Chernobyl series on HBO

[Blumlein 88]

You already have centralization, I've explain in other posts, there is no actual free-market capitalism here in the US for everyone. The only difference with my aspiration, is hopefully that centralization decides to serve the entire population more, rather than have laws ridden with loopholes that conveniently benefit the folks with billion dollar net-worths.

Run into trouble is only because (as I spoke with to Cosmick) is due to the system itself fighting any sort of change, there isn't much moneraty incentive in perpetuating well-being. But there is much in creating a problem and drip feeding symptom relief. If you can't get over that some things will have to be done without any money waiting at the end of the road for some institutions or companies, then we are at an impasse on what constitutes doing things that benefit the world population.

Look, I hope you don't take this as an insult, or as me being scum, but I truly have to bow out of the conversation. I'm literally at my point of tiredness of typing. Also I feel when amrim sees this, I'm going to feel uneasy for polluting this thread with so much off-topic discussion (again this was supposed to be for an HBO show). Please lets start a private conversation this forum gives, I don't know why I didn't think of this before. Safe to say I have written quite a bit today on this thread, you have to at least give me that leeway as reason for exiting now..

I've relatives that have traveled to other countries and parts of the USA to build housing for those who cannot do it for themselves. I've contributed to such things and worked a little on such. My career was in a field that was for the good of the entire area population in a very basic need. But my relatives decided to do that. They could do it because they had some wealth beyond minimum need, and had earned that wealth with the skills they made their livings with. I contributed when I wanted to and was able. I don't want some confiscation of my excess items to be done by someone else making the decision of who and how to help. And if that is what you are for, then I'd fight against it.

Many of the monopolies and excess wealth that some have are because of interference with a free market. They use their influence to shut out competition. Income inequalities however are pretty much a given in a technological society. And it will get worse. Some modeling suggests confiscating those monies from the richest wouldn't fix the problem. And it wouldn't much benefit everyone else. It is a side effect of technological advancement and change. Its not a good one, but again don't kill the goose laying the eggs unless you know you have a better solution. That is reckless.

Don't worry about thread drift. I started the thread and certainly contributed to the drift. I'll go back to the thread topic at this point.

 

[Cosmik]

When you say "in the end-game, AI to have the decision making process" do you mean turn decisions over to AI algorithms, or is that a typo?

If you think about it, we already are doing that: if government policy is determined entirely from the outputs of computer models, then AI already has the decision-making process.

To oppose the handing over of decision making to experts and their models is, apparently, anti-intellectual. (But presumably it was experts who were supremely confident about Chernobyl's safety).

 

[DKT88]

If you think about it, we already are doing that: if government policy is determined entirely from the outputs of computer models, then AI already has the decision-making process.

To oppose the handing over of decision making to experts and their models is, apparently, anti-intellectual. (But presumably it was experts who were supremely confident about Chernobyl's safety).

yes, agree we are subject to decisions made by algorithms now, WMD are everywhere. Weapons of Math Destruction. China leads the in Orwellian application of AI to determining their citizens social score index which impacts job promotions, travel restrictions and more galore. We in the US are not far behind with our credit score system.

 

[Cosmik]

The start of The Simpsons shows how most people imagine safety-critical industries to be: at the lowest level, human workers who make mistakes; procedures that don't always work as intended.

On the other hand, every new generation of university graduates thinks that it, alone, has discovered the way to a better future. And if they are working in a new field, the temptation is to say that they are the only experts in that field and should be deferred to. (Otherwise you're being anti-intellectual apparently ). Ordinary voters may actually have insights into human nature that see past the hubris which is why, sometimes, it is best to allow humans to make decisions, not the supposed experts and their models - IMO.

[I hope this isn't too far off-topic, but I was reading this article this morning: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-48350211

I bookmarked it, because I thought it did something quite unusual. It was by a BBC presenter, but it made the case that sometimes the experts get it wrong. Controversially, it might even be seen to be concurring with Michael Gove's now-notorious "People have had enough of experts..." remark (referring, I believe, to the idea that politicians are effectively outsourcing responsibility for decision-making to (their chosen) 'experts').

The BBC's normal stance would be that experts should always be deferred to].

 

[Cosmik]

People across Europe will need to work drastically fewer hours to avoid disastrous climate heating unless there is a radical decarbonising of the economy, according to a study.

The research, from thinktank Autonomy, shows workers in the UK would need to move to nine-hour weeks to keep the country on track to avoid more than 2C of heating at current carbon intensity levels.

https://www.theguardian.com/environ...-hours-could-help-tackle-climate-crisis-study

Sounds great. But if you instead swap working for standing in queues for bread, it's maybe not so good. This, I understand, was what happened under communism; people joining bread queues at 5 a.m. to make sure they got some. Competition with your fellow man still existed, in other words.

 

[kevinh]

Eventually if possible, yes. It doesn't have to be final decisions (because I, and everyone currently alive lacks the mental capacity to fathom what AI at that point would be capable of), but if we're talking about AI as understood today, making decisions will be something far better done by them (but of course verified by councils of experts and such, for serious undertakings and moments of crisis would have always the final say).

You seem to have stumbled on why central planing has never worked. The 'experts' and 'academics' (our betters) have always "because I, and everyone currently alive lacks the mental capacity to fathom what AI at that point would be capable of". a small group Individuals have always lacked the mental capacity to understand all the needs of a very large group of individuals in an modern society,

 

[kevinh]

There are always unintended consequences. There is a Windmill Farm off Block Island RI close to where I live. THe local pols brag about fighting climate change. I have talked to some of the local fishermen. The site of the farm was a location with a great number of Lobsters prior to the wind farm being installed, now the Lobsters are gone. Something the po;iticans are blissfully unaware of that is making it very hard on the local fishermen who make their living on the water. They also report other fish species are not there either.

Low frequency noise from the windmills? I don't know but something is causing problems.

 

[JJB70]

One question seldom asked is what qualifies an expert? I find it quite striking how many emissions experts have no real knowledge of actual emissions but are primarily concerned with economic modelling and such like. A particular interest of mine is Black Carbon, a particular species of PM which is considered to be a significant climate forcing agent. I am getting a bit fed up of "experts" writing papers on the subject who quite obviously have no understanding of the subject and being taken seriously. I read papers on the subject which are making all sorts of statements and claims quantifying Black Carbon emissions based on assumptions (it can be quite eye opening to read past the executive summaries and realise just how shaky a lot of papers are) yet which are taken seriously by policy makers and become accepted as fact. Something which is especially bonkers is most of these papers are based on literature review and some estimates and assumptions dating back to the early days of the subject which are not supported by measurement campaigns. You might think that measured data would trump estimates based on assumptions but no, because some of the measured data contradicts assumptions and undermines certain policies pushed by some I have been derided as some sort of climate change denier for pointing out that clinging to older assumptions in the face of measured data is stupid. When I read papers on emissions it is amazing just how many of them rely on questionable assumptions. And I say this as a tree hugger myself.

 

[RayDunzl]

Find out where you sit on the World Financial Pecking Order.

http://www.globalrichlist.com/


$25,000 income? That makes you the 120,215,207th richest person on earth by income (you're in the top 2 percent)

$25,000 in assets? That makes you the 949,024,274th richest person on earth. (bummer, only in the top 21 percent)

 

[Tks]

One question seldom asked is what qualifies an expert? I find it quite striking how many emissions experts have no real knowledge of actual emissions but are primarily concerned with economic modelling and such like. A particular interest of mine is Black Carbon, a particular species of PM which is considered to be a significant climate forcing agent. I am getting a bit fed up of "experts" writing papers on the subject who quite obviously have no understanding of the subject and being taken seriously. I read papers on the subject which are making all sorts of statements and claims quantifying Black Carbon emissions based on assumptions (it can be quite eye opening to read past the executive summaries and realise just how shaky a lot of papers are) yet which are taken seriously by policy makers and become accepted as fact. Something which is especially bonkers is most of these papers are based on literature review and some estimates and assumptions dating back to the early days of the subject which are not supported by measurement campaigns. You might think that measured data would trump estimates based on assumptions but no, because some of the measured data contradicts assumptions and undermines certain policies pushed by some I have been derided as some sort of climate change denier for pointing out that clinging to older assumptions in the face of measured data is stupid. When I read papers on emissions it is amazing just how many of them rely on questionable assumptions. And I say this as a tree hugger myself.

The same thing that makes any other expert as we colloquially like to understand it, education/credentials/certifications/peer reviewed publications, under the span of time. It's not a strict definition from what I know in the field of careers, but mostly something assigned to people by others (be wary of those that claim it on themselves), in the same way "good" doesn't a strict or validly consistent definition when pressed within or outside the realm of context, all on a case by case basis when values are under consideration. Likewise if there is a new field of study, and there is one person who has been doing it two years longer than anyone else, you can call him an expert, even though sometimes you have people in other existing fields that have been at it, aren't considered experts by the relative experience and number of other longer existing experts.

Also when you say things like: "I find it quite striking how many emissions experts have no real knowledge of actual emissions but are primarily concerned with economic modelling and such like" this is what is known as a declaratory statement. You're making a general term, yet not applying it to anyone/collective specific to prove your later point. You just say "emissions experts".

Climate change isn't comprised of a single field of study, all sorts of scientists, engineers, and workers need to be involved. Emissions doesn't always have to exclusively concern either pollution (black carbon in your example), or average temperatures (global warming). But without deviating from the topic as I sometimes can when going into precise details about dissection of sentences...as the semantics can be exploited to make an emotionally consoling plea, vs literal meaning. Disagreements about the methodology will ALWAYS exist between how something like emissions ought be approached. Your main concern is what you perceived as "experts" doing much more policy making, rather than "science doing" by not reading the measurements, that can sometimes conflict with predictions.

Your biggest blunder is claiming without proof that pollution/climate change policies are all made under older understandings, and most of these "experts" are fake. Okay, that's fine if you believe that, but why are you presuming the majority is this way? You simply -declare- they are.. Governments taking pre-emptive measures based on the advice of a majority is bad somehow... why? This is at the basis of democratic ideals, nowhere does our data determine our lee way with how we don't have the right to be incorrect even if you said everything was presumed to be true in all instances. So if they made a mistake, then so be it. But you also haven't even explained what exactly is wrong here? Nor who exactly this collective of people are that "make estimates" who are fighting the "measurements" of the other group?

But mostly you don't explain why any of this matters for example? Like okay, so "emissions experts" are plaguing the governmental ear and are effecting policies they have no right to do.. How is this a retort against your self proclamation of the "tree hugger" representation you hold.

 

[dc655321]

Back on topic:
Melting would be a pretty awful way to go. Just sayin'...

 

[Tks]

Surprised they let them go out like that :\

 

[Cosmik]

Saw Episode 3 tonight. Very, very grim, but the coal miners added some 'gallows' humour to it.

 

[JJB70]

Your biggest blunder is claiming without proof that pollution/climate change policies are all made under older understandings, and most of these "experts" are fake. Okay, that's fine if you believe that, but why are you presuming the majority is this way? You simply -declare- they are.. Governments taking pre-emptive measures based on the advice of a majority is bad somehow... why? This is at the basis of democratic ideals, nowhere does our data determine our lee way with how we don't have the right to be incorrect even if you said everything was presumed to be true in all instances. So if they made a mistake, then so be it. But you also haven't even explained what exactly is wrong here? Nor who exactly this collective of people are that "make estimates" who are fighting the "measurements" of the other group?

But mostly you don't explain why any of this matters for example? Like okay, so "emissions experts" are plaguing the governmental ear and are effecting policies they have no right to do.. How is this a retort against your self proclamation of the "tree hugger" representation you hold.

I used Black Carbon as an example because it illustrates a particular hazard, making a wrong decision could actually increase emissions. Green NGOs and certain governments are backing two immediate measures above all others based on certain experts recommendations because they are ignorant of Black Carbon emissions and are still acting based on an outdated literature review which is not supported by measured data. This includes:

1. Slowing ships down to reduce Black Carbon emissions, for the bulk of the existing fleet this will increase emissions of BC since operating electro-mechanically controlled engines at high turn down ratios will increase BC in exhaust. For modern digitally controlled common rail engines the emissions will not increase significantly but neither will they be any lower. Hence the measure is at best ineffective, and at worst will significantly increase emissions from some ships; and

2. Banning the use of HFO in the Arctic and mandating distillates. Switching to distillates will certainly reduce emissions of most PM (quite dramatically), it will not reduce emissions of BC and at some load points (funnily enough lower load points that you'd get from slowing ships down) it actually increases BC emissions. Again, this wasn't really new knowledge but more measurement campaigns are demonstrating it.

I'm all in favour of reducing Black Carbon emissions, but the key word there is "reducing", I see no benefit at all to anybody in trying to railroad measures that will not help and which will make things worse. Green NGOs and high ambition governments are conflating PM2.5 and Black Carbon, which is telling in itself as it was the same groups that demanded international work had to be specific to Black Carbon and spent years persuading the world to adopt the Bond et al definition despite many others recommending to develop measures to reduce PM in general since this would include BC as a species of PM and allow a more holistic approach. Interestingly, the fuel switch which could be done quite quickly and which would pretty much eliminate BC is a switch to LNG but the experts driving this don't want that as they don't like LNG for other reasons (funnily enough I'm also not a particular fan of LNG).

This is not a unique example, if you read a lot of papers submitted on the subject of emissions in general (a tip, never rely on an executive summary/abstract, if it is important always read the full paper and note the references) it is quite marked how many of them are based on assumptions which at best are questionable. I want to reduce emissions, I'm not interested in promoting bad science because it fits with dogma.

 

[Tks]

I used Black Carbon as an example because it illustrates a particular hazard, making a wrong decision could actually increase emissions. Green NGOs and certain governments are backing two immediate measures above all others based on certain experts recommendations because they are ignorant of Black Carbon emissions and are still acting based on an outdated literature review which is not supported by measured data. This includes:

1. Slowing ships down to reduce Black Carbon emissions, for the bulk of the existing fleet this will increase emissions of BC since operating electro-mechanically controlled engines at high turn down ratios will increase BC in exhaust. For modern digitally controlled common rail engines the emissions will not increase significantly but neither will they be any lower. Hence the measure is at best ineffective, and at worst will significantly increase emissions from some ships; and

2. Banning the use of HFO in the Arctic and mandating distillates. Switching to distillates will certainly reduce emissions of most PM (quite dramatically), it will not reduce emissions of BC and at some load points (funnily enough lower load points that you'd get from slowing ships down) it actually increases BC emissions. Again, this wasn't really new knowledge but more measurement campaigns are demonstrating it.

I'm all in favour of reducing Black Carbon emissions, but the key word there is "reducing", I see no benefit at all to anybody in trying to railroad measures that will not help and which will make things worse. Green NGOs and high ambition governments are conflating PM2.5 and Black Carbon, which is telling in itself as it was the same groups that demanded international work had to be specific to Black Carbon and spent years persuading the world to adopt the Bond et al definition despite many others recommending to develop measures to reduce PM in general since this would include BC as a species of PM and allow a more holistic approach. Interestingly, the fuel switch which could be done quite quickly and which would pretty much eliminate BC is a switch to LNG but the experts driving this don't want that as they don't like LNG for other reasons (funnily enough I'm also not a particular fan of LNG).

This is not a unique example, if you read a lot of papers submitted on the subject of emissions in general (a tip, never rely on an executive summary/abstract, if it is important always read the full paper and note the references) it is quite marked how many of them are based on assumptions which at best are questionable. I want to reduce emissions, I'm not interested in promoting bad science because it fits with dogma.

There's nothing much I would really disagree with here, but if I were to tell you many scientists would not stop at "reducing" it, but instead would wish it could be totally ended. How does this address my other points with respect to your claims on some majority that is a part of some supposed dogma, which I don't particularly see from a global perspective. Also most scientists that are as you describe that attempt "reductions" as the end-all that needs to be undertaken, are usually plagued with conflicts of interest (paid off) for such testimony when needed to influence governments.

And this is becoming confusing as the elaboration and diction pertaining to just EXACTLY who we're talking about is missing. "emissions experts" as you rightly called into question doesn't actually mean anything, anyone can claim to be an expert of anything, and if they have financial backing to where they can grab the ears of people in power, that's all they need then. There are a lot of semantics that need clearing up before I understand where you and I actually disagree. As things stand now, I dont disagree with your claims about the shaky nature of predictions based on models or measurements or a mix of both. Finally, I stress that there is no need for this, as we were talking about global warming, not a facet that crosses paths with, and talks about pollution and its effects from Black Carbon and particulates and such.

As I said, look at what we have in the US.. an administration that doesn't even believe pollution/global warming are even a thing. I can claim to be an expert on these matters, and if they find me compelling enough to preach to them, and then on their behalf to the citizenry, then I can potentially fit the descriptions about some sort of negatives going on within some aspect of this discussion. Just because some pretend, or malicious "experts" have poisoned the well in policy making institutions, doesn't mean a majority of scientists side with some sort of idea that is false in totality.

 

[Cosmik]

Just because some pretend, or malicious "experts" have poisoned the well in policy making institutions, doesn't mean a majority of scientists side with some sort of idea that is false in totality.

They don't have to be actively siding with a false idea; merely doing what they have to do in the face of external pressure:
Deceitful Tongues: Is Climate Change Denial A Crime? - Ecology Law Quarterly

"This Article examines whether it can be regarded as a crime based not just upon the unethical motives of its perpetrators, but on its effects: the catastrophic, global devastation which is the likely outcome of its success."

The quote makes it clear that for some people in polite society, you don't have to be dishonest or unethical to be committing a crime. If this attitude prevails, or at least has some influence, how can science live up to its ideals? It seems obvious to me as a (relative) outsider that the majority of scientists easily could end up siding with a false idea simply because any who had different ideas would never get off the career launchpad - or worse.

And then consequences flow from this: for example going nuclear in a rush to avert the imminent climate catastrophe that the most sensational - and therefore best funded - computer model predicts, and ending up with another Chernobyl; or launching a space mirror that goes wrong and freezes the earth.

 

[Cosmik]

Has anyone here ever done any computer modelling by the way? Can you *honestly* say that you didn't fiddle with the parameters and initial conditions etc. in order to get the results your bosses/paymasters/tutors wanted to see?

For sure, every model can be justified - but there's no need to reveal the hundreds that ended up in the bin because they didn't give the 'right' answer...

If there is no loop to close (before your retirement anyway), the model is pretty much a playground for fiddling about with until it gives the desired answer and then retrospectively justifying its composition. You could even do it automatically: set a computer program iterating until it finds the model that gets closest to your desired result (including stability, robustness to initial conditions etc.), then quietly delete the program. It could never happen...

 

[Tks]

Well to answer the last post you made. Personally(as I can only speak for myself here), I've been fired because I didn't fiddle with my work at work to make it work for the boss. (CAD/CAM design). I was always resisting to the power trip he liked to passively exhibit(this was a place employing mostly Korean workers, so the whole -don't leave work until the boss himself does- was a normal tradition in the work place).

The problem when people level accusations that everyone cooks the books eventually or something, is it implies each side of a debate holds the similar levels of conflicts of interest.

We have these accusations hurled at folks like me regarding veganism for example. They say vegans are like some cult or something, bribing politicians to do this or that. Holds no actual water in practice nor in theory.. What bribes? The broccoli lobby is bribing politicians lol? It just sounds ridiculous.

Likewise with this whole global warming thing. You can't sit there and say each side is plagued equally with bias or at least incentive. Solving global warming doesn't have much money in it, nor does the research, nor does much of any even tertiary ordeal surrounding it. But lets say global warming fanatics are as equally bias, and ridden of conflicts of interest with making money from the new tech companies that will start up with renewables...

What exactly is the bad thing here? All we've done is replaced greedy Oil men, with greedy Solar Power men. How is this actually something worse when the net benefit will be eventually less pollution. Please don't take this as my stance on renewables, I'm just saying that when taken to their logical promises, they will at the very least have some effect on overall biosphere impact when all forms of clean energy become widespread (if they become widespread in this hypothetical example).

So just like how we have a confidence rating scale in science, we also have a confidence scale here to say, regardless of any misgivings within the movement itself, overall we're looking at net-benefit compared to the trajectory we have today. And when you have claims that attempt to make the global warming proponents look bad or whatnot in order to stifle their discussions and ideas, you're just saying the scientific consensus is invalid, because you are willing to continue with what we have now, knowing full well it can stand to make use of the proposals for some shifts from the scientific community.

Again, if I didn't mention it in my other lengthy replies that talked about it, I feel you just need to steep yourself in the literature, as you strike me with the replies now, (and lack of replies to my prior lengthy posts) as someone simply not fully familiar with the talks from one side or both. I always urge folks to think rationally even if you have ZERO familiarity on the specifics.. Plainly put:

Now we have: Pollution, and ecological destabilization. Have bad people..

We could have: Less pollution and ecological destabilization. Also still have bad people either way..

There is nothing we lose if we undertook what scientists hope we do, and soon. We can always go back to burning oil and coal and such if we need to, this isn't a case of sunk-cost where the oil's going to expire instantly, like renewable tech would if we found out "oh shit all scientists were wrong, this tech is now worthless".

The gamble of going along with scientists is far less potential for long-term disaster, than it would be if we continued as is. You don't need to know much about global warming to come to these logical deductions.

 

[JJB70]

There's nothing much I would really disagree with here, but if I were to tell you many scientists would not stop at "reducing" it, but instead would wish it could be totally ended. How does this address my other points with respect to your claims on some majority that is a part of some supposed dogma, which I don't particularly see from a global perspective. Also most scientists that are as you describe that attempt "reductions" as the end-all that needs to be undertaken, are usually plagued with conflicts of interest (paid off) for such testimony when needed to influence governments.

And this is becoming confusing as the elaboration and diction pertaining to just EXACTLY who we're talking about is missing. "emissions experts" as you rightly called into question doesn't actually mean anything, anyone can claim to be an expert of anything, and if they have financial backing to where they can grab the ears of people in power, that's all they need then. There are a lot of semantics that need clearing up before I understand where you and I actually disagree. As things stand now, I dont disagree with your claims about the shaky nature of predictions based on models or measurements or a mix of both. Finally, I stress that there is no need for this, as we were talking about global warming, not a facet that crosses paths with, and talks about pollution and its effects from Black Carbon and particulates and such.

As I said, look at what we have in the US.. an administration that doesn't even believe pollution/global warming are even a thing. I can claim to be an expert on these matters, and if they find me compelling enough to preach to them, and then on their behalf to the citizenry, then I can potentially fit the descriptions about some sort of negatives going on within some aspect of this discussion. Just because some pretend, or malicious "experts" have poisoned the well in policy making institutions, doesn't mean a majority of scientists side with some sort of idea that is false in totality.

I think everybody agrees that the aim is to eliminate emissions of Black Carbon, however the current work item in international discussions is aimed at reducing. I think there is mutual agreement on both sides about this, one side prefers reduction initially because they'd prefer not to do much, the other prefers it because they don't like the option on the table that could eliminate it (LNG).

My concern is to promote informed decision making which will result in effective emissions reduction. That requires an open mind to the science of emissions. Most people will never read technical papers on the subject, but policy decision makers should be able to read and understand such papers, and read past the executive summary/abstract, and be both sceptical and open minded. Sceptical in not accepting a 200 word summary offering a simple answer at face value on the basis that somebody must know what they're doing as they're apparently an expert, open minded in looking at data and evidence. At the moment some of the papers underpinning policy decisions are rubbish. One of things papers do is to create a false consensus, given the number of papers on certain emissions subjects it is remarkable how in a few cases they all go back to the same original paper and just repackage results obtained in a particular measurement campaign, experiment or hypothesis. This then creates a culture in which dissenting opinion or data is dismissed as either representing statistical outliers or for just being vexatious without being properly considered, which is not healthy.

Something to keep in mind is that this stopped being a debate between big corporations and fearless activists (if it ever was that simple) long ago. Big business is now firmly in both camps (often the same business) and there is serious investment in clean technology development. Electrical utilities have been making huge sums from renewables development in some countries. There remains a conception that big oil is funding climate change denial (that is now a great simplification as even Saudi Aramco is preparing for a post oil world) in the face of science, now a lot of the papers are effectively being fed to governments by large corporations and plenty of consultancies and research institutes are doing very well out of it all. I don't see the involvement of big business as meaning a paper is right or wrong either way (if for no other reason than the fact that since most expertise on these matters sits in business and they tend to invest an awful lot in R&D, so it is basically inevitable a lot of the research will come from business) but if we are to use the source of funding and potential reward to question some positions then we should apply the same approach consistently.

My own view is I support a cleaner environment and low/zero carbon energy. I've no more interest in creating a new cash cow for big corporations than I have in preserving big oil and gas, however I also have no objection to people and businesses profiting if they develop the necessary solutions.

 

[Cosmik]

Likewise with this whole global warming thing. You can't sit there and say each side is plagued equally with bias or at least incentive. Solving global warming doesn't have much money in it, nor does the research, nor does much of any even tertiary ordeal surrounding it.

That's only part of it. There's a theory that even hard-nosed industrialists and CEOs are willing to sacrifice company profits for personal virtue signalling.

But lets say global warming fanatics are as equally bias, and ridden of conflicts of interest with making money from the new tech companies that will start up with renewables...

What exactly is the bad thing here? All we've done is replaced greedy Oil men, with greedy Solar Power men. How is this actually something worse when the net benefit will be eventually less pollution.

For the reasons I mentioned in my other post: technological, political, economic folly that costs us dear in the end. Communism and/or socialism hitching a ride (Green New Deal anyone?).

There is a small, perfect example of this type of folly that we can always refer to: when the European Union pushed for diesel over twenty years ago, justifying it on the grounds of producing 15% less CO2 per mile than petrol. In the end they did far more damage than leaving things as they were.