Climate change - the POLITICAL debate (Vol 7)
Discussion
mike9009 said:
turbobloke said:
Pan Pan Pan said:
Kawasicki said:
Pan Pan Pan said:
If we continue to add billions more resource consuming, waste producing, CO2 emitting humans to the billions of us already here (as we are doing right now) it will not matter what we use to provide the power, food and products needed by the global population. We will damage our ability to remain on the planet, and not just for ourselves, but also for all the habitats, and other species, that we were `supposed' to have been sharing the planet with.
Why do some believe that we can carry on adding billions more resource consuming, waste producing, CO2 emitting humans (especially those who believe we have already messed up the planet and its climate with JUST the numbers we have on already) and yet `somehow' avoid having to pay the environmental price for what we have been doing, for long, long before the subject of fossil fuels even became a thing?
Could it be, that some either cannot, or do not `want' to know what is at the root of it all, and do not even want to acknowledge their own contribution to the issue?
The human success story is to be celebrated, especially by humans. I, as a human, am bloody thrilled about it.Why do some believe that we can carry on adding billions more resource consuming, waste producing, CO2 emitting humans (especially those who believe we have already messed up the planet and its climate with JUST the numbers we have on already) and yet `somehow' avoid having to pay the environmental price for what we have been doing, for long, long before the subject of fossil fuels even became a thing?
Could it be, that some either cannot, or do not `want' to know what is at the root of it all, and do not even want to acknowledge their own contribution to the issue?
In nature there is no “supposed to have been sharing the planet with“, there is survival of the fittest. That’s it. “Sharing“? No. Survival.
It may have escaped your notice that the Earth is in fact finite, yet we are adding billions more humans at NET global rates above one hundred thousand per DAY!
Some eco mentalists, believe we have ALREADY messed up the planet with JUST the population it has on it now, with (if you actually believe their scare stories) tales of droughts, floods, famines, heat waves. disease epidemics, and running out of the materials used by the global population. How much better do you believe it is all going to get, when we have added billions more resource consuming. waste producing CO2 emitting humans to the planet in what is for the Earth an unprecedentedly short time frame?
It will create some interesting economics moving forward, as most economic growth over the last 100 years has been predicated on population and thus affluence growth.
Would you really expect a person living a subsistence lifestyle, would not want to buy and use more of life's comforts if they become wealthier, and just carried on living a hunger, thirst and disease riven, third world existence? NO they are going to buy more, and consume more. So unless we reach a point in time, where people en-mass decide they will no longer produce children, a reducing birth rate is meaningless, Even in so called `civilized' countries where infant birth rate is very low, and there is no need for families to have large numbers of children, in the hope that at least some survive, some families are still giving birth to numerous children. there are even TV programs like 24 and counting, which show this.
No one has yet come up with the answer to the question, What viable material, has been discovered, which can provide the power, food and products, needed by the global population currently ONLY made possible in the volumes needed, by using fossil fuels. This includes the manufacture, transport to site. erection, operation, and maintenance of ALL renewable energy systems.
To date NO such viable alternative has even been discovered, let alone put into production sufficient to meet even todays population's needs.
Edited by Pan Pan Pan on Friday 3rd May 17:09
Kawasicki said:
Pan Pan Pan said:
The Earth has often been described as being the lifeboat of humanity. What do you think of those, who not only overload a lifeboat intended for 80, with 180, but who also eat all the emergency supplies, and drink all the water, before it has travelled a mile?
It may have escaped your notice that the Earth is in fact finite, yet we are adding billions more humans at NET global rates above one hundred thousand per DAY!
Some eco mentalists, believe we have ALREADY messed up the planet with JUST the population it has on it now, with (if you actually believe their scare stories) tales of droughts, floods, famines, heat waves. disease epidemics, and running out of the materials used by the global population. How much better do you believe it is all going to get, when we have added billions more resource consuming. waste producing CO2 emitting humans to the planet in what is for the Earth an unprecedentedly short time frame?
The Earth is the lifeboat of humanity. What capacity does it have? Should we leave some seats unused?It may have escaped your notice that the Earth is in fact finite, yet we are adding billions more humans at NET global rates above one hundred thousand per DAY!
Some eco mentalists, believe we have ALREADY messed up the planet with JUST the population it has on it now, with (if you actually believe their scare stories) tales of droughts, floods, famines, heat waves. disease epidemics, and running out of the materials used by the global population. How much better do you believe it is all going to get, when we have added billions more resource consuming. waste producing CO2 emitting humans to the planet in what is for the Earth an unprecedentedly short time frame?
There is a parallel with the rain forests, in that scientists keep telling us that we only know a fraction of what they could offer mankind, but if we cut them down `before' we discover them, as we are doing now, how will we ever know?
Government defeated in High Court over climate plans
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-689...
The government has been defeated in court - for a second time - for not doing enough to meet its targets for cutting greenhouse gas emissions.
The sheer stupidity of making 'climate change' laws is being revealed. What can one say?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-689...
The government has been defeated in court - for a second time - for not doing enough to meet its targets for cutting greenhouse gas emissions.
The sheer stupidity of making 'climate change' laws is being revealed. What can one say?
Pan Pan Pan said:
Kawasicki said:
Pan Pan Pan said:
The Earth has often been described as being the lifeboat of humanity. What do you think of those, who not only overload a lifeboat intended for 80, with 180, but who also eat all the emergency supplies, and drink all the water, before it has travelled a mile?
It may have escaped your notice that the Earth is in fact finite, yet we are adding billions more humans at NET global rates above one hundred thousand per DAY!
Some eco mentalists, believe we have ALREADY messed up the planet with JUST the population it has on it now, with (if you actually believe their scare stories) tales of droughts, floods, famines, heat waves. disease epidemics, and running out of the materials used by the global population. How much better do you believe it is all going to get, when we have added billions more resource consuming. waste producing CO2 emitting humans to the planet in what is for the Earth an unprecedentedly short time frame?
The Earth is the lifeboat of humanity. What capacity does it have? Should we leave some seats unused?It may have escaped your notice that the Earth is in fact finite, yet we are adding billions more humans at NET global rates above one hundred thousand per DAY!
Some eco mentalists, believe we have ALREADY messed up the planet with JUST the population it has on it now, with (if you actually believe their scare stories) tales of droughts, floods, famines, heat waves. disease epidemics, and running out of the materials used by the global population. How much better do you believe it is all going to get, when we have added billions more resource consuming. waste producing CO2 emitting humans to the planet in what is for the Earth an unprecedentedly short time frame?
There is a parallel with the rain forests, in that scientists keep telling us that we only know a fraction of what they could offer mankind, but if we cut them down `before' we discover them, as we are doing now, how will we ever know?
Kawasicki said:
Pan Pan Pan said:
Kawasicki said:
Pan Pan Pan said:
The Earth has often been described as being the lifeboat of humanity. What do you think of those, who not only overload a lifeboat intended for 80, with 180, but who also eat all the emergency supplies, and drink all the water, before it has travelled a mile?
It may have escaped your notice that the Earth is in fact finite, yet we are adding billions more humans at NET global rates above one hundred thousand per DAY!
Some eco mentalists, believe we have ALREADY messed up the planet with JUST the population it has on it now, with (if you actually believe their scare stories) tales of droughts, floods, famines, heat waves. disease epidemics, and running out of the materials used by the global population. How much better do you believe it is all going to get, when we have added billions more resource consuming. waste producing CO2 emitting humans to the planet in what is for the Earth an unprecedentedly short time frame?
The Earth is the lifeboat of humanity. What capacity does it have? Should we leave some seats unused?It may have escaped your notice that the Earth is in fact finite, yet we are adding billions more humans at NET global rates above one hundred thousand per DAY!
Some eco mentalists, believe we have ALREADY messed up the planet with JUST the population it has on it now, with (if you actually believe their scare stories) tales of droughts, floods, famines, heat waves. disease epidemics, and running out of the materials used by the global population. How much better do you believe it is all going to get, when we have added billions more resource consuming. waste producing CO2 emitting humans to the planet in what is for the Earth an unprecedentedly short time frame?
There is a parallel with the rain forests, in that scientists keep telling us that we only know a fraction of what they could offer mankind, but if we cut them down `before' we discover them, as we are doing now, how will we ever know?
Of course we could follow your lead, and fill the lifeboat so far beyond its capacity, it just sinks before it has had the chance to get anywhere.
Decarbonisation supporter Prof Pielke said:
The optimal amount of practical wind power in the global energy mix is greater than zero. It is also much less than 100%. Today I argue why the proportion of wind power in the global electricity generation mix is always going to be closer to zero than to 100%. That doesn’t mean that wind power is not of value or useful, but it does mean that wind power is not going to drive a global energy transformation, or even be a big part of any such transformation. The sooner we realize that, the better for energy and climate policies.
https://rogerpielkejr.substack.com/p/wind-dreamsKawasicki said:
Thanks for posting that, an interesting read indeed. Tempting to say no sh** Sherlock but nice to see the situation being talked about objectively from within.I don't expect to see turkeys voting for christmas any time soon, but it's a start.
I'm genuinely interested to see what Durbs,Hairy and Kerplunk think of that as well to get a perspective from both sides of the debate.
Edited by wc98 on Monday 6th May 13:53
wc98 said:
I don't expect to see turkeys voting for christmas any time soon, but it's a start.
A number are voting already - see authors of approx 20 papers I've cited over the past year or two, based on empirical data and with conclusions in firm opposition to UK policy based on useless climate models and the nonsense they're fed with. They're not alone in terms of papers, publications and conclusions. Prof Hulme is a recent addition, even with the sweetener 'noble' on top of climate crisis = a lie. It'll takea long time for sure as so many gullibles and culpables have swallowed so much.turbobloke said:
A number are voting already - see authors of approx 20 papers I've cited over the past year or two, based on empirical data and with conclusions in firm opposition to UK policy based on useless climate models and the nonsense they're fed with. They're not alone in terms of papers, publications and conclusions. Prof Hulme is a recent addition, even with the sweetener 'noble' on top of climate crisis = a lie. It'll takea long time for sure as so many gullibles and culpables have swallowed so much.
As i get older and a tiny bit wiser i think this is just the nature of the beast. A good friends wife is a tenured Prof at a major Uni and similar happens in her field and when it comes to gate keeping i doubt there are any bigger bouncers than those in Marine Biology, certainly in the UK.Objectivity is a noble aim, easy to say, apparently not so easy to do for those of great intellect that place a lot of value on prestige and how they are perceived by others over personal integrity. It might just be they believe everything they say, but i struggle with that due to the aforementioned intellect. I do believe there are a lot of people in many walks of life that subscribe to the do as we say not as we do mantra but that will always be found out in todays instant information age.
turbobloke said:
A number are voting already - see authors of approx 20 papers I've cited over the past year or two, based on empirical data and with conclusions in firm opposition to UK policy based on useless climate models and the nonsense they're fed with. They're not alone in terms of papers, publications and conclusions. Prof Hulme is a recent addition, even with the sweetener 'noble' on top of climate crisis = a lie. It'll takea long time for sure as so many gullibles and culpables have swallowed so much.
The broken record.The conspiracy on here is so strong.
The papers posted are fundamentally flawed yet continually cited in this thread without any response to simple critical analysis.
You are living in a dream world of zero taxes on carbon emissions, on the basis of 20 flawed research papers.
mike9009 said:
The broken record.
The conspiracy on here is so strong.
The papers posted are fundamentally flawed yet continually cited in this thread without any response to simple critical analysis.
You are living in a dream world of zero taxes on carbon emissions, on the basis of 20 flawed research papers.
Have you read the link provided by Kawasicki above ? Would be interested in your take on it.The conspiracy on here is so strong.
The papers posted are fundamentally flawed yet continually cited in this thread without any response to simple critical analysis.
You are living in a dream world of zero taxes on carbon emissions, on the basis of 20 flawed research papers.
Some recent history further to the evolving EV farce arising from UK's duff energy and climate policymaking.
Fiasco ongoing.
Written evidence to Parliament from Stephen Broderick now Doctor of Engineering Soton Uni said:
Summary: The UK Distribution network "as is" is adequate for immediate needs, but will be substantively overtaxed by unconstrained EV home charging (by up to 7:1), for EVs draw c. 7 kW for hours. These issues follow uptake of EVs i.e. minimal at first then overwhelming as years pass.
Consequences will depend on local circumstances, but have potential to include:
• power cuts (overloads of supply equipment => power equipment "blowing fuses")
• brown-outs (loss of sufficient voltage) potentially causinghome appliance damage and household fires
• potentially, a move to restrict EVs to (say) 1 in 7 homes.
Two general methods are seen to alleviate these situations:
• reinforcement of the networks (asset replacement) – expensive, slow, disruptive
• use of a control system capable of managing EV home charging.
Further, the EVs would need to obey the issued commands; this is not assured.
Note that the ICT / SG method does not provide a complete solution, but is expected to defer major costs for decades.
https://data.parliament.uk/WrittenEvidence/CommitteeEvidence.svc/EvidenceDocument/Business,%20Energy%20and%20Industrial%20Strategy/Electric%20vehicles%20developing%20the%20market%20and%20infrastructure/written/72763.htmlConsequences will depend on local circumstances, but have potential to include:
• power cuts (overloads of supply equipment => power equipment "blowing fuses")
• brown-outs (loss of sufficient voltage) potentially causinghome appliance damage and household fires
• potentially, a move to restrict EVs to (say) 1 in 7 homes.
Two general methods are seen to alleviate these situations:
• reinforcement of the networks (asset replacement) – expensive, slow, disruptive
• use of a control system capable of managing EV home charging.
Further, the EVs would need to obey the issued commands; this is not assured.
Note that the ICT / SG method does not provide a complete solution, but is expected to defer major costs for decades.
Fiasco ongoing.
wc98 said:
mike9009 said:
The broken record.
The conspiracy on here is so strong.
The papers posted are fundamentally flawed yet continually cited in this thread without any response to simple critical analysis.
You are living in a dream world of zero taxes on carbon emissions, on the basis of 20 flawed research papers.
Have you read the link provided by Kawasicki above ? Would be interested in your take on it.The conspiracy on here is so strong.
The papers posted are fundamentally flawed yet continually cited in this thread without any response to simple critical analysis.
You are living in a dream world of zero taxes on carbon emissions, on the basis of 20 flawed research papers.
No way I would accept that in Nature or Science as it clearly has an agenda beneath the facade of science portrayed.
It seems the few other papers I have read, quoted in these pages, also have glaring omissions which an amateur can see through.
In the same vein, should scientific papers from flat earthers be published in Nature and Science on the same basis?
turbobloke said:
Some recent history further to the evolving EV farce arising from UK's duff energy and climate policymaking.
Fiasco ongoing.
I think Dr Stephen Broderick is looking for more funding for research to stagger the charging of EVs within a given locality, so the load does not cause the issues you have selectively quoted.Written evidence to Parliament from Stephen Broderick now Doctor of Engineering Soton Uni said:
Summary: The UK Distribution network "as is" is adequate for immediate needs, but will be substantively overtaxed by unconstrained EV home charging (by up to 7:1), for EVs draw c. 7 kW for hours. These issues follow uptake of EVs i.e. minimal at first then overwhelming as years pass.
Consequences will depend on local circumstances, but have potential to include:
• power cuts (overloads of supply equipment => power equipment "blowing fuses")
• brown-outs (loss of sufficient voltage) potentially causinghome appliance damage and household fires
• potentially, a move to restrict EVs to (say) 1 in 7 homes.
Two general methods are seen to alleviate these situations:
• reinforcement of the networks (asset replacement) – expensive, slow, disruptive
• use of a control system capable of managing EV home charging.
Further, the EVs would need to obey the issued commands; this is not assured.
Note that the ICT / SG method does not provide a complete solution, but is expected to defer major costs for decades.
https://data.parliament.uk/WrittenEvidence/CommitteeEvidence.svc/EvidenceDocument/Business,%20Energy%20and%20Industrial%20Strategy/Electric%20vehicles%20developing%20the%20market%20and%20infrastructure/written/72763.htmlConsequences will depend on local circumstances, but have potential to include:
• power cuts (overloads of supply equipment => power equipment "blowing fuses")
• brown-outs (loss of sufficient voltage) potentially causinghome appliance damage and household fires
• potentially, a move to restrict EVs to (say) 1 in 7 homes.
Two general methods are seen to alleviate these situations:
• reinforcement of the networks (asset replacement) – expensive, slow, disruptive
• use of a control system capable of managing EV home charging.
Further, the EVs would need to obey the issued commands; this is not assured.
Note that the ICT / SG method does not provide a complete solution, but is expected to defer major costs for decades.
Fiasco ongoing.
Don't worry TB, the world won't collapse around you. You will still be able to have that EV you have always wanted
Not Zero: reverse gear is in use again, stateside this time, where an element of unnecessary greenblob enforcement has ceased.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/city-abruptly-reverses-...
https://www.yahoo.com/news/city-abruptly-reverses-...
Article said:
The city of Berkeley, California, is repealing its landmark ban on natural gas hookups in new buildings, according to the New York Times. The first-of-its-kind ordinance, passed in 2019, is being scrapped after a legal challenge from the California Restaurant Association.
turbobloke said:
Not Zero: reverse gear is in use again, stateside this time, where an element of unnecessary greenblob enforcement has ceased.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/city-abruptly-reverses-...
Potentially a retrograde step enforced by the self centred and self serving gas industry. https://www.yahoo.com/news/city-abruptly-reverses-...
Article said:
The city of Berkeley, California, is repealing its landmark ban on natural gas hookups in new buildings, according to the New York Times. The first-of-its-kind ordinance, passed in 2019, is being scrapped after a legal challenge from the California Restaurant Association.
20th century tech will soon be looked back on fondly like a horse and cart or steam train or the canal network........
Why the resistance to change and progress??
Recent evidence of Not Zero goes beyond the USA, as Net Zero retreat really is gathering steam. Unlike non-existent increases in extreme weather it's all around us.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/03/27/europe...
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/03/27/europe...
turbobloke said:
Recent evidence of Not Zero goes beyond the USA, as Net Zero retreat really is gathering steam. Unlike non-existent increases in extreme weather it's all around us.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/03/27/europe...
20th century tech will soon be looked back on fondly like a horse and cart or steam train or the canal network........https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/03/27/europe...
Why the resistance to change and progress??
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff