Menu Sign In Contact FAQ
Welcome to our forums

Climate change

skydriller wrote:

Only with subsidy.

Which is quite ironic, as fossil fuels are also heavily subsidised :-)

The UK which has traditionally had an awful record on environmental issues (the UK was causing acid rain well after the mechanisms were known and other countries had stopped doing that) has been doing well recently with renewables. In just 10 years, the UK has gone from 2% of its electricity to over 20% of its electricity being produced by wind power (mostly offshore, where the wind is a lot more reliable, and in the case of the UK, it tends to be windiest when demand for electricity is highest, in the winter). Also, the growth of intermodal rail freight in the UK has been significant, much of it hauled by electric trains which can use this energy. Many people think HS2 is about high speed rail, actually, it’s about getting the express trains off the west coast mainline, so the WCML can get more capacity for freight and local services (fast services take up a disproportionate amount of space when they are running, and getting them onto HS2 will massively increase capacity on the WCML for goods traffic). Places like the DIRFT (Daventry International Rail Freight Terminal) keep expanding for this new traffic. Even if we ignore the environmental improvements, this brings massive benefits for anyone who has the misfortune to drive down the M6.

Last Edited by alioth at 26 Jun 16:38
Andreas IOM

Peter wrote:

Can we please lower the global temperature here…

@Peter, we REALLY need a ‘like’ button on this site, LOL !!

Perhaps we can discuss something else instead – I am interested in finding out when and how ‘have a nice day’ turned into a deadly insult… ;-)

Biggin Hill

Unlimited technical dissent is fine but getting personal is not allowed. Everybody here knows that.

However I think this horse has been flogged to death now

Interesting comment about HS2. Never heard this explained before. This shows the horribly banal level of broadcasting in the UK. They are all at it, with the BBC being the worst. It is aimed almost totally at people who are totally utterly thick and incapable of reasoning anything beyond whether they can afford another quarterpounder and a packet of fags. I wonder if other countries are similar; unfortunately, if they were, their citizens here would hardly post it because only Britain is OK to criticise Unfortunately, climate is not a trivial debate and it cannot be presented in “quarterpounder” terminology.

Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

Good grief, there are disasters all over the map here.

@Malibuflyer your assertion that the volcanic activity in Hawaii somehow influences the CO2 levels is totally assumptive in nature.
I’ve been there, down at the edge of the Caldera (only scientists can go there) and seen the fluctuations at the HVO.
There are so many problems:
1. The massive eruptions two years ago would show up in the graphs if there was local interference.
2. Even Halema’uma’u fluctates quite a bit, so this would show up by itself, and doesn’t appear to.
3. Mauna Loa is upwind of the predominant active volcanic regions, so it would be incredibly difficult for the CO2 to make it’s way back up the mountain, except for trace amounts in eddie currents.
4. Stating that observations are ‘facts’ ignores the corrections which go into these measurements, and there are plenty in any observation station’s data. e.g.
5. Super scientists aren’t all looking at data and drawing clear conclusions. The very nature of Cyrospheric science is that it requires massive modeling. A number of models have been shown to be inherently biased. e.g. biased model
I’m not going to dig all of them up. There are plenty, and the point is that these biased models aren’t consistently called out. On occasion yes, but often after much hand-wringing
6. To state that CO2 takes months to reach anywhere is asinine. Here’s an obvious example:

AF wrote:

Super scientists aren’t all looking at data and drawing clear conclusions. The very nature of Cyrospheric science is that it requires massive modeling. A number of models have been shown to be inherently biased. e.g. biased model

That article is from 2004 and AFAIK after the debate around that time, the “hockey stick” has been found to be correct.

ESKC (Uppsala/Sundbro), Sweden

Airborne_Again wrote:

That article is from 2004 and AFAIK after the debate around that time, the “hockey stick” has been found to be correct.

Actually, not really correct.
There was a cooling period from about 2012 through 2018 (at least in the Arctic) that wasn’t mentioned by nearly anyone (it wasn’t heavily published or exposed by the media).
A lot of “anomalies” are swept under the rug, because if there’s a single chink in the chain, research funding would be substantially reduced.

Climate Change is still a faith-based concept.
Europe has certainly gotten a lot hotter, I know that personally, but the whole world hasn’t, and there is a clear correlation between sun activity and earth temperatures,
There isn’t (yet) the same correlation between man-made causes and earth temps for an earth-wide study.

I only threw in one example, but there are many, and my limited first-hand experience tells me that maybe 1/3 or 1/5 climate scientists is doing real work.
The rest are justifying their PhD’s without contributing any real knowledge or new discovery to the field.
I’d say for papers it’s actually more like 1/50 to 1/100 that produce meaningful knowledge and new discoveries.

I’m not for or against the theory, but I am definitely against bad science, of which, I’ve seen enough to be wary of any published analyses without seeing the methods and code for myself.

It’s an easy proposition: prove causation.
That hasn’t happened in the decades of hand-waving and wolf-crying.
Hysteria is the result of all of that. Look at US politicians now claiming that the earth will end in 12 years (or whatever flavor of the day is… last article I read it was 12 years).

Many who support the ‘movement’ will hand-wave that off as being a bit passionate, but it’s hysteria, and it’s causing violence in the US now.

I 100% support recycling, taking care of the environment and limiting pollution. The reason is that I grew up in nature, and hate seeing destruction of it. It’s far too precious. I’ve quit a very posh job because it supported destruction of nature (things I’ve seen will never be seen on the earth again. Unique, tiny little ecosystems that are gone completely.)

So, I’m not a typical left/right greenie/fuel burner type. I really care deeply about the earth and people, AND integrity and truth at the same time.
There is a fight between corporate greed and selfless service, but ridiculing individuals who question the science surely isn’t the path to ‘enlightenment’.

Real proofs, real science, and incontrovertible causation would shut up any “climate denier”.

What I experience on both sides of the coin are individuals who blindly adhere to their belief, which is based only on what others have told them.
I get a lot of that here too. “Stop arguing, you’re in the way, peck!”

Unfortunately, people love feeling secure, and this means we’ll all keep suffering the slings and arrows of ignorance trampling on curiosity for the foreseeable future.

Last Edited by AF at 15 Jul 17:45

AF wrote:

It’s an easy proposition: prove causation.

Fully agree. I would propose, that we take about a hundred worlds, split them into two groups and than in one group replace all fossil fuels with with non fossil ones (without the people on the world noticing to keep it double blind), wait another 100 years and then do proper statistics to figure out.

Unfortunately we only have one world ….


Malibuflyer wrote:

Unfortunately we only have one world ….

So, we’ll switch from fossil fuel drilling to cobalt and lithium mining instead.
dead batteries
more on dead batteries
cobalt cost

Ah yes, the solution is biofuels…
Ah, wait… rainforests

This grand experiment of Climate Change as the propulsion system for transitioning the economy over to renewable energy is not conclusively a good one.
Children are being radicalized by fear of believing that their world is being destroyed.

And it is.

Children in Europe don’t have to worry about dying a grisly death from lions or bears because those animals were all killed off already.
Growing up, I had to deal with Mountain Lions and Bears. So I learned how to use guns. Foreign concept for Europeans, I know. They all think guns are for killing humans, which is a strange concept to me. Guns are for protection from deadly creatures: some of which include dangerous humans. Not for asserting one’s will over another (which appears to be the rallying cry of those who fear guns btw).

Roads destroyed large swaths of natural beauty and watersheds.
The long-lost ‘redwoods’ of Europe paved the way for modern day Germans to sit in Bauhaus offices and snidely joke about inferior intellects and primitive concepts.

Where does it end?
You talk about sustainability, but that doesn’t address population growth, which is the real problem here.
If London hadn’t been dirtied for the centuries-long industrial revolution, we wouldn’t be sitting here typing on computers thousands of miles away.

So, who draws the lines of what is sustainable, who is right, and how we should all live?
Scientists? What does that even mean? People who’ve been educated to believe the world works a certain way and should be a certain way and express that in a formulated and methodical manner?

Science is responsible for the increased destruction of the earth.
Without it, we wouldn’t have the machines we have today which are the exponential multiplier of destruction for mankind.
Don’t tell me science is the savior, because it is the adversary as well. It’s just a multiplier.

Humility, Kindness, Patience, Peace, these are what will save the earth.
Not science.

Last Edited by AF at 15 Jul 18:56

AF wrote:

You talk about sustainability, but that doesn’t address population growth, which is the real problem here.


Sign in to add your message

Back to Top