Climate Change - a poll

[leicsmac]

52 minutes ago, Wortho said:

The COP 28 president says there is no science behind demands of phasing out fossil fuels.

He said a phase out of fossil fuels would not allow sustainable development “unless you want to take the world back into caves”.

I wonder what the private jet travelers thought. And poor John Kerry (who hasn’t got a private jet, but his wife has).

 

...only to then say he was misquoted and affirm that "We very much believe and respect the science."

 

Adding: "I honestly think there is some confusion out there, and misrepresentation. I am quite surprised with the constant and repeated attempts to undermine the work of the COP28 presidency", and ""Science has been central to my own career progress and yes, I respect the science in everything I do" and "I have said over and over that the phase down and the phase out of fossil fuel is inevitable".

 

So I'm sure the luminaries there were rather OK with that, as should anyone with a modicum of sense who likes the world the way it is, and not, say, like something out of Mad Max.

[Wortho]

I’m quite sure the luminaries are happy. Travel back to their lovely lives in private jets and limousines, whilst telling everyone to turn the heating down and drive electric cars which they can’t afford. 
 

I can’t see that people actually believe this Climate scam. It’s just a big con.

[leicsmac]

1 hour ago, Wortho said:

I’m quite sure the luminaries are happy. Travel back to their lovely lives in private jets and limousines, whilst telling everyone to turn the heating down and drive electric cars which they can’t afford. 
 

I can’t see that people actually believe this Climate scam. It’s just a big con.

And if it were just the "luminaries" talking about this, it might be more agreeable. But it isn't - there is a clear and well defined scientific consensus both of data and viewpoint.

 

I've said this before but I'll repeat it - it's baffling and frustrating that people choose to trust the scientific method and the results it produces in every part of their lives except where it conflicts with their personal politics or when it might be personally inconvenient. It's the smoker inflicting harm on themselves and those around them just because it suits them, all over again. Only on a much bigger, much more hard hitting scale.

[Wortho]

I’m still sceptical about these scientists. A lot have a differing view but are not entertained or are sponsored because they aren’t toeing the line. 
I have general distrust of scientists after Covid and the ridiculous modelling and dangerous propaganda they produced. Many elderly are still fearful of their lives because these people.

[leicsmac]

3 minutes ago, Wortho said:

I’m still sceptical about these scientists. A lot have a differing view but are not entertained or are sponsored because they aren’t toeing the line. 
I have general distrust of scientists after Covid and the ridiculous modelling and dangerous propaganda they produced. Many elderly are still fearful of their lives because these people.

... that's not the way the scientific method works. It may be the way that money grubbing politics works and that's why some folks are getting confused because of the annoying efforts to mishmash science and politics to deny the former, but physical evidence represented in data in this case does not lie. Additionally, why would practically all the global climate science corps lie when toeing the line in the form of saying everything is fine would be far more personally beneficial to them? People don't like - and don't pay for - the idea that the world is changing, what they want - and pay for - is the idea that tomorrow will be just like today.

 

Of course, people are free to believe and speak as they like on that matter, but that freedom comes with the one upon which all the others are based - the freedom to suffer the consequences of one's actions. And on this particular thing, there will be some. There already is.

[Wortho]

Can climate change be stopped?

If the UK do proceed with net zero by 2040 what will this mean to their citizens? 
What if all the biggest polluting countries carry on as usual, how will this affect the UK population?

[leicsmac]

26 minutes ago, Wortho said:

Can climate change be stopped?

If the UK do proceed with net zero by 2040 what will this mean to their citizens? 
What if all the biggest polluting countries carry on as usual, how will this affect the UK population?

These are all fair questions that a lot of people would ask, and purely for the record I appreciate you asking them and the points made before and hope I'm presenting the answers and line of thought clearly.

 

To answer:

 

- Perhaps with drastic advances in technology, we can control the changes in climate on Earth to a degree (terraforming in its own way). But this one? We can't stop the current temperature increase and changes as a result of it, but (BIU for emphasis) we can slow it down and prevent it from getting too out of whack. And the slowing down is important, because it buys us an incredibly valuable resource - time. More time means more time to adapt, to put in place resilience strategies all over the world, to safeguard global food supply chains. In short, buying time means buying human lives.

 

- The current plan is the for the UK to attain net zero emissions as a nation by 2050. What will that mean for UK citizens? Not much at all, provided the government strategy papers on the topic can be relied upon. We're not talking about any kind of regression in quality of life in order for this to happen - or at least not nearly so much as other areas of interest at the present time causing the cost of living crisis, and certainly not nearly as much as the consequences should the policies not be implemented.

 

- Bluntly, if the UK does its job and the other nations don't, then everyone is fvcked, the UK included. But then everyone versed on the matter knows that anyway - there is no room for any free riders on this one, and hopefully (judging by the current global direction, if not necessarily the speed) the powers that be don't want it to be them who killed the world more than they don't want to change, so that rather perverse realpolitik equilibrium is producing (slow) results right now.

[Robo61]

41 minutes ago, Wortho said:

Can climate change be stopped?

If the UK do proceed with net zero by 2040 what will this mean to their citizens? 
What if all the biggest polluting countries carry on as usual, how will this affect the UK population?

I'm by no means an expert,  but if only the UK go for net zero then of course it will mean very little for our citizens as the whole world will be screwed,  but no one is proposing that are they.

[jgtuk]

1 hour ago, Wortho said:

I’m still sceptical about these scientists. A lot have a differing view but are not entertained or are sponsored because they aren’t toeing the line. 
I have general distrust of scientists after Covid and the ridiculous modelling and dangerous propaganda they produced. Many elderly are still fearful of their lives because these people.

It wasn’t the “ridiculous modelling and dangerous propaganda” that killed the many elderly that lost their lives. 

[Zear0]

Even if people are sceptical about climate change, not sure why they're keen to breath s**ty air and pay more for energy.

[WigstonWanderer]

1 hour ago, Zear0 said:

Even if people are sceptical about climate change, not sure why they're keen to breath s**ty air and pay more for energy.

Also, sooner or later we would have run out of oil, or at least the rate of discovery would fail to keep up with demand, and so the price would increase causing an increasing drag on economies. Oil recovery would use (and is using) ever increasingly environmentally-damaging methods of recovery such as fracking.

 

There are also political benefits of not being dependent on oil cartel states for supply.

 

The switch away from fossil fuels is ultimately both inevitable and desirable.

[leicsmac]

32 minutes ago, WigstonWanderer said:

Also, sooner or later we would have run out of oil, or at least the rate of discovery would fail to keep up with demand, and so the price would increase causing an increasing drag on economies. Oil recovery would use (and is using) ever increasingly environmentally-damaging methods of recovery such as fracking.

 

There are also political benefits of not being dependent on oil cartel states for supply.

 

The switch away from fossil fuels is ultimately both inevitable and desirable.

Quite right.

 

It's just logical, really.

[Wortho]

Without fossil fuels will this country be able to rely on wind farms and solar to power it? Especially in Scotland where wind farms tend to freeze up. 
We need a safe and secure power supply, not these alternatives which are supplying about 5% of the power needed. 
 

If someone can convince me we can operate solely on renewables I’d be interested. We should’ve had nuclear years ago.

[leicsmac]

15 minutes ago, Wortho said:

Without fossil fuels will this country be able to rely on wind farms and solar to power it? Especially in Scotland where wind farms tend to freeze up. 
We need a safe and secure power supply, not these alternatives which are supplying about 5% of the power needed. 
 

If someone can convince me we can operate solely on renewables I’d be interested. We should’ve had nuclear years ago.

Fission power is certainly part of the equation, and should have been started a long time ago. But now will have to do.

 

A combination of fission, wind, solar and tidal (that's something as a coastal nation the UK really should be pushing on) is the way to go. And cracking fusion, too.

[Daggers]

10 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Fission power is certainly part of the equation, and should have been started a long time ago. But now will have to do.

 

A combination of fission, wind, solar and tidal (that's something as a coastal nation the UK really should be pushing on) is the way to go. And cracking fusion, too.

Well, three of them anyway.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2023/dec/05/sellafield-nuclear-site-leak-could-pose-risk-to-public

[leicsmac]

3 minutes ago, Daggers said:

Well, three of them anyway.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2023/dec/05/sellafield-nuclear-site-leak-could-pose-risk-to-public

Sellafield is an incredibly old design, which shouldn't have an effect on viewpoints concerning building modern fission plants.

 

And, quite frankly, the numbers on renewables don't add up in terms of power supply - not yet, not in the timescale needed to dump fossil fuels. Fission has to be part of the solution.

[Wortho]

Putting the burning of fossil fuels and cows burping nonsense aside, here is the astronomical reason why the Earth is currently warming.
> The Earth's rotational axis changed slightly 18,000 years ago, and this allowed more solar energy to be received by the Northern Hemisphere.

[Wortho]

[leicsmac]

3 minutes ago, Wortho said:

Putting the burning of fossil fuels and cows burping nonsense aside, here is the astronomical reason why the Earth is currently warming.
> The Earth's rotational axis changed slightly 18,000 years ago, and this allowed more solar energy to be received by the Northern Hemisphere.

 

1 minute ago, Wortho said:

 

The Sun has precious little to do with current warming patterns, long or short term.

 

Please - we're going from refuted point to refuted point here, all of them have been refuted and none of them hold water; if they did, they would be taken more seriously by the scientific community at large. It's a Gish Gallop written large on the last couple pages of this thread and while it's good to point out how such arguments are flawed as they come in, I'm sure there's better things that could be done.

[when_you're_smiling]

31 minutes ago, Wortho said:

Putting the burning of fossil fuels and cows burping nonsense aside, here is the astronomical reason why the Earth is currently warming.
> The Earth's rotational axis changed slightly 18,000 years ago, and this allowed more solar energy to be received by the Northern Hemisphere.

A tilt 18,000 years ago doesn’t explain why warmth is increasing much more quickly in recent decades, roughly in line with more fossil fuel burning.

[jgtuk]

22 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

 

 

The Sun has precious little to do with current warming patterns, long or short term.

 

Please - we're going from refuted point to refuted point here, all of them have been refuted and none of them hold water; if they did, they would be taken more seriously by the scientific community at large. It's a Gish Gallop written large on the last couple pages of this thread and while it's good to point out how such arguments are flawed as they come in, I'm sure there's better things that could be done.

Call it what it is - bullsh1t - 

It’s frightening that this stuff is still being touted as scientific fact… 

 

[Daggers]

8 hours ago, leicsmac said:

Sellafield is an incredibly old design, which shouldn't have an effect on viewpoints concerning building modern fission plants.

 

And, quite frankly, the numbers on renewables don't add up in terms of power supply - not yet, not in the timescale needed to dump fossil fuels. Fission has to be part of the solution.

It was a joke.

 

Wortho is the only Professor of YouTube and Do Your Own Research at the University of Woo.

[Grebfromgrebland]

Judging by the actions of most governments and the noises coming out of the cop conference there is zero anyone can do to change our current trajectory.

 

Unless there's a global revolution and concerted commitment to de-growth we might as well just accept our fate.

 

 

[leicsmac]

Just now, Grebfromgrebland said:

Judging by the actions of most governments and the noises coming out of the cop conference there is zero anyone can do to change our current trajectory.

 

Unless there's a global revolution and concerted commitment to de-growth we might as well just accept our fate.

 

 

Our current trajectory - probably - doesn't lead to utter catastrophe. It does, however, lead to an increase of perhaps around 3 degrees C by the end of the century, which is going to be very, very nasty and will at least result in the deaths and displacement of a great many people, to say nothing of ecosystem damage. Something that might be better off avoided.

 

5 minutes ago, Dunge said:

Why do you believe any theory going except man-mine climate change?

 

I think you know it’s real, you just don’t want to accept it because the consequences of it being true are scary.

I'd hazard a case such denial and fear are pretty common among those who refuse to accept something as obvious as the earth being an oblate spheroid. Grief is often brought about by change, and the first stage of grief is denial, after all.

[leicsmac]

Something I found this morning:

 

If CO2 is only 0.04% of the atmosphere, how does it drive global warming? 

 

By Franklin Veaux: 

 

Below is a photo of a beaker of water, a beaker of water with 0.028% ink, and a beaker of water with 0.056% ink.  This is what CO2 does. 

 

“But CO2 is clear! It’s transparent! It’s invisible!”  Yes, to visual wavelengths of light. To infrared light, it’s black.

 

Visible light from the sun comes in, hits the ground, heats it up, it re-radiates as infrared, the infrared gets trapped because CO2 is black to infrared, the planet heats up. 

 

It’s actually pretty straightforward. The part people miss is they think of CO2 as transparent. Everyone knows a black object heats up faster than a white object in the sun. Well, to infrared, CO2 is black.