Politics Chat, July 16, 2026
Very interesting. Thanks. One comment. Over about 40 years small teams of us have been mapping manufacturing, natural resource, and energy systems, on the ground, in all continents. We also helped create the. . .
Very interesting. Thanks. One comment. Over about 40 years small teams of us have been mapping manufacturing, natural resource, and energy systems, on the ground, in all continents. We also helped create the original Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE)/emissions laws in the US, so we are very familiar what worked in those policies and what did not. For several decades we also tracked,on the ground, the mine-to-scrap life cycles of solar, wind, passive geothermal, and other major global energy sustems. Bottom line, they are not magic and have rarely if at all met their “green” targets. Example. Every wind vane on every windmill contains from 2 to 50 tons of carbon fiber, which comes from oil and is almost imposible to recycle. Similar end of life problems with solar. We also know that the effect of CAFE was to shift the fleet of vehicles from cars to light trucks. So much of the “Climate Change” information ignores these decade long life cycles. Also if one reads the core documents of the IPCC many of the researchers are policy researchers not scientists. Bottom line. Best evidence shows that “climate change” is far more complex than the policy papers state. Also. Turn globe upside down and notice the vast expanse of water, that interacts swith the atmosphere, and has very few sensors over this large swath of Earth. The hard data continue to show that climate change science is still exceedingly complex, and that many first order technologies are creating their own pollution challenges