal headlines it has yet to become self-sufficient. Meaning it takes more energy to get the reaction in a test plant than fusion generates.

Fission has been around since the atom bomb and yes, it works and it is clean. The waste it produces is significant, but would represent a much lower load on the environment than currently. Ironically nobody wants to use more of it.

1 Like