Climate Alarmism vs Chinese Common Sense
In pursuit of serious, practical and effective policies on climate we now turn to China. Ba-dum bum. We never tire of that old gag
But an amazing number of people don’t even think it’s a joke.
Scientific Communism for instance gushes “Solar panels, wind turbines, a hydrogen energy system and lithium-ion batteries are powering China’s newest polar research station”.
But when China deliberately subsidizes Western climate activists to try to cripple our economies and the defence capacities that depend on prosperity, while itself roaring ahead with coal plants (and yes, China now accounts for 56 percent of total world coal output, more than everyone else combined) it’s no longer a laughing matter.
The strange affinity of the Western mainstream media for enemies of the free societies is not new. The New York Times among others was infamously blind to Stalin’s atrocities when it mattered, in the 1930s.
(So was the Guardian which now shamelessly boasts of its coverage by Malcolm Muggeridge that, at the time, was so shamelessly censored to favour the regime that Muggeridge quit in protest.)
And now the Times regularly peddles stories like:
“As U.S. Retreats on Climate, China and Europe Pledge to Go Green Together/ A joint statement promised new efforts to cut emissions at a time when China is positioning itself as the world’s one-stop shop for clean energy technologies.”
We understand that the Times does not agree with what Donald Trump is doing on climate or the reasoning behind it. But it does nobody any favours, including them, when it describes things that are not happening to make the wrong people look smart and nice.
Including, in this piece, conceding that:
“European officials have in the past been vocal in criticizing China’s widespread use of coal: China burns more coal than any country ever has. European officials have also criticized what they call China’s dumping of inexpensive electric vehicles on the global market.”
But then it insists that:
“China has staked out an ambitious long-term policy of dominating the sale of clean-energy technologies to the world including solar panels, wind turbines, next-generation batteries and electric vehicles…. With years of generous state support for private companies, China is now the global front-runner in building and selling clean energy technologies.”
No. What China has is a subsidized house of cards designed to collapse our own first.
And just as someone reading Walter Duranty in the Times on the lack of deliberate genocidal collectivization-driven famine in Ukraine in the 1930s would not have understood anything about actual conditions in the Soviet Union, someone reading this kind of thing in the Times today will not understand anything about actual conditions in China (for instance no big company in China is “private” as we use that term) or that nation’s impact on the global economic system or, if you care about such things, ‘GHG’ emissions.
Notice that it doesn’t say China has an ambitious policy of using ‘clean’ energy. Just that it has said it has an ambitious policy of profiting from our doing so, as Communists define profit, which is geopolitical not economic.
Including getting a stranglehold on rare earths and related technologies that we will need to have power but they won’t. And making promises they have no intention of keeping in return for real concessions from us.
Actually even the frilly stuff is not just fandom.
The Scientific American piece goes on and on about the incredible lengths they went to in order to produce energy from wind, solar and batteries in conditions legendarily hostile to such power sources (and everything else except Emperor Penguins), including specially shaped wind turbine blades whose “design reduces the surface area of the blade being pushed on by the wind”, aka deliberately inefficient, others made of carbon fiber that are also, again, “shorter than standard ones so as to reduce contact with the winds” and so forth.
And it mocks the habitual use of diesel at Antarctic research stations:
“The main reason this is the case is simply that ‘they are used to using diesel,’ says Daniel Kammen, a professor of energy at the University of California, Berkeley.”
UC Berkeley being, we note not in passing, a place whose climate could scarely be less like that of Antarctica. But here’s the punchline. After blatting on endlessly about these wonderful ‘renewables’, the third-last sentence concedes that:
“The renewable system can currently produce 60 percent of the overall output of Qinling’s energy system when it’s running at full blast, with the remaining 40 percent coming from diesel.
But Sun and his team are determined to raise that percentage – and to bring clean-energy systems to other Chinese polar bases as well.”
So it’s all hyper-expensive hype, with a diesel generator out back so they don’t freeze to death.
See more here climatediscussionnexus
Please Donate Below To Support Our Ongoing Work To Defend The Scientific Method
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company 
incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX.
Trackback from your site.
Physics Scientist
| #
It’s deeply disappointing that so many overlook the glaring flaws in conventional “Earth Energy Budget” diagrams. How can less than 0.3% of the atmosphere—trace gases—be credited with driving a radiative energy transfer that not only defies thermodynamic principles by flowing from a cooler region to a warmer surface, but is also claimed to exceed the Sun’s input by more than double?
Such assertions collapse under scrutiny. The correct framework is not radiative dominance, but gravitational thermodynamics. It’s a well-established fact that gravity induces a temperature gradient in every planetary troposphere—a non-zero lapse rate that cannot be explained by radiation alone. You’ll recall who first articulated the non-radiative “heat creep” mechanism, derived from the Second Law of Thermodynamics. That process remains the only physically consistent method for determining temperatures at the base of a troposphere or within a planetary surface.
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
“Physics Scientist” is an oxymoron. Physics is a cult completely divorced from reality. Physicists claim that in order for a theory to be valid it must be falsifiable but nothing they believe could ever be false. If evidence shows them to be wrong it should be ignored, even if it’s the evidence their theory is based on.
Warm and cool are a result of kinetic energy, mass and energy, but it is only energy that flows in elastic collisions (How energy is transferred in the troposphere. not radiation.). The 2nd law should say that energy flows from objects with higher energy per unit mass to objects with lower energy per unit mass. This is what the law of conservation of momentum states.
Go out onto the ocean during the summer. The air gets hot while the water stays cool. The water is not heating the atmosphere.
All matter absorbs radiated energy, including the oxygen and nitrogen molecules. They absorb 95% of the UV coming from the sun and covert it into IR (heat).
There is no gravitational heating of the atmosphere. The atmosphere exist because of the kinetic energy of the molecules. If the temperature was 0 K those molecules would be on the surface.
The reason the air is warmer at lower altitudes is because it is denser and there are more molecules transferring energy. The reason the air is denser is because those molecules have less kinetic energy (Universal Gas Law) which is why the bottom of the Grand Canyon is always 10 degrees warmer than the top of the canyon. The warmer air does not rise.
A thermometer measures the energy being transferred to it from collisions with air molecules. Fewer molecule equals less energy transfer. To get a graph of the ke of molecules in the atmosphere divide the temperature at an altitude by its density to get the energy of a constant number of molecules instead of a constant volume of molecules.
Reply