Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. Vol 4
Discussion
Ali G said:
zygalski said:
How the sands of time shift.
First it was global warming is a myth.
Then it's global warming is occurring but cyclical.
Then it's AGW is a myth.
Then it's AGW is occurring but not catastrophically.
Hmmm...
Wonder what the sticking point will have changed to in 10 years' time?
Ritual sacrifice of virgins to Political classes to ensure Big Big Warmy starts up each morning.First it was global warming is a myth.
Then it's global warming is occurring but cyclical.
Then it's AGW is a myth.
Then it's AGW is occurring but not catastrophically.
Hmmm...
Wonder what the sticking point will have changed to in 10 years' time?
clyffepypard said:
Pruitt actually said “there's a warming trend, that climate is changing and human activity contributes to that change in some measure,” which is nothing like what you suggested he said.
Some folks either don't realise or cannot accept that what is in question is whether the warming will be CATASTROPHIC :-)
The fact you deliberately drop the Castastrophic part of CAGW above does not go unnoticed in your distorting of the facts, but nothing surprises me anymore on this thread :-)
I'd still like to know why a supposedly skeptical administration, that Turbospam amongst others has previously praised for their stance against the AGW consensus, would come out with this:Some folks either don't realise or cannot accept that what is in question is whether the warming will be CATASTROPHIC :-)
The fact you deliberately drop the Castastrophic part of CAGW above does not go unnoticed in your distorting of the facts, but nothing surprises me anymore on this thread :-)
https://youtu.be/UBybnYN8ki4?t=495
Pruitt said in his press conference, defending Trumps withdrawal from the Paris agreement:
'I indicated that in fact, global warming is occurring, that human activity contributes to it, in some manner'.
'spam hasn't commented on Pruitt's appraisal of AGW I notice, in a distinctly uncharacteristic show of restraint!
turbobloke said:
No need for anything of that type at the mo.
Trump is pulling America out of the Paris boondoggle, the green blob is being defunded, and there's no new data so AGW by any name is still at the level of fairies in the garden of your bottom.
Regardless, hardly the kind of support from the Trump administration for the so-called 'myth' of AGW that you & others on here constantly peddle.Trump is pulling America out of the Paris boondoggle, the green blob is being defunded, and there's no new data so AGW by any name is still at the level of fairies in the garden of your bottom.
I wonder what data Pruitt based his assessment on? Surely Trump must have approved Pruitt's White House press conference statement prior to it being made...
Edit:
Oh sorry, this week it's Catastrophic AGW
zygalski said:
turbobloke said:
No need for anything of that type at the mo.
Trump is pulling America out of the Paris boondoggle, the green blob is being defunded, and there's no new data so AGW by any name is still at the level of fairies in the garden of your bottom.
Regardless, hardly the kind of support from the Trump administration for the so-called 'myth' of AGW that you & others on here constantly peddle..Trump is pulling America out of the Paris boondoggle, the green blob is being defunded, and there's no new data so AGW by any name is still at the level of fairies in the garden of your bottom.
As to Trump (and Pruitt) you must have forgotten Trump's statement and previous comments very quickly and selectively, also Pruitt's response.
Pruitt: "Mr. President, it takes courage, it takes commitment to say no to the plaudits of men while doing what’s right by the American people. You have that courage, and the American people can take comfort because you have their backs. Thank you, Mr. President."
Seems OK to me.
Ali G said:
Catastrophic AGW by now has surely taken place?
Perhaps I missed it.
??
I thought these measures are preventative or meant to mitigate the future impact of AGW.Perhaps I missed it.
??
You know, our planet, why not err on the side of caution type approach.
I don't think anyone's suggesting that the planet is currently uninhabitable. Apart from you.
Countdown said:
LongQ said:
I don't think he was but to answer you point.
Only as expensive as it is because of the safety factors required whether needed or not. Even then over a full life it may not be as expensive as the alternatives in the long run.
It has the huge advantage of being able to deliver with much greater reliability and on demand.
Catastrophic failures of Nuclear plants plants are extremely rare, Casualties as a result of failure (or indeed building) are probably rarer again. But we may need to fact check that across the various electricity production industries.
"Our nuclear power stations are just TOO safe".... That's not an argument you hear every day.... Only as expensive as it is because of the safety factors required whether needed or not. Even then over a full life it may not be as expensive as the alternatives in the long run.
It has the huge advantage of being able to deliver with much greater reliability and on demand.
Catastrophic failures of Nuclear plants plants are extremely rare, Casualties as a result of failure (or indeed building) are probably rarer again. But we may need to fact check that across the various electricity production industries.
Which may be unfortunate given that more recent designs have addressed some of the concerns of the past but are constrained by issues related to the historic understanding and influences.
The designs that are being built around the world would probably already be obsolete and replaced with newer versions before they would be approved for consideration in the UK. There is every chance that regulations, based on the word "nuclear" would, de facto, require certain construction design inclusions that simply would not apply to the basis of the design being considered. Nevertheless the regulation would say they must appear.
Not so much a matter of being too safe - more of having features related to safety for reasons that no longer exist.
A similar case, with perhaps more obvious interest to individuals, is the way that extended long distance commercial flights can now be undertaken by twin engined passenger jets when once they needed more than 2 engines for safety reasons. Technology moves on but it can take a while for regulation to catch up.The technology part of that observation is surely something that Paddy would agree with.
Ali G said:
Precautionary principle then?
Just in case.
Any other Catastrophic events on the horizon - just in case.
Well, if it were buying a spare battery for the car, just in case the one you've got fails, then I think you make a good point.Just in case.
Any other Catastrophic events on the horizon - just in case.
As it stands, given that even the Trump administration accept the human activity contributes to global warming, it does seem reasonably to limit that impact if possible.
Err on the side of caution. Unless you have a spare inhabitable planet up your sleeve, that is.
Countdown said:
LongQ said:
I don't think he was but to answer you point.
Only as expensive as it is because of the safety factors required whether needed or not. Even then over a full life it may not be as expensive as the alternatives in the long run.
It has the huge advantage of being able to deliver with much greater reliability and on demand.
Catastrophic failures of Nuclear plants plants are extremely rare, Casualties as a result of failure (or indeed building) are probably rarer again. But we may need to fact check that across the various electricity production industries.
"Our nuclear power stations are just TOO safe".... That's not an argument you hear every day.... Only as expensive as it is because of the safety factors required whether needed or not. Even then over a full life it may not be as expensive as the alternatives in the long run.
It has the huge advantage of being able to deliver with much greater reliability and on demand.
Catastrophic failures of Nuclear plants plants are extremely rare, Casualties as a result of failure (or indeed building) are probably rarer again. But we may need to fact check that across the various electricity production industries.
zygalski said:
Ali G said:
Precautionary principle then?
Just in case.
Any other Catastrophic events on the horizon - just in case.
Well, if it were buying a spare battery for the car, just in case the one you've got fails, then I think you make a good point.Just in case.
Any other Catastrophic events on the horizon - just in case.
As it stands, given that even the Trump administration accept the human activity contributes to global warming, it does seem reasonably to limit that impact if possible.
Err on the side of caution. Unless you have a spare inhabitable planet up your sleeve, that is.
My side of the argument is that there is little/no CAGW nor even AGW - a position built from ancient Grad studies and further research.
If it is of any comfort, imho there will be no anthroprogenic global climate catastrophe - it is simply not possible. Which is not to say that there may be further excessive changes in the climate - totally, completely and utterly outside of humanities ability to influence!
zygalski said:
How the sands of time shift.
First it was global warming is a myth.
Then it's global warming is occurring but cyclical.
Then it's AGW is a myth.
Then it's AGW is occurring but not catastrophically.
Hmmm...
Wonder what the sticking point will have changed to in 10 years' time?
Funny how climate scientists predictions have also shifted - First it was global warming is a myth.
Then it's global warming is occurring but cyclical.
Then it's AGW is a myth.
Then it's AGW is occurring but not catastrophically.
Hmmm...
Wonder what the sticking point will have changed to in 10 years' time?
Runaway global warming, famine and desertification
Slight global warming, also quite bad
Climate change, extreme weather increases
Tiny upward trend over a very long time, which man may well have made some unquantified contribution to - Outcome unknown
Paddy_N_Murphy said:
s2art said:
see https://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rl...do we need to read the report based on the snapshot of his leaning ?
But if you did, you could provide some of your famous FACTS to counter his evil propaganda - Or you could just ignore it and let those of us who do like to read various opinions and studies, be misled as he so obviously intends
How about this one to start?
"Without renewables, the UK market would require 22GW of new capacity to replace old coal and nuclear. With renewables, 50GW is required, i.e. 28GW more to deal with the intermittency problem. Then there are extra grid costs to connect both remote onshore wind farms (£8 billion) and even more costly offshore capacity (£15 billion) – a near trebling of grid costs"
Edited by Silver Smudger on Monday 5th June 22:00
Paddy_N_Murphy said:
Interesting how without query or provocation you can describe the document offered as evil propaganda.
Interesting how without reading it you can dismiss all 96 pagesPaddy_N_Murphy said:
see https://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rl...
do we need to read the report based on the snapshot of his leaning ?
do we need to read the report based on the snapshot of his leaning ?
zygalski said:
I thought these measures are preventative or meant to mitigate the future impact of AGW.
You know, our planet, why not err on the side of caution type approach.
I don't think anyone's suggesting that the planet is currently uninhabitable. Apart from you.
plenty proclamations were made twenty plus years ago stating that certain populated areas of the planet would be uninhabitable by now. we were also told we would see a tropospheric hot spot, an increase in hurricanes and storms ,increased rainfall leading to greater flooding, snow would be a thing of the past etc etc.You know, our planet, why not err on the side of caution type approach.
I don't think anyone's suggesting that the planet is currently uninhabitable. Apart from you.
alarmism has had the opposite effect from that intended ,outside of a small group of fruitloops . while a shedload of taxpayer money has been spent on the scientific study of the effects of increased co2 in the atmosphere,the actual knowledge base appears to have increased very little. the certainty espoused regarding temp increase has decreased.more and more papers are appearing with lower and lower climate "sensitivity" levels to increased co2.
i doubt anyone argues the lab physics surrounding the hypothesis. the problem is the planet is not the lab and there are a multitude of ways, some known, some unknown ,that natural processes can shed the hypothesised energy increase within the system. the next twenty years will be interesting. the amo is now past the peak of its warm phase. with such a huge northern hemisphere bias in the temperature "data" ,with the arctic in particular accounting for the lions share of the little warming we have seen in the last 40 years ,the climate "sensitivity" to the extra co2 might well be revised to a level where no concern is needed at all.
Silver Smudger said:
Funny how climate scientists predictions have also shifted -
Runaway global warming, famine and desertification
Slight global warming, also quite bad
Climate change, extreme weather increases
Tiny upward trend over a very long time, which man may well have made some unquantified contribution to - Outcome unknown
Out of curiosity: did you make this up yourself or are have you got this version of history from somewhere?Runaway global warming, famine and desertification
Slight global warming, also quite bad
Climate change, extreme weather increases
Tiny upward trend over a very long time, which man may well have made some unquantified contribution to - Outcome unknown
durbster said:
Silver Smudger said:
Funny how climate scientists predictions have also shifted -
Runaway global warming, famine and desertification
Slight global warming, also quite bad
Climate change, extreme weather increases
Tiny upward trend over a very long time, which man may well have made some unquantified contribution to - Outcome unknown
Out of curiosity: did you make this up yourself or are have you got this version of history from somewhere?Runaway global warming, famine and desertification
Slight global warming, also quite bad
Climate change, extreme weather increases
Tiny upward trend over a very long time, which man may well have made some unquantified contribution to - Outcome unknown
Perhaps you know what exactly we are currently trying to prevent, by slightly reducing CO2 emissions, and hopefully slightly reducing a very slight increase in temperature, over a very long time?
Your reply appears to suggest that my memory is incorrect and Climate Sciance's prediction has never varied, so -
What exactly is the predicted outcome of the man-made portion of the increase, if left unchecked?
Catastrophy, or mild inconvenience?
Silver Smudger said:
durbster said:
Silver Smudger said:
Funny how climate scientists predictions have also shifted -
Runaway global warming, famine and desertification
Slight global warming, also quite bad
Climate change, extreme weather increases
Tiny upward trend over a very long time, which man may well have made some unquantified contribution to - Outcome unknown
Out of curiosity: did you make this up yourself or are have you got this version of history from somewhere?Runaway global warming, famine and desertification
Slight global warming, also quite bad
Climate change, extreme weather increases
Tiny upward trend over a very long time, which man may well have made some unquantified contribution to - Outcome unknown
But I don't think you're in that group and saw you post something that sounds like it came from propaganda.
Silver Smudger said:
Perhaps you know what exactly we are currently trying to prevent, by slightly reducing CO2 emissions, and hopefully slightly reducing a very slight increase in temperature, over a very long time?
Your reply appears to suggest that my memory is incorrect and Climate Sciance's prediction has never varied, so -
Of course it varies! It's science, not religion. It's supposed to vary.Your reply appears to suggest that my memory is incorrect and Climate Sciance's prediction has never varied, so -
Would you expect a theory posed hundreds of years ago to be absolutely correct from day one? Was Darwin absolutely right about all aspects of evolution? Of course not. All fields of science start with an idea and are then either rejected or refined through experimentation and observed data. Science just us a map of the how things works becomes more detailed.
Here's an article originally from 1959 that wasn't a million miles off:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/carbon-...
So you can see the science has been pretty consistent, which makes sense because our fundamental understanding of physics hasn't changed. Considering the amount of data available in the early days compared to now, don't you think it's remarkable how well the theory has stood up?
Silver Smudger said:
What exactly is the predicted outcome of the man-made portion of the increase, if left unchecked?
Catastrophy, or mild inconvenience?
Nobody knows "exactly". Here's NASA's summary page on the likely effects of the expected warming:Catastrophy, or mild inconvenience?
https://climate.nasa.gov/effects/
Some effects are far from certain (e.g. effect on agriculture) and some are inevitable (e.g. sea level rise).
We're already seeing the predicted effects happening around us, which is why I'm curious as to what scientific predictions do you think were wrong?
durbster said:
We're already seeing the predicted effects happening around us, which is why I'm curious as to what scientific predictions do you think were wrong?
Like the tropical hotspot, England having a Mediterranean climate, 50 million climate refugees by 2010, ice free arctic and extinct polar bears? 
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff