We don't have an energy problem, we have an energy storage problem. The renewables swindle hasn't seemingly addressed this point. Most forms of energy are essentially solar energy- fissionables and heavy elements such as Uranium and Tunsten are created in supernova, all elements heavier than Hydrogen are created in main sequence stars, wind power is a form of solar energy, PV's use the light from stars, fusion power is the same energy source that stars use, hydrocarbon fuels are highly compressed organic material that grow using solar energy. If we had less people and more trees in the world there would be less carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. We need to look at those places on Earth that have the highest population and lowest technology.

It seems the point yet again went flying over JD's head. The entire rhetoric around renewables is the reduction in emissions. Yet when it can be shown that supposedly renewable champion China has massively increasing emissions while supposedly renewables enemy US has declining emissions, suddenly JD decides we need to look elsewhere.

Emissions are the only game in town, unless you're carrying water for the CCP.

"You can’t both cite Chinese figures to make your case and dismiss them as unreliable when inconvenient."

Why can't I. You just asserting I can't doesn't convince anyone, probably not even yourself. But not only can I, its clear its the only logical step. China's figures are numbers we have, and therefore the numbers we need to use. But those of us who can walk and chew gum simultaneously can use those figures while recognising their limitation. Of coarse those who slack-jawedly fall for every piece of CCP propaganda, won't get that.

The point is this. These are the numbers China gives the world. Yet even they show the cant around the whole Chinese renewables claims. Recognising that and also recognising that the real numbers probably show an even worse story, is the way mature analysis works.

"Judge electricity by electricity metrics "
Yes I get it. Cherry-pick the subset of data that tells the story you want to hear and pretend that all the other data doesn't exist. Concentrate on the tree with the most flowers and pretend to not notice that the forest is dying.

That’s a strawman, mhaze:

//The entire rhetoric around renewables is the reduction in emissions… China has massively increasing emissions while… US has declining emissions, suddenly JD decides we need to look elsewhere.//

No one said totals don’t matter. The point is that if you’re judging renewables in the power sector, you use sector metrics: carbon intensity, generation mix, coal utilisation. National totals also include steel, cement and exports, so they can rise even while electricity gets cleaner. Comparing China’s growing economy to US raw totals is misleading.

//Emissions are the only game in town, unless you're carrying water for the CCP.//

False dichotomy.

Emissions are the endpoint, but sector metrics are how you track progress toward them. That’s how serious analysis works.

//Why can't I. You just asserting I can't doesn't convince anyone… China's figures are numbers we have… But those of us who can walk and chew gum simultaneously can use those figures while recognising their limitation.//

It is not logical to both rely on figures when they suit you and dismiss them when they don’t. If they’re too unreliable when inconvenient, they’re too unreliable when convenient. Using them while discrediting them isn’t “walking and chewing gum,” it’s hedging both ways.

//These are the numbers China gives the world. Yet even they show the cant… Recognising that and also recognising that the real numbers probably show an even worse story, is the way mature analysis works.//

“Mature analysis” doesn’t rest on “probably.” Either evidence supports “worse,” or it doesn’t. The same data also show wind and solar surging and coal utilisation falling - signs of transition that contradict your narrative.

//That’s cherry-pick the tree with the most flowers and pretend not to notice that the forest is dying.//

Not cherry-picking - just using the right scope. If the claim is about renewables in electricity, judge electricity. If you want economy-wide conclusions, use per-capita, per-GDP, or intensity, not raw totals. A growing “forest” can still have a cleaner “tree.”

Perhaps the bad management of China's compliance of international climate management is just another symptom of the same bad faith ideologically compromised negotiation inherent in the drafting of the climate management plan in the first place. Another form of agiprop by Woke Marxist forces against the US and the West, to form a beachhead and replace them as the lingua franca ideology of the world.

As Machiavelli says Asia has always been much more authoritarian than Europe, and this is still true today. All governments are authoritarian to a point. Small governments sometimes implement extreme measures to control the population, but usually the population can vote with their feet. Large governments controlling large numbers of people can do much harm even with fairly moderate control actions. As Machivelli said Asia had a model firmly centred on the sovereign, whereas Europe's model was distributed through a hierarchy. Sadly in seeking alternative models of government to model the modern age, most turn to Asia without suspecting it's highly authoritarian nature... or maybe they do suspect and just want the power... and through denial and deception and chaos they can get what they want... and maybe Asia in their millenial/ thousand year battle with Europe will win. Irony, nature seems to favour small governments of self sufficient people, breeding stronger people, the ancient germanic people were seen as giants. Some ideologies talk about freeing the slaves while creating them.

Over time bad faith people corrupt even good systems. You can't assume the system controlling bad actors, without active constraint. When the good do nothing...

I see 1. the management of China, and 2. the creation of climate policy, in the above ideological context.

Climate policy was never meant to solve world climate, it was to solve the problem of the west. In a sense a battle between positive and negative freedom, Traditionalism and Marxism, Europe and Asia, between 'rule of law' and dictatorial rule, freedom and slavery, freedom and stability, etc. Some of these dualities are contradictory, but understanding the paired diads it's possible to get a picture of the landscape.

"It is not logical to both rely on figures when they suit you and dismiss them when they don’t."

Still misunderstanding I see. I'm not dismissing figures that don't suit. What figures have I dismissed? I'm saying the figures we have before us tell a sad story for those who blindly adhere to the renewables fable and if more honest figures were available they'd tell an even worse story. Somehow that seems too hard for you to fathom. But I can't dumb it down any further.

"“Mature analysis” doesn’t rest on “probably.” "

Wow. Just how little do you understand? Making educated guesses about incomplete data is what analysis is ALL about. If all the data is known and undisputed then there isn't analysis, just narrative.

Precisely CM.

I've written about this dichotomy between East and West previously on these pages. The West, the inheritor of Athenian and Roman notions of the individual and individual freedom verses the East's adherence to the sole ruler. The idea that Pericles would fully understand and appreciate the US Constitution while Sargon the Great would understand Hamas and Han Wudi would concur with Xi.

As to climate policy, it is clear that many in the climate community use AGW merely as a means to an end, the end being the overthrow of western capitalism. eg
Ottmar Edenhofer, co-chair of the UN IPCC Working Group III in 2010: “We redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy… one has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy.”

or

Patricia Espinosa, UNFCCC Executive Secretary in 2019: “Free-market capitalism must die if we are to meet the temperature targets. Let us be clear about that.”

That China and Russia fund and use climate groups as a means to weaken western structure is clear. Anyone familiar with how the USSR funded peace groups in the 1960's and 70s as part of their Cold War efforts, would recognise how climate groups are used, often willingly.