Climate change

[Strokes]

14 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Exactly - they care little for a future they won't have any part in and so aren't into risk management on this particular topic.

 

It's a cute example of how short term instinct can work against a species, actually.

Bet you a tenner it don't happen  

[leicsmac]

5 minutes ago, Strokes said:

Bet you a tenner it don't happen  

Works for me but you're going to have to do the legwork and find an extraterrestrial bookie to ensure payout.

[Strokes]

1 hour ago, leicsmac said:

Works for me but you're going to have to do the legwork and find an extraterrestrial bookie to ensure payout.

If you science boffs had focussed on something worthwhile, we would have had a time machine by now. We could have settled the bet tonight 

[leicsmac]

2 minutes ago, Strokes said:

If you science boffs had focussed on something worthwhile, we would have had a time machine by now. We could have settled the bet tonight 

Either that or if we'd taken spaceflight development seriously over the past few decades whatever's out there (including the alien equivalent of Betfred) might have stopped pointing and laughing long enough to introduce themselves and we could have stuck the money down.

[Strokes]

6 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Either that or if we'd taken spaceflight development seriously over the past few decades whatever's out there (including the alien equivalent of Betfred) might have stopped pointing and laughing long enough to introduce themselves and we could have stuck the money down.

That's assuming what we find isn't worth pointing and laughing at ourselves first. If they're so clever they would have found us  

Edited 1 May 2017 by Strokes

[leicsmac]

3 minutes ago, Strokes said:

That's assuming what we find isn't worth pointing and laughing at ourselves first. If they're so clever they would have found us  

Or they're SO clever they've found us already, we don't know about it, and as such we're their equivalent of Geordie Shore.

 

Either way I'd like humans to last long enough to find out.

[Strokes]

1 minute ago, leicsmac said:

Or they're SO clever they've found us already, we don't know about it, and as such we're their equivalent of Geordie Shore.

 

Either way I'd like humans to last long enough to find out.

 

[davieG]

UK clean air strategy: Government to publish draft proposals

By Matt McGrathEnvironment correspondent

8 hours ago

 

From the sectionScience & Environment

These are external links and will open in a new window

 

Image captionDrivers of older diesel cars may be given incentives to scrap their cars under draft government plans

The UK government is set to publish a draft air pollution plan after a protracted legal battle with environmental campaigners.

It is likely to include a scrappage scheme for older diesel cars in areas with high levels of dirty air.

Speed bumps could be removed in some cities to cut pollution from cars slowing down and speeding up.

Environmental lawyers ClientEarth said they would "thoroughly analyse" the proposals.

Judicial review

According to the Royal College of Physicians, air pollution across the UK is linked to around 40,000 premature deaths every year.

The UK has struggled to keep within EU limits on some pollutants, particularly nitrogen dioxide (NO2), which is produced by diesel engines and is linked to a range of respiratory diseases including asthma. Some 37 of the 43 regions of the UK are in breach of NO2 limits.

Image copyrightGETTY IMAGES

Image captionAir pollution protesters have taken to the streets in the UK to demand cleaner air

Under earlier government plans, some parts of the UK would not have met EU NO2 standards until 2030. The original deadline to achieve these limits was 2010.

Exasperated by what they believed was government foot-dragging on the question of cleaner air, ClientEarth mounted a legal challenge to force faster action.

In April 2015, the UK Supreme Court ruled the government had to take immediate steps on the issue.

Unhappy with the timescales in the plan that was then produced, ClientEarth went to the High Court last November for a judicial review.

Once again the court supported the lawyers, telling the government that its scheme was "woefully inadequate" and giving ministers until 24 April this year to produce a new draft.

With a general election in the offing, the government last week asked the judge for permission to delay the draft plan. But Mr Justice Garnham disagreed and ordered publication by 9 May.

"These steps are necessary in order to safeguard public health," he said.

Earlier this week, the government said it would not appeal against the ruling and would publish.

'Toxin taxes'

In their previous plans, ministers wanted to create "clean air zones" in five cities outside London with high levels of NO2.

Only the most polluting vehicles would have to pay a charge to enter the zone under that scheme. The new draft plan is expected to create many more such zones.

Councils will be given the power to impose fines or restrictions on all polluting vehicles in these areas.

Image copyrightGETTY IMAGES

Image captionLevels of some air pollutants in London broke annual limits in just five days this year

In the worst cities, so called "toxin taxes" could range up to £20 a day but the government is said to be keen not to punish drivers who bought diesels as a result of incentives brought in by a previous Labour administration. This is something that the lawyers at ClientEarth support.

"Successive governments have encouraged people to buy diesel. We don't want to see diesel drivers vilified, and we think the plans should also include properly funded incentives to help people move to cleaner forms of transport," said ClientEarth CEO James Thornton.

"We will thoroughly analyse the government's draft plans when they are produced. If we do not think they are in line with the court order, to deal with illegal levels of pollution as soon as possible, then we will consider our next steps."

According to newspaper reports, the government has agreed to back a "targeted" scrappage scheme for older diesel cars, but limited to vehicles in areas of high pollution. There may also be funding for a retrofitting scheme to help existing diesel car and van owners cut their emissions of NO2.

The government is also said to be pushing for councils to use alternatives to charging, including the removal of speed bumps in some places and the better sequencing of traffic lights in others. Both of these measures could limit cars having to slow down and speed up repeatedly, actions that can almost double the amount of NO2 produced.

However, the idea that speed bumps which slow down traffic would be sacrificed to help clean up the air we breathe is not a welcome concept according to road safety charity Brake.

"We ought not to be made to choose between having cleaner air and safer roads," a spokesman said.

"The evidence shows that air pollution is contributing to the early deaths of thousands of people. It's now clear that there's more than one way a car can kill you."

The new proposals will be out for consultation for six weeks before the government produces a final plan at the end of July.

[Guest]

Getting rid of speedbumps would be fantastic! Not a bad idea to begin with on specific roads but wow they've been done to death!

[leicsmac]

I'm agog to know why the government dragged their feet so much on this one.

[Webbo]

I thought this might interest Mac.

 

 

 

The news article that predicted the devastating impact of fossil fuels on climate change and warned the damage will be 'considerable in a few centuries' - in 1912!

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-4584444/A-century-old-newspaper-predicted-global-warming-1912.html#ixzz4jQfgZABW 
 

[leicsmac]

12 minutes ago, Webbo said:

I thought this might interest Mac.

 

 

 

The news article that predicted the devastating impact of fossil fuels on climate change and warned the damage will be 'considerable in a few centuries' - in 1912!

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-4584444/A-century-old-newspaper-predicted-global-warming-1912.html#ixzz4jQfgZABW 
 

 

That is damned interesting, much obliged. (Though I should have known better to look at the comments.)

 

It does show that people have considered the effects of such for some time, and the fossil fuel companies have taken a very clever leaf straight out of the tobacco industry playbook to keep things in doubt at the level of the average person for this long.

 

FWIW though my main problem with fossil fuel extraction and use is the immediate detrimental effect they give when they produce direct air pollution (smog and other stuff), and also land and water pollution when something goes wrong with how they're handled.

 

[Carl the Llama]

19 minutes ago, Webbo said:

I thought this might interest Mac.

 

 

 

The news article that predicted the devastating impact of fossil fuels on climate change and warned the damage will be 'considerable in a few centuries' - in 1912!

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-4584444/A-century-old-newspaper-predicted-global-warming-1912.html#ixzz4jQfgZABW 
 

And they were right:  There has been ample observable evidence of climate change since 1912 and in another couple of centuries the damage will be even more obvious if we don't do something about it.

[Strokes]

11 minutes ago, Carl the Llama said:

And they were right:  There has been ample observable evidence of climate change since 1912 and in another couple of centuries the damage will be even more obvious if we don't do something about it.

I have energy saving light bulbs 

[Webbo]

7 minutes ago, Strokes said:

I have energy saving light bulbs 

Hero is an overused phrase, but you sir fit that description.

[Strokes]

9 minutes ago, Webbo said:

Hero is an overused phrase, but you sir fit that description.

I know I'm normally quite humble and modest as you all know (it's one of my many, many qualities) but I felt I had to let you all know this, as a clean healthy planet is important to me.

[MC Prussian]

I've become more interested in the subject in recent weeks and months, in parts due to the resurfacing of the topic being mentioned in the media, by certain political entities and based on public protests.

 

I don't deny Climate Change, it changes permanently, with or without us - I'm highly skeptical of the way it and its rate is portrayed in the media and by politicians and activists.

 

The questions or thoughts I have are as follows:

• How come an increase of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is portrayed as an evil, when plants thrive on it? So, logically the more carbon dioxide, the better our biodiversity and plant growth, no? The whole concept of "decarbonization" must be considered to be based on a faulty premise.
• With regards to the increase of global temperatures, how come there is no mention of the way these temperatures are measured these days? Tons of weather stations, in particular in rural areas, have been decommissioned or scrapped altogether, leaving mostly city temperatures. No question about how skewed these "modern" average temperatures become? There have also been examples of stations placed near busy parking lots at US universities, how does that contribute to a proper reliable estimate?
• Water surface temperature is largely underrepresented in the IPCC studies, the vast majority of studies is based on landlocked data. Why? 70% of our planet's surface are ignored in the process...
• Why no mention of the fact that an increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere follows a rise in temperature, and not vice versa? Carbon dioxide can be stored in water as part of a solution, as temperatures increase, so does carbon dioxide resurface in the air. Again, remember that water makes up 70% of our planet's surface.
• Why no mention that the temperature change in the past 25 years or so has been massively skewed by two El Niños (1998 and 2015)? We are currently back on the level of 2003...
• Why no mention that even though temperatures and the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere have simultaneously increased in between the late 70ies and early 2000s, but neither before nor after?
• Modern temperature recording archives in the Western World start at around 1850, so shortly after the end of a mini ice age, probably the coldest the planet has been in the space of 10'000 years. So, isn't it odd to use that as a basis, when it is clear that it can only get warmer from there?
• Why no mention of the average temperature on the planet in the past 2'000 years? 1'000 years ago, we've had a very warm period, followed by falling temperatures, same at around the year 0. There are findings in Greenland that prove the vikings were once able to grow barley on that soil.
• Why no mention of the Sun's activity, which has been on a high level in the past ten years? We do know that the Sun has an eleven-year Solar cycle, that its magnetic field impacts our atmosphere and temperatures. No coincidence that more sunshine, a stronger Solar Magnetic Field and less clouds see temperatures increase? Why does the IPCC call that "mere coincidence"?
• Why no mention of tectonic shifts on the Earth's surface that account for islands sinking on their respective plate? As seen with the Caroline Plate/Pacific Plate. Islands in that area do not suffer from rising sea level, but Earth plates shifting.
• When you look at the period between 1997 and 2015/2016, we had 18 years of no clear increase in global temperatures, something the science couldn't predict. How come?
• Why is there no open criticism of the IPCC with regards to its bias and elitism, the lack of transparency when selecting their authors or panel members, when critics of the WTO-funded organization aren't welcome in the first place, when you look at the money involved and the independent scientific research threatened by the dependence on the monies provided? Critical research is ignored. Their computer models are also faulty, because they ignore certain influences or components such as the effects of clouds or the UV radiation. Using flawed computer scenarios that do not use physics but incomplete data sets does not automatically equal science or scientific research.
• A former Under Secretary for Barack Obama has admitted that NOAA and NASA data have been/are manipulated: https://physicstoday.scitation.org/do/10.1063/PT.5.8071/full/ Trust your government, I suppose.
• According to a 2018 IPCC report on Climate Change, it is claimed that all of it is man-made, no influence by nature. By that logic, there couldn't be any pre-Industrial Revolution Climate Change. But once you look at the graphs that study temperatures going back thousands, if not tens of thousands of years, based on ice probes, there is a regular pattern of colder and warmer periods. In that context, where we are now could be considered the last warm period before the start of another (mini) ice age. And in general, warmer temperatures are preferred over colder ones, due to the more severe impact on vegetation.
• Why no talk about the increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere caused by an increase in population? Every human being emits plenty of carbon dioxide over the course of a life. In the past 50 to 60 years, the world's population has increased by a staggering 200 percent, from 2.5 billion to close to more than 7.5 billion, whilst flora and fauna have suffered, with Africa (Nigeria, Ethiopia, DR Congo or Uganda amongst many) and Asia (predominantly China and India) in particular as the biggest drivers. No mention of the strain this has on the surface of the planet, the natural resources needed to provide for up to 11 billion people estimated by the year 2100? There is a massively growing imbalance between carbon dioxide output and oxygen intake as a consequence.
• There is lots of talk about the more and more devastating effect of Climate Change in terms of negative weather phenomena. But what is often not mentioned is is that the damage has increased partly because there are more people living on this planet year by year, causing more casualties, but also because we regularly build more infrastructure and possess more belongings (houses, cars, boats, roads, bridges, etc.). Why is that cause and effect never mentioned?
• We also live longer on average, so use up more resources with each additional year we are allowed to live on this planet
• In the end, ask yourselves: Cui bono? Who profits from what some would call a "Climate Change Hysteria"?

How much of an influence does mankind have on Climate Change, temperature increase and carbon dioxide emissions?

How much of an issue is it truly?

How big is the influence of carbon dioxide really?

What can we actually do to save humanity if it were true that we are facing a climate catastrophe in about twelve years, as people as Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and her entourage claim?

What good do renewable energy sources and technologies at present, when their power/energy conversion coefficient remains relatively low? Wind turbines rely heavily on fluctuating wind, solar panels are still too inefficient and bulky and water energy relies on ebb and flow and regular rainfall. How are we to provide more and more people living on this planet with an increase in demand for power/energy/electricity, if not by means that provide fast supply, in particular atom energy?

How do we know we are not approaching another mini ice age?

 

To me, the debate surrounding climate change is mostly hysteria, it remains superficial and does hardly ever take the Earth's history into account. I see teenagers such as Greta Thunberg as influencers with a certain agenda, but also as pawns. They have a message with little to no content. It borders on indoctrination at a very early age.

 

What worth does the Paris Treaty have when countries and the major resource-wasters such as China (up to 3'500 coal-based power plants) and India (up to 1'000 coal-based power plants) are allowed to continue their rotten fossil fuel policy and the US have left the building? And individual European countries, such as Germany, contributing 2% of the total carbon dioxide output, talk about the "Energiewende" (energy transition)...

 

And yes - polar bears continue to thrive, they do not need ice to survive...

https://polarbearscience.com/2019/02/27/state-of-the-polar-bear-report-2018-polar-bears-continue-to-thrive/

 

Also share a thought for former Climate Change activists who now think they've made a huge mistake with the earlier warnings:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2134092/Gaia-scientist-James-Lovelock-I-alarmist-climate-change.html

 

Fancy going for an electric car in the near future? Think again... Lithium doesn't grow on trees and its extraction requires a lot of water:

https://www.wired.co.uk/article/lithium-batteries-environment-impact

Edited 29 May 2019 by MC Prussian

[AlloverthefloorYesNdidi]

1 hour ago, MC Prussian said:

I've become more interested in the subject in recent weeks and months, in parts due to the resurfacing of the topic being mentioned in the media, by certain political entities and based on public protests.

 

I don't deny Climate Change, it changes permanently, with or without us - I'm highly skeptical of the way it and its rate is portrayed in the media and by politicians and activists.

 

The questions or thoughts I have are as follows:

• How come an increase of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is portrayed as an evil, when plants thrive on it? So, logically the more carbon dioxide, the better our biodiversity and plant growth, no? The whole concept of "decarbonization" must be considered to be based on a faulty premise.
• With regards to the increase of global temperatures, how come there is no mention of the way these temperatures are measured these days? Tons of weather stations, in particular in rural areas, have been decommissioned or scrapped altogether, leaving mostly city temperatures. No question about how skewed these "modern" average temperatures become? There have also been examples of stations placed near busy parking lots at US universities, how does that contribute to a proper reliable estimate?
• Water surface temperature is largely underrepresented in the IPCC studies, the vast majority of studies is based on landlocked data. Why? 70% of our planet's surface are ignored in the process...
• Why no mention of the fact that an increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere follows a rise in temperature, and not vice versa? Carbon dioxide can be stored in water as part of a solution, as temperatures increase, so does carbon dioxide resurface in the air. Again, remember that water makes up 70% of our planet's surface.
• Why no mention that the temperature change in the past 25 years or so has been massively skewed by two El Niños (1998 and 2015)? We are currently back on the level of 2003...
• Why no mention that even though temperatures and the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere have simultaneously increased in between the late 70ies and early 2000s, but neither before nor after?
• Modern temperature recording archives in the Western World start at around 1850, so shortly after the end of a mini ice age, probably the coldest the planet has been in the space of 10'000 years. So, isn't it odd to use that as a basis, when it is clear that it can only get warmer from there?
• Why no mention of the average temperature on the planet in the past 2'000 years? 1'000 years ago, we've had a very warm period, followed by falling temperatures, same at around the year 0. There are findings in Greenland that prove the vikings were once able to grow barley on that soil.
• Why no mention of the Sun's activity, which has been on a high level in the past ten years? We do know that the Sun has an eleven-year Solar cycle, that its magnetic field impacts our atmosphere and temperatures. No coincidence that more sunshine, a stronger Solar Magnetic Field and less clouds see temperatures increase? Why does the IPCC call that "mere coincidence"?
• Why no mention of tectonic shifts on the Earth's surface that account for islands sinking on their respective plate? As seen with the Caroline Plate/Pacific Plate. Islands in that area do not suffer from rising sea level, but Earth plates shifting.
• When you look at the period between 1997 and 2015/2016, we had 18 years of no clear increase in global temperatures, something the science couldn't predict. How come?
• Why is there no open criticism of the IPCC with regards to its bias and elitism, the lack of transparency when selecting their authors or panel members, when critics of the WTO-funded organization aren't welcome in the first place, when you look at the money involved and the independent scientific research threatened by the dependence on the monies provided? Critical research is ignored. Their computer models are also faulty, because they ignore certain influences or components such as the effects of clouds or the UV radiation. Using flawed computer scenarios that do not use physics but incomplete data sets does not automatically equal science or scientific research.
• A former Under Secretary for Barack Obama has admitted that NOAA and NASA data have been/are manipulated: https://physicstoday.scitation.org/do/10.1063/PT.5.8071/full/ Trust your government, I suppose.
• According to a 2018 IPCC report on Climate Change, it is claimed that all of it is man-made, no influence by nature. By that logic, there couldn't be any pre-Industrial Revolution Climate Change. But once you look at the graphs that study temperatures going back thousands, if not tens of thousands of years, based on ice probes, there is a regular pattern of colder and warmer periods. In that context, where we are now could be considered the last warm period before the start of another (mini) ice age. And in general, warmer temperatures are preferred over colder ones, due to the more severe impact on vegetation.
• Why no talk about the increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere caused by an increase in population? Every human being emits plenty of carbon dioxide over the course of a life. In the past 50 to 60 years, the world's population has increased by a staggering 200 percent, from 2.5 billion to close to more than 7.5 billion, whilst flora and fauna have suffered, with Africa (Nigeria, Ethiopia, DR Congo or Uganda amongst many) and Asia (predominantly China and India) in particular as the biggest drivers. No mention of the strain this has on the surface of the planet, the natural resources needed to provide for up to 11 billion people estimated by the year 2100? There is a massively growing imbalance between carbon dioxide output and oxygen intake as a consequence.
• There is lots of talk about the more and more devastating effect of Climate Change in terms of negative weather phenomena. But what is often not mentioned is is that the damage has increased partly because there are more people living on this planet year by year, causing more casualties, but also because we regularly build more infrastructure and possess more belongings (houses, cars, boats, roads, bridges, etc.). Why is that cause and effect never mentioned?
• We also live longer on average, so use up more resources with each additional year we are allowed to live on this planet
• In the end, ask yourselves: Cui bono? Who profits from what some would call a "Climate Change Hysteria"?

How much of an influence does mankind have on Climate Change, temperature increase and carbon dioxide emissions?

How much of an issue is it truly?

How big is the influence of carbon dioxide really?

What can we actually do to save humanity if it were true that we are facing a climate catastrophe in about twelve years, as people as Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and her entourage claim?

What good do renewable energy sources and technologies at present, when their power/energy conversion coefficient remains relatively low? Wind turbines rely heavily on fluctuating wind, solar panels are still too inefficient and bulky and water energy relies on ebb and flow and regular rainfall. How are we to provide more and more people living on this planet with an increase in demand for power/energy/electricity, if not by means that provide fast supply, in particular atom energy?

How do we know we are not approaching another mini ice age?

 

To me, the debate surrounding climate change is mostly hysteria, it remains superficial and does hardly ever take the Earth's history into account. I see teenagers such as Greta Thunberg as influencers with a certain agenda, but also as pawns. They have a message with little to no content. It borders on indoctrination at a very early age.

 

What worth does the Paris Treaty have when countries and the major resource-wasters such as China (up to 3'500 coal-based power plants) and India (up to 1'000 coal-based power plants) are allowed to continue their rotten fossil fuel policy and the US have left the building? And individual European countries, such as Germany, contributing 2% of the total carbon dioxide output, talk about the "Energiewende" (energy transition)...

 

And yes - polar bears continue to thrive, they do not need ice to survive...

https://polarbearscience.com/2019/02/27/state-of-the-polar-bear-report-2018-polar-bears-continue-to-thrive/

 

Also share a thought for former Climate Change activists who now think they've made a huge mistake with the earlier warnings:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2134092/Gaia-scientist-James-Lovelock-I-alarmist-climate-change.html

 

Fancy going for an electric car in the near future? Think again... Lithium doesn't grow on trees and its extraction requires a lot of water:

https://www.wired.co.uk/article/lithium-batteries-environment-impact

In a few moments someone is going to come on here and call you a bad person for suggesting this and ignore anything you've said

 

AOC is a massive hypocrite. Read an article recently that mentioned all the unnecessary use of planes and ubers on her part when she lives right next to public transport and had no need to use anything else

 

But apparently we must only listen to her and whatever any climate activist under the age of 16 thinks because of course they  know

 

 

Edited 29 May 2019 by AlloverthefloorYesNdidi

[David Guiza]

i still 

35 minutes ago, MC Prussian said:

 

And yes - polar bears continue to thrive, they do not need ice to survive...

https://polarbearscience.com/2019/02/27/state-of-the-polar-bear-report-2018-polar-bears-continue-to-thrive/

 

Also share a thought for former Climate Change activists who now think they've made a huge mistake with the earlier warnings:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2134092/Gaia-scientist-James-Lovelock-I-alarmist-climate-change.html

 

Fancy going for an electric car in the near future? Think again... Lithium doesn't grow on trees and its extraction requires a lot of water:

https://www.wired.co.uk/article/lithium-batteries-environment-impact

Whilst I don't discredit the majority of your post, as I don't know enough about the subject not because I agree with you, I do find your sources somewhat convenient.

 

1. This website seems to be a blog by this lady:-

Crockford is a signatory of the International Conference on Climate Change's 2008 Manhattan Declaration,^[10] which states that "Carbon dioxide and other 'greenhouse gas' emissions from human activity...appear to have only a very small impact on global climate," and "Global cooling has presented serious problems for human society and the environment throughout history while global warming has generally been highly beneficial."^[11] Between at least 2011 and 2013, she received payment from The Heartland Institute, in the form of $750 per month, which Crockford states was to provide summaries of published papers that might not have been covered by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change'sFifth Assessment Report.^[1] This payment has been construed as an undisclosed conflict of interest, by blogs such as Desmog Blog.^[2] Her response to such claims was a disclosure of the job description, how much she was paid, and the duration of the contract.^[1]

Although claims made on Crockford's blog have been called into question by polar bear scientists, the blog has been widely cited by climate change denying websites, with over 80% citing it as their primary source of information on polar bears.^[12] Critics point out that none of Crockford's claims regarding the effects of climate change on polar bears has undergone peer review, nor has she ever published any peer-reviewed articles whose main focus is polar bears.^[2][12] In 2017 Crockford was accused in the environmental publication The Narwhal by polar bear scientist Ian Stirling as having "zero" credibility on polar bears. “The denier websites have been using her and building her up as an expert,” he told the website.^[13]

In 2017, Crockford published the State of the Polar Bear Report 2017 for the Global Warming Policy Foundation.^[14].

That seems uncomfortable at best on her part. 

 

2. The Daily Mail. I could end there . The article is from 2012 and there are numerous within the past 7 years where the man in question continues to say what a damaging effect climate change has/will have.

 

3. It's a difficult topic and, in some ways, similar to the arguments that some meat eaters have against veggies/vegans with soy/palm oil etc (I try to avoid both wherever possible). The alternatives to petrol and diesel cars is still in a relative infancy and will, hopefully, only get better. There are always going to be knock on measures, but hopefully, in time, that will decrease. 

[leicsmac]

19 minutes ago, MC Prussian said:

I've become more interested in the subject in recent weeks and months, in parts due to the resurfacing of the topic being mentioned in the media, by certain political entities and based on public protests.

 

I don't deny Climate Change, it changes permanently, with or without us - I'm highly skeptical of the way it and its rate is portrayed in the media and by politicians and activists.

 

The questions or thoughts I have are as follows:

• How come an increase of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is portrayed as an evil, when plants thrive on it? So, logically the more carbon dioxide, the better our biodiversity and plant growth, no? The whole concept of "decarbonization" must be considered to be based on a faulty premise.

https://skepticalscience.com/co2-plant-food.htm

• With regards to the increase of global temperatures, how come there is no mention of the way these temperatures are measured these days? Tons of weather stations, in particular in rural areas, have been decommissioned or scrapped altogether, leaving mostly city temperatures. No question about how skewed these "modern" average temperatures become? There have also been examples of stations placed near busy parking lots at US universities, how does that contribute to a proper reliable estimate?

https://skepticalscience.com/surface-temperature-measurements.htm

• Water surface temperature is largely underrepresented in the IPCC studies, the vast majority of studies is based on landlocked data. Why? 70% of our planet's surface are ignored in the process...

As above.

• Why no mention of the fact that an increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere follows a rise in temperature, and not vice versa? Carbon dioxide can be stored in water as part of a solution, as temperatures increase, so does carbon dioxide resurface in the air. Again, remember that water makes up 70% of our planet's surface.

https://skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperature.htm

• Why no mention that the temperature change in the past 25 years or so has been massively skewed by two El Niños (1998 and 2015)? We are currently back on the level of 2003...

https://skepticalscience.com/el-nino-southern-oscillation.htm

• Why no mention that even though temperatures and the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere have simultaneously increased in between the late 70ies and early 2000s, but neither before nor after?

https://skepticalscience.com/global-warming-stopped-in-1998.htm

• Modern temperature recording archives in the Western World start at around 1850, so shortly after the end of a mini ice age, probably the coldest the planet has been in the space of 10'000 years. So, isn't it odd to use that as a basis, when it is clear that it can only get warmer from there?

https://skepticalscience.com/10000-years-warmer.htm

• Why no mention of the average temperature on the planet in the past 2'000 years? 1'000 years ago, we've had a very warm period, followed by falling temperatures, same at around the year 0. There are findings in Greenland that prove the vikings were once able to grow barley on that soil.

https://skepticalscience.com/medieval-warm-period.htm

• Why no mention of the Sun's activity, which has been on a high level in the past ten years? We do know that the Sun has an eleven-year Solar cycle, that its magnetic field impacts our atmosphere and temperatures. No coincidence that more sunshine, a stronger Solar Magnetic Field and less clouds see temperatures increase? Why does the IPCC call that "mere coincidence"?

https://skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming.htm

• Why no mention of tectonic shifts on the Earth's surface that account for islands sinking on their respective plate? As seen with the Caroline Plate/Pacific Plate. Islands in that area do not suffer from rising sea level, but Earth plates shifting.

https://skepticalscience.com/decelerating-sea-level-rise.htm

• When you look at the period between 1997 and 2015/2016, we had 18 years of no clear increase in global temperatures, something the science couldn't predict. How come?

https://skepticalscience.com/global-warming-stopped-in-1998.htm

• Why is there no open criticism of the IPCC with regards to its bias and elitism, the lack of transparency when selecting their authors or panel members, when critics of the WTO-funded organization aren't welcome in the first place, when you look at the money involved and the independent scientific research threatened by the dependence on the monies provided? Critical research is ignored. Their computer models are also faulty, because they ignore certain influences or components such as the effects of clouds or the UV radiation. Using flawed computer scenarios that do not use physics but incomplete data sets does not automatically equal science or scientific research.

https://skepticalscience.com/skeptic-scientists-ipcc.htm

• A former Under Secretary for Barack Obama has admitted that NOAA and NASA data have been/are manipulated: https://physicstoday.scitation.org/do/10.1063/PT.5.8071/full/ Trust your government, I suppose.

https://skepticalscience.com/CRU-tampered-temperature-data.htm

(though that one is using CRE data which NASA agreed with rather than NASA data itself)

• According to a 2018 IPCC report on Climate Change, it is claimed that all of it is man-made, no influence by nature. By that logic, there couldn't be any pre-Industrial Revolution Climate Change. But once you look at the graphs that study temperatures going back thousands, if not tens of thousands of years, based on ice probes, there is a regular pattern of colder and warmer periods. In that context, where we are now could be considered the last warm period before the start of another (mini) ice age. And in general, warmer temperatures are preferred over colder ones, due to the more severe impact on vegetation.

https://skepticalscience.com/climate-change-little-ice-age-medieval-warm-period.htm

• Why no talk about the increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere caused by an increase in population? Every human being emits plenty of carbon dioxide over the course of a life. In the past 50 to 60 years, the world's population has increased by a staggering 200 percent, from 2.5 billion to close to more than 7.5 billion, whilst flora and fauna have suffered, with Africa (Nigeria, Ethiopia, DR Congo or Uganda amongst many) and Asia (predominantly China and India) in particular as the biggest drivers. No mention of the strain this has on the surface of the planet, the natural resources needed to provide for up to 11 billion people estimated by the year 2100? There is a massively growing imbalance between carbon dioxide output and oxygen intake as a consequence.

This one I'm actually answering myself; overpopulation is a concern but I'm not sure how you'd use that to prove that mankind doesn't have something to do with climate change.

• There is lots of talk about the more and more devastating effect of Climate Change in terms of negative weather phenomena. But what is often not mentioned is is that the damage has increased partly because there are more people living on this planet year by year, causing more casualties, but also because we regularly build more infrastructure and possess more belongings (houses, cars, boats, roads, bridges, etc.). Why is that cause and effect never mentioned?

As above - if anything, that proves that humanitys actions are having an effect.

 

• In the end, ask yourselves: Cui bono? Who profits from what some would call a "Climate Change Hysteria"?

If they're right, all of human civilisational future benefits. If they're wrong...humanity still benefits from cleaner air and water and earth

 

How much of an influence does mankind have on Climate Change, temperature increase and carbon dioxide emissions?

A statistically significant one.

 

19 minutes ago, MC Prussian said:

How much of an issue is it truly?

Potentially, a civilisation-ender.

 

19 minutes ago, MC Prussian said:

How big is the influence of carbon dioxide really?

WRT to links to temperature increase, big, though of course there are other greenhouse gases.

 

What can we actually do to save humanity if it were true that we are facing a climate catastrophe in about twelve years, as people as Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and her entourage claim?

FWIW I don't believe there to be a catastrophe happening in 12 years, merely that if we continue as we are for that long the odds of catatastrophe becoming much more likely - as such, timely action to reduce emissions or at least seek to mitigate the consequences (better food and water distribution network, increased flood-proofing etc) would help.

 

19 minutes ago, MC Prussian said:

What good do renewable energy sources and technologies at present, when their power/energy conversion coefficient remains relatively low? Wind turbines rely heavily on fluctuating wind, solar panels are still too inefficient and bulky and water energy relies on ebb and flow and regular rainfall. How are we to provide more and more people living on this planet with an increase in demand for power/energy/electricity, if not by means that provide fast supply, in particular atom energy?

Relatively low for the time being only - they are improving and will only continue to do so. That being said, I believe Gen IV fission and fusion power to be integral alongside them as future energy sources too.

 

How do we know we are not approaching another mini ice age?

https://skepticalscience.com/heading-into-new-little-ice-age.htm

 

To me, the debate surrounding climate change is mostly hysteria, it remains superficial and does hardly ever take the Earth's history into account. I see teenagers such as Greta Thunberg as influencers with a certain agenda, but also as pawns. They have a message with little to no content. It borders on indoctrination at a very early age.

 

What worth does the Paris Treaty have when countries and the major resource-wasters such as China (up to 3'500 coal-based power plants) and India (up to 1'000 coal-based power plants) are allowed to continue their rotten fossil fuel policy and the US have left the building? And individual European countries, such as Germany, contributing 2% of the total carbon dioxide output, talk about the "Energiewende" (energy transition)...

You're right about the Paris Treaty, which is all the more argument for there to be a binding - and enforceable - agreement between all leading nations on the matter. Wishful thinking, I know.

 

19 minutes ago, MC Prussian said:

 

And yes - polar bears continue to thrive, they do not need ice to survive...

https://polarbearscience.com/2019/02/27/state-of-the-polar-bear-report-2018-polar-bears-continue-to-thrive/

 

Also share a thought for former Climate Change activists who now think they've made a huge mistake with the earlier warnings:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2134092/Gaia-scientist-James-Lovelock-I-alarmist-climate-change.html

 

Fancy going for an electric car in the near future? Think again... Lithium doesn't grow on trees and its extraction requires a lot of water:

https://www.wired.co.uk/article/lithium-batteries-environment-impact

Splendid. Thank you for taking the time to be so comprehensive in your thoughts and those are all legitimate concerns.

 

Each point to be addressed in turn  - read at your leisure, the citations are within each page. I would have addressed each point myself but I'd be here all evening and as much as I do enjoy talking to you, Prussian, I do have other things to do. Of course, you might be skeptical yourself of the sources I have used, but then I could just as easily say the same of yours, we could both ask for unrealistic burdens of proof and just go round and round so...

 

 

 

 

[leicsmac]

44 minutes ago, AlloverthefloorYesNdidi said:

In a few moments someone is going to come on here and call you a bad person for suggesting this and ignore anything you've said

 

AOC is a massive hypocrite. Read an article recently that mentioned all the unnecessary use of planes and uber's on her part when she lives right next to public transport and had no need to use anything else

 

But apparently we must only listen to her and whatever any climate activist under the age of 16 thinks because of course they  know

 

 

I sincerely hope not.

 

Healthy skepticism is healthy and should be addressed in a rational manner.

[AlloverthefloorYesNdidi]

40 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

 

 

 

 

Splendid. Thank you for taking the time to be so comprehensive in your thoughts and those are all legitimate concerns.

 

Each point to be addressed in turn  - read at your leisure, the citations are within each page. I would have addressed each point myself but I'd be here all evening and as much as I do enjoy talking to you, Prussian, I do have other things to do. Of course, you might be skeptical yourself of the sources I have used, but then I could just as easily say the same of yours, we could both ask for unrealistic burdens of proof and just go round and round so...

 

If they're right, all of human civilisational future benefits. If they're wrong...humanity still benefits from cleaner air and water and earth

 

 

You could say that this is why its such a powerful political tool and can see how people would be suspicious of it:  whether the science of climate change is correct or not, its espousal gets votes on the basis of 'whether its right or wrong its still a good thing to do'

 

Im not commenting on the value of climate change policies at all, but it is pause for thought what a powerful statement that is and how easy it is to suck up votes (and possibly other things - not a euphemism!) by using that basic stance

[leicsmac]

17 minutes ago, AlloverthefloorYesNdidi said:

You could say that this is why its such a powerful political tool and can see how people would be suspicious of it:  whether the science of climate change is correct or not, its espousal gets votes on the basis of 'whether its right or wrong its still a good thing to do'

 

Im not commenting on the value of climate change policies at all, but it is pause for thought what a powerful statement that is and how easy it is to suck up votes (and possibly other things - not a euphemism!) by using that basic stance

Well, it's a Pascals Wager of sorts - I can see why it sounds too good to be true and that feeds skepticism very well but as far as I can see the most extreme downside to a change to renewable energy sources would be a temporary economic downturn caused by over-expenditure - not exactly brilliant, but rather tamer than the alternative outcome of maintaining the status quo and the worst case scenario there. If one can think of more dire consequences caused directly by this policy, I'd be happy to talk about them (one that might be mentioned is it being used as a tool for greater authoritarian control and walking into a beautifully environmental 1984-esque dystopia, which is a legitimate concern but hardly limited to climate change policy alone).

 

 

Edited 29 May 2019 by leicsmac

[yorkie1999]

I don't know why people are worried about a bit of carbon monoxide in the atmosphere. Id be more worried about these destroying the planet and everything that lives on it.

 

https://anonhq.com/fukushima-apocalypse-heres-poisoned/

 

https://theecologist.org/2014/oct/27/leaked-sellafield-photos-reveal-massive-radioactive-release-threat

 

 

[leicsmac]

6 minutes ago, yorkie1999 said:

I don't know why people are worried about a bit of carbon monoxide in the atmosphere. Id be more worried about these destroying the planet and everything that lives on it.

 

https://anonhq.com/fukushima-apocalypse-heres-poisoned/

 

https://theecologist.org/2014/oct/27/leaked-sellafield-photos-reveal-massive-radioactive-release-threat

 

 

Validity of both of those sources aside (and tbh I'd question them), right now I honestly don't think there is a tangible future energy plan at present or increased consumption levels that can run on renewable sources only, so unless you want to keep relying on oil, coal and gas, fission and fusion need to be part of the equation.

 

And, quite frankly, given a choice between the two, though nuclear has tended towards the spectacular in terms of things going wrong, oil, gas and coal power have been responsible for the death and suffering of many, many more humans and animals both.