@alien
This is where I must respectfully disagree - on the alleged academics of climate change. Universities are a business (assumption).

Faculty compete for grants and subsidies - funded by governments (political) and industry (commercial).

Assuming academia is a business AND they compete for grants, publications, and subsidies (in addition to consulting activities), then logically, academia is heavily influenced by both politics and by commercial exploitation - an extrapolative and qualitative deduction (or induction, depending on one's perspective).

Examples from commercial industry show the broad scale and state of industrial corruption and occasionally epic displays of social and governmental/political irresponsibility - nothing new there - across a broad spectrum of markets and market segments - so I believe that academia is highly biased and influenced by both politics and commercial interests and benefactors, in addition to philanthropists - which are more rare and more focused.

Politicians jump on social responsibility bandwagons for a variety of reasons - but mostly to attract free publicity as a good and socially responsible leader - fodder for their next election - however we also know that generally, politicians are rather multi-faced and split-tongued, spouting political rhetoric to fit the occasion, regardless of consistency, actual due diligence research, and the associated honor, integrity, morality issues.

As I believe, based on the above observational assumptions - that academia is tainted - then generally I believe that most science is potentially tainted (high energy particle physics aside).

So, while we may disagree on the integrity of the alleged academics on BOTH sides of the climate change issue - I believe we can both agree that the derived benefits of the issue are invaluable - a great concern and respect for our environmental management.

And - for the record - I'm surprised nobody dragged in the Three Gorges Dam for contributing to climate change - that was a sensational global issue decades ago.

Concrete manufacturing is also an alleged significant polluter, steel industry, coal industry - all of these are core development and employment industries in China and pillars of China's development - so I have absolutely no doubt the US will jump on any bandwagon in an attempt to "contain China". Obama's "pivot to asia" is blatant anti-China hegemony and his eight years in office is a continuation of that oppressive political agenda.

China's scale makes EVERYTHING it does a major impact in global economies, global environment, and global societies.

Instead of academically debating climate change - I would propose we focus on how we can economically limit the effects of man-made pollution through add-on industries - migration from fossil fuel-based vehicles to electrics (powered by renewable energies), responsible water management, responsible agricultural management (soil, water, and food chain pollution and poisoning), ocean management, air pollution management (cars, trucks and buses are the major sources of this pollution - so the migration to electrics will eventually mitigate this issue) and so on ad infinitum.

Finding solutions which profit oriented businesses can accept (usually with government prodding) without driving them into bankruptcy (thank you US EPA) is the holy grail of industry.

Yunnan is a major mining industry - how to add environmental management to those industries while acceptably impacting their profits is a great place to start (and would that require a new thread?).

Kunming's waste-water management is epically poor - mixing rain water run-off with raw sewage - and then piping that to the waste-water treatment plants - the burst in traffic results in raw or poorly processed sewage pouring into DianChi.

Cleaning up Kunming's canals in a sustainable manner as opposed to the occasional band-aids.

Migrating city buses to electrics (that will make BYD VERY happy).

Yunnan has extensive construction (real estate development, road and highway construction, etc) - so doing LEED-like ratings on these projects (great for government work) during construction and the follow-on operations would be a great academic study for government - especially since most Yunnan academia is poorly supported by industry (aka negligible grants, negligible subsidies, negligible consulting opportunities for faculty) - so outright bribery, coercion, and extortion issues aside - that would be a great pilot project for the environmentally interested.

Is anyone interested in a new and separate thread or forum on how the gokm community can participate in constructive debate of this apparently hot topic, leading to economically feasible and sustainable opportunities?

Perhaps we can eventually create our own consulting group and supplement our meager incomes while performing an arguably socially and environmentally invaluable service?

Many of the more senior (seniors and retirees) members of gokm have tremendous depth of professional experience, untapped by this community and society in which we're immersed.

We may all disagree on certain issues, but I believe all are interested in the various social and environmental issues that abound around us - especially if that generated consulting income (assuming we can find buyers).

@lemon

lover
Right - and then there were the decades (in the USA) of telling us to eat low-fat or fat free meats - only to discover that our bodies need a certain amount of certain kinds of fats to help digestion.

And of course - need we forget the USA's (aka Bush family's) infamous invasion of Iraq in their alleged search for weapons of mass destruction - which embarrassingly turned up nothing.

So - I'm rather skeptical about politically biased agendas and our alleged scientific bandwagons these days.

@geezer
I resigned, quit, was "laid off" (reduced) or just outright fired. Worked my way up to getting canned. My dazzlingly abrasive personality doesn't help.

@Alien
If you think it highly unlikely that an entire industry would participate in questionable professional practices, allow me to cite a few gross examples - Enron, Global Crossing, Arthur Andersen, Bernie Madoff, Solyndra (debatable, but highly questionable), and the creme de la creme - the US lead global financial crisis which peaked in 2008 - a repeat but significantly enhanced and scaled version of the US Savings & Loan Crisis 20 years earlier.

And now the world has the POTUS Trump, who appears quite similar to the North Korean great leader in his bold brash leadership. Big pharma invaded and infected the medical practice with its prolific and pervasive panacea of customized drugs for usurious prices. China recently ordered public hospitals to divest themselves of their outpatient pharmacies (I'm not clear on the details) for painfully obvious reasons, as healthcare is now a business with prolific and pervasive up-selling, as opposed to a public service.

However, that's just my jaded pessimistic opinion - I'm a seriously depressing, if not insane person to be around, as I see conspiracies everywhere.

Dilbert is popular (at least, in the USA) because many have actually experienced that kind of oppressive, insane, abusive management.

@janjal
Think ludicrously classified compartmentalized weapons systems R&D. That kind of secretive, compartmentalized environment will naturally be abused by those with a proclivity and penchant for fraud, waste, and abuse.

You're also presuming government officials are responsible, ethical, and moral people and always tell the truth. That's a career crushing behavior - we call those paragons "whistle-blowers".

As with the general topic of climate change - there are many professionals supporting climate change and many professional detractors.

I have no opinion either way - however I do appreciate the attention and focus it gave on more responsible co-existence with and management of our environment.

While Dilbert is not by any means techno science - it does point out perceived fallacies:

dilbert.com/strip/2017-05-14