Climate change

You’re welcome. Most fun I had since I tried (and probably failed) to calculate the effect of gravity on the ILS glide slope

DavidJ wrote:

It’s starting to resemble the ‘debate’ I had last night about bath time with my son, and he’s 6.

Wow, this snide retort is reflective of ignorance in defense of a position. Arguing that because you hold the position of a lemming, therefore all must be lemmings is quite childish.

Your analogy of arguing with a child is actually rather what I see you doing.
Rather than having a critical understanding of the issues through some kind of personal grappling, quintessentially, your statement is akin to “huh-uh cuz my dad says…”

Which is heard by nearly every kid on the playground until they realize that their father is actually not all knowing, and they must think for themselves.

You have yet to show any personal critical understanding of the issue aside from “they told me so”, and “97 percent say”.

Reality is, there is no statistically sound causation yet.
Climate change is not being debated by (nearly) anyone here. The cause is.

What I don’t see is any single proof from you of how that had been proven.

So, arguing that “they said” works when you’re with a herd of ignorant groupthinkers, but not with critical thinkers, who challenge until proven one way or another.

My position is that humans have a massive influence on the planet and we should take responsibility for that.
Those of us who know, should be able to help educate those of us who don’t.

I don’t believe you help when you result to hurling personal insults. You expose your ignorance and insecurity in doing so.

+1 for AF.

I’d love to know how the deniers would approach the scientific opinions if they had chosen a different hobby.

Is this debate really about defending our right to consume fossil fuels and produce CO2?

If so, why not fight that battle rather than a proxy war of denying the underlying truths.

I justify it to myself by spending quite a lot of money planting trees. I probably plant twice as many trees as my transport (surface and air, private and PT) costs in carbon terms.

Could we not compromise on that solution, rather than arguing that there is no problem?

One of this issues I see is that we have strayed away from what even the IPCC is saying as outcomes, even their worst case scenarios. We are letting policy being driven by school children who don’t understand the issues and have never studied the IPCC reports. They also believe things that any sort of economic growth is bad. In fact it is economic growth which allows the poorer countries to adapt.

I have been closely following this for over 15 years as I find it genuinely interesting.

I am an optimist. Have you seen the work that is being done by more than 2 dozen private companies on Nuclear Fission? We all know the old joke about Fission being 20 years away but even the “doom and gloom” Economist magazine seem optimistic about this.

The most sensible and least damaging way would be to apply a lowish carbon tax on all damaging activities which slowly ramps up each year. Then people can plan, existing plant can wear out. This also has the advantage that if things turn out different the tax can be increased (or decreased). Starting low might encourage China and India to join in. Developing countries could have a lower carbon tax until they have a GDP of say $ 20,000 per capita

One of this issues I see is that we have strayed away from what even the IPCC is saying as outcomes, even their worst case scenarios

Indeed. People simply swollow everything served to them by the media and politicians. “Scientists say” is not what the scientists actually say, but is a version of what media/politicians are able to extract from what the scientists say, for them to use as arguments for their believes. There are two things you should know about scientists:

1 they don’t talk in absolutes (or they wouldn’t be scientist)
2 they seldom agree (or they wouldn’t be doing science)

Fusion seems to have become yet another research grant pumping arena, with massive experiments, and hordes of young scientists getting their PhDs on “collaborative” projects (not easy to get a PhD on your own these days in science, unless you are seriously bright).

But obviously the objective is extremely difficult. I hope they crack it one day and I wish them all the best. It would transform this whole debate, including a transformation of the electric vehicle scene.

That said, nuclear fission would also “transform this whole debate” Hmmm, wait, don’t we already have that, but some countries are throwing it away… Hmmm, maybe there is something being overlooked? Hmmm…

LeSving wrote:

is a version of what media/politicians are able to extract from what the scientists say, for them to use as arguments for their believes

I bet when RMS Titanic tilted vertically before it went down, those on the cockpit did have wondered: if we are actually sinking then why we are 300ft in the air ?

Yes apologies, typo, I meant Fusion! However as Peter says fission would also transform the debate. The French are generating a huge proportion of their Electricity from Fission.

Everywhere you go in France there are electric panel heaters, off peak storage heaters. So with a few heat pumps and electric cars they seem to be doing a good job from my cursory outside view. I still can’t work out why Greta complained about the French?