Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. (Vol 5)
Discussion
Wayoftheflower said:
LongQ said:
Show us how technological progress and green philosophy works in harmony.
Your house now takes an order of magnitude less energy to light due to the progress from incandescent to flourescent to LED. Green progress obviously.So long as recent reports about some people's concern of the effects on LED based light on eyesight are unfounded that is fine.
Of course the "true green" argument for making things cheaper or easier is that people will just use them. So cheaper/easier/"more accessible" is not considered to be a "good thing".
From all I have seen of, for example, peoples often newly refurbished kitchens they are probably using much the same amount of energy with more lights on and left on most of the time. You are also talking about orders of magnitude of a relatively small portion of household consumption. And in winter, where usage is greatest, the heat that would have bee generated from Incandescent bulbs will need to be replaced by some other form of heating for those like things warm.
I would give you street lamps although the bigger savings are related to those councils that simply turn them off. And of course the resulting light makes night look look day.
Come to think of it the installation of LED lighting in our road happened to coincide with the reduction of the sparrow population but that could be entirely coincidental. We could do with a few around this year - the mosquitoes are rampant for some reason.
Recent industrial development, LED lit and, allegedly, solar panel powered somehow means that several places operating 24/7 now have very brightly lit (and vast) locations that make up for the lack of street lights (despite being some distance away) most nights. Any low cloud that reflects the light (there is usually enough around to deliver the effect) once again adds to the "night as day" effect when the street lights are off.
I would be surprised if they were actually using less energy rather than just deploying more light.
As far as the house goes - I have yet to see any savings but then not all of our bulbs are LED as my wife has a dislike for most light that is not created by incandescent bulbs.
Other than LEDs, have you any other examples? Preferably something that is exclusively a Green energy saving development that does not come with a relatively huge conversion cost.
Edited by LongQ on Tuesday 20th August 15:21
Climate change 'could expose more ancient monuments and ruins'
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-49413435
Another non story riding on the back of climate change. A quote:-
"The stormy weather created giant waves which moved the sandbanks and exposed the boat," said Dr Belford, chief executive of the Clwyd-Powys Archaeological Trust. You'll see more and more wrecks and ancient monuments uncovered as extreme weather events become more frequent due to the impact of climate change."
Any proof of this, or just a throw away remark that goes unchallenged?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-49413435
Another non story riding on the back of climate change. A quote:-
"The stormy weather created giant waves which moved the sandbanks and exposed the boat," said Dr Belford, chief executive of the Clwyd-Powys Archaeological Trust. You'll see more and more wrecks and ancient monuments uncovered as extreme weather events become more frequent due to the impact of climate change."
Any proof of this, or just a throw away remark that goes unchallenged?
LongQ said:
Wayoftheflower said:
LongQ said:
Show us how technological progress and green philosophy works in harmony.
Your house now takes an order of magnitude less energy to light due to the progress from incandescent to flourescent to LED. Green progress obviously.So long as recent reports about some people's concern of the effects on LED based light on eyesight are unfounded that is fine.
Of course the "true green" argument for making things cheaper or easier is that people will just use them. So cheaper/easier/"more accessible" is not considered to be a "good thing".
From all I have seen of, for example, peoples often newly refurbished kitchens they are probably using much the same amount of energy with more lights on and left on most of the time. You are also talking about orders of magnitude of a relatively small portion of household consumption. And in winter, where usage is greatest, the heat that would have bee generated from Incandescent bulbs will need to be replaced by some other form of heating for those like things warm.
I would give you street lamps although the bigger savings are related to those councils that simply turn them off. And of course the resulting light makes night look look day.
Come to think of it the installation of LED lighting in our road happened to coincide with the reduction of the sparrow population but that could be entirely coincidental. We could do with a few around this year - the mosquitoes are rampant for some reason.
Recent industrial development, LED lit and, allegedly, solar panel powered somehow means that several places operating 24/7 now have very brightly lit (and vast) locations that make up for the lack of street lights (despite being some distance away) most nights. Any low cloud that reflects the light (there is usually enough around to deliver the effect) once again adds to the "night as day" effect when the street lights are off.
I would be surprised if they were actually using less energy rather than just deploying more light.
As far as the house goes - I have yet to see any savings but then not all of our bulbs are LED as my wife has a dislike for most light that is not created by incandescent bulbs.
Other than LEDs, have you any other examples? Preferably something that is exclusively a Green energy saving development that does not come with a relatively huge conversion cost.
Edited by LongQ on Tuesday 20th August 15:21
LongQ said:
Of course the "true green" argument for making things cheaper or easier is that people will just use them. So cheaper/easier/"more accessible" is not considered to be a "good thing".
... snip...
Other than LEDs, have you any other examples? Preferably something that is exclusively a Green energy saving development that does not come with a relatively huge conversion cost.
That's a lot of text.... snip...
Other than LEDs, have you any other examples? Preferably something that is exclusively a Green energy saving development that does not come with a relatively huge conversion cost.
But two points on the points you've made above.
1. I've never heard of this "true green" argument. I think that's a massive generalisation and oversimplification. People are allowed to be "green" in their own ways. This "true green" person would be unlikely to be posting on PH for a start wouldn't they?
2. What immature tech doesn't have a huge conversion cost, that bins everything from the motor car to electric shavers together. Isn't double glazing "green" whilst having a "huge conversion cost"
Being "green" means being part of the gradual move away from burning dinosaurs and on to making most efficient use of that giant fusion reactor in the sky.
I don't think not panicking about climate change precludes you from not being concerned about pollution, waste and finite resource use...
https://psmag.com/environment/mission-compostable
On the GBR, apparently bleaching is an effect that has happened for 400 years, [ http://theconversation.com/the-great-barrier-reef-... ] with a 10% increase since 1700's, or, for a more detailed look:
"Reconstructed bleaching was evident through the entire available record from 1575 to 2001. To determine any GBR-wide bleaching patterns, corals were pooled from all regions in the GBR spanning 15.13 to 22.23°S. Quantitative assessments of bleaching were conducted between 1620 and 2001 for frequency and 1640–2001 for prevalence. Outside of these periods, while we have documented historic bleaching, it is possible that the number of cores available drove the patterns observed.
Reconstructed bleaching frequency demonstrated three trends; (1) frequency increased from 1620 to 1753 ± 31 (years) reaching up to 6 years of each decade showing evidence of bleaching in at least 20% of coral cores. (2) Bleaching frequency decreased to 1820 ± 31 when only 1 year of every decade had evidence of bleaching in at least 20% of coral cores. (3) Bleaching frequency increased again from 1820 ± 31 to 2001. The 1890 and 1750 decades were notable for unusually high bleaching frequencies (Figure 4B, Table SM2). In contrast to bleaching frequency, bleaching prevalence only demonstrated two trends; (1) a negative trend from 1640 – 1774 ± 78, with prevalence falling from 41 to 21%. 2) An increase in bleaching prevalence from 21% in 1774 ± 78 to 31 % in 2001 (Figure 4C, Table SM2)."
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fmars...
I don't know who to believe, the Guardian seems hysterical, the snorkling politician seems a 'dip' sample, but the bigger picture seems to say 'slight increases' rather than the full on 'emergency'.
https://psmag.com/environment/mission-compostable
On the GBR, apparently bleaching is an effect that has happened for 400 years, [ http://theconversation.com/the-great-barrier-reef-... ] with a 10% increase since 1700's, or, for a more detailed look:
"Reconstructed bleaching was evident through the entire available record from 1575 to 2001. To determine any GBR-wide bleaching patterns, corals were pooled from all regions in the GBR spanning 15.13 to 22.23°S. Quantitative assessments of bleaching were conducted between 1620 and 2001 for frequency and 1640–2001 for prevalence. Outside of these periods, while we have documented historic bleaching, it is possible that the number of cores available drove the patterns observed.
Reconstructed bleaching frequency demonstrated three trends; (1) frequency increased from 1620 to 1753 ± 31 (years) reaching up to 6 years of each decade showing evidence of bleaching in at least 20% of coral cores. (2) Bleaching frequency decreased to 1820 ± 31 when only 1 year of every decade had evidence of bleaching in at least 20% of coral cores. (3) Bleaching frequency increased again from 1820 ± 31 to 2001. The 1890 and 1750 decades were notable for unusually high bleaching frequencies (Figure 4B, Table SM2). In contrast to bleaching frequency, bleaching prevalence only demonstrated two trends; (1) a negative trend from 1640 – 1774 ± 78, with prevalence falling from 41 to 21%. 2) An increase in bleaching prevalence from 21% in 1774 ± 78 to 31 % in 2001 (Figure 4C, Table SM2)."
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fmars...
I don't know who to believe, the Guardian seems hysterical, the snorkling politician seems a 'dip' sample, but the bigger picture seems to say 'slight increases' rather than the full on 'emergency'.
zygalski said:
Indeed.
I do wonder how many deniers on here refuse to, for instance, recycle their rubbish & go for max landfill, seemingly just to spite their own existence.
This is something that really annoys me about you and yours. Because there are some of us without a sheep mentality and call into question the validity of the catastrophic proclamations and clearly dodgy science practices involved etc, you insinuate that we are also for mass pollution and waste and complete destruction of the natural world.I do wonder how many deniers on here refuse to, for instance, recycle their rubbish & go for max landfill, seemingly just to spite their own existence.
Get off you imaginary high horse.
zygalski said:
Indeed.
I do wonder how many deniers on here refuse to, for instance, recycle their rubbish & go for max landfill, seemingly just to spite their own existence.
I can’t distinguish any difference in lifestyle between people who believe in mainstream catastrophic climate science and those that don’t.I do wonder how many deniers on here refuse to, for instance, recycle their rubbish & go for max landfill, seemingly just to spite their own existence.
Odd, that.
Kawasicki said:
zygalski said:
Indeed.
I do wonder how many deniers on here refuse to, for instance, recycle their rubbish & go for max landfill, seemingly just to spite their own existence.
I can’t distinguish any difference in lifestyle between people who believe in mainstream catastrophic climate science and those that don’t.I do wonder how many deniers on here refuse to, for instance, recycle their rubbish & go for max landfill, seemingly just to spite their own existence.
Odd, that.
NoNeed said:
Kawasicki said:
zygalski said:
Indeed.
I do wonder how many deniers on here refuse to, for instance, recycle their rubbish & go for max landfill, seemingly just to spite their own existence.
I can’t distinguish any difference in lifestyle between people who believe in mainstream catastrophic climate science and those that don’t.I do wonder how many deniers on here refuse to, for instance, recycle their rubbish & go for max landfill, seemingly just to spite their own existence.
Odd, that.
robinessex said:
Climate change 'could expose more ancient monuments and ruins'
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-49413435
Another non story riding on the back of climate change. A quote:-
"The stormy weather created giant waves which moved the sandbanks and exposed the boat," said Dr Belford, chief executive of the Clwyd-Powys Archaeological Trust. You'll see more and more wrecks and ancient monuments uncovered as extreme weather events become more frequent due to the impact of climate change."
Any proof of this, or just a throw away remark that goes unchallenged?
What covered them in the first place?https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-49413435
Another non story riding on the back of climate change. A quote:-
"The stormy weather created giant waves which moved the sandbanks and exposed the boat," said Dr Belford, chief executive of the Clwyd-Powys Archaeological Trust. You'll see more and more wrecks and ancient monuments uncovered as extreme weather events become more frequent due to the impact of climate change."
Any proof of this, or just a throw away remark that goes unchallenged?
ETA.
Culbin Sands in Scotland - an extreme weather event that covered a large area of productive farm land.
https://www.climate4you.com/ClimateAndHistory%2016...
Edited by LongQ on Wednesday 21st August 21:37
And here we have it. They've finally come out and said they want us to stop using our cars.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/aug/2...
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/aug/2...
LongQ said:
What covered them in the first place?
ETA.
Culbin Sands in Scotland - an extreme weather event that covered a large area of productive farm land.
https://www.climate4you.com/ClimateAndHistory%2016...
Culbin is very interesting and close to my interests. There are some strange historical 'things' in that region. Culbin though, and I have a copy of the Geographical Society study, it seems took longer to cover in sand than is suggested in that web page. It was a number of years ISTR.ETA.
Culbin Sands in Scotland - an extreme weather event that covered a large area of productive farm land.
https://www.climate4you.com/ClimateAndHistory%2016...
Ditch cars to meet climate change targets, say MPs
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-49425402
People will have to get out of their cars if the UK is to meet its climate change targets, MPs say.
The Science and Technology Select Committee says technology alone cannot solve the problem of greenhouse gas emissions from transport.
It says the government cannot achieve sufficient emissions cuts by swapping existing vehicles for cleaner versions.
The government said it would consider the committee's findings.
In its report, the committee said: “In the long-term, widespread personal vehicle ownership does not appear to be compatible with significant decarbonisation.”
It echoes a report from an Oxford-based group of academics who warned that even electric cars produce pollution through their tyres and brakes......continues
Totally unbelievable that so many idiots think we can actually change anything, not that it's required in the first place. All the people I know wouldn't be able to function without personal mobility. It's just impossible. The country has spent 75 years getting mobile, no way you can change or stop it now.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-49425402
People will have to get out of their cars if the UK is to meet its climate change targets, MPs say.
The Science and Technology Select Committee says technology alone cannot solve the problem of greenhouse gas emissions from transport.
It says the government cannot achieve sufficient emissions cuts by swapping existing vehicles for cleaner versions.
The government said it would consider the committee's findings.
In its report, the committee said: “In the long-term, widespread personal vehicle ownership does not appear to be compatible with significant decarbonisation.”
It echoes a report from an Oxford-based group of academics who warned that even electric cars produce pollution through their tyres and brakes......continues
Totally unbelievable that so many idiots think we can actually change anything, not that it's required in the first place. All the people I know wouldn't be able to function without personal mobility. It's just impossible. The country has spent 75 years getting mobile, no way you can change or stop it now.
I've always wondered when the realisation of what climate change politics is all about will finally take hold.
Its nothing more than left wing anti-capitalist global authoritarianism.
Ban oil, ban factories, ban cars, ban planes, ban meat eaters - what do you have left?, well you have a greeny left wing utopia where no one is subject to those bad oppressive big company employers and where likely everyone only has the state to rely on for income, whilst also being a vegetarian tree hugger who should identify as a cis-trans polar bear so that records show polar bear numbers are satisfactory.
Its likely that the issue of climate change is a left vs right issue to be honest - and nothing more.
Always wondered why the issue took hold in the late 90's when Clinton and Blair were leaders. With the left at the time creating a problem surrounding their core issue that separates them from the right, which is capitalism vs socialism. So if they could create a "project fear" issue with capitalism at the heart of the problem then it becomes a global issue that only the left can solve. With the sole intention being that voters should be voting left if they wanted to "save the planet".
Which is also one reason why the impending doomsday clock is always within reach of term elections (about 10 or 12 years away) - just enough time for voters to think that if they voted left then there will be just enough time for their policies to save them from certain death. But people must act quickly of course, project fear only works if they act quickly.
Its nothing more than left wing anti-capitalist global authoritarianism.
Ban oil, ban factories, ban cars, ban planes, ban meat eaters - what do you have left?, well you have a greeny left wing utopia where no one is subject to those bad oppressive big company employers and where likely everyone only has the state to rely on for income, whilst also being a vegetarian tree hugger who should identify as a cis-trans polar bear so that records show polar bear numbers are satisfactory.
Its likely that the issue of climate change is a left vs right issue to be honest - and nothing more.
Always wondered why the issue took hold in the late 90's when Clinton and Blair were leaders. With the left at the time creating a problem surrounding their core issue that separates them from the right, which is capitalism vs socialism. So if they could create a "project fear" issue with capitalism at the heart of the problem then it becomes a global issue that only the left can solve. With the sole intention being that voters should be voting left if they wanted to "save the planet".
Which is also one reason why the impending doomsday clock is always within reach of term elections (about 10 or 12 years away) - just enough time for voters to think that if they voted left then there will be just enough time for their policies to save them from certain death. But people must act quickly of course, project fear only works if they act quickly.
V10leptoquark said:
I've always wondered when the realisation of what climate change politics is all about will finally take hold.
Its nothing more than left wing anti-capitalist global authoritarianism.
Ban oil, ban factories, ban cars, ban planes, ban meat eaters - what do you have left?, well you have a greeny left wing utopia where no one is subject to those bad oppressive big company employers and where likely everyone only has the state to rely on for income, whilst also being a vegetarian tree hugger who should identify as a cis-trans polar bear so that records show polar bear numbers are satisfactory.
Its likely that the issue of climate change is a left vs right issue to be honest - and nothing more.
Always wondered why the issue took hold in the late 90's when Clinton and Blair were leaders. With the left at the time creating a problem surrounding their core issue that separates them from the right, which is capitalism vs socialism. So if they could create a "project fear" issue with capitalism at the heart of the problem then it becomes a global issue that only the left can solve. With the sole intention being that voters should be voting left if they wanted to "save the planet".
Which is also one reason why the impending doomsday clock is always within reach of term elections (about 10 or 12 years away) - just enough time for voters to think that if they voted left then there will be just enough time for their policies to save them from certain death. But people must act quickly of course, project fear only works if they act quickly.
I agree that concern about climate change and individuals spending loads of money don't really fit well together. Hence issues about private jets. But it doesn't stop me thinking that climate change is a significant concern.Its nothing more than left wing anti-capitalist global authoritarianism.
Ban oil, ban factories, ban cars, ban planes, ban meat eaters - what do you have left?, well you have a greeny left wing utopia where no one is subject to those bad oppressive big company employers and where likely everyone only has the state to rely on for income, whilst also being a vegetarian tree hugger who should identify as a cis-trans polar bear so that records show polar bear numbers are satisfactory.
Its likely that the issue of climate change is a left vs right issue to be honest - and nothing more.
Always wondered why the issue took hold in the late 90's when Clinton and Blair were leaders. With the left at the time creating a problem surrounding their core issue that separates them from the right, which is capitalism vs socialism. So if they could create a "project fear" issue with capitalism at the heart of the problem then it becomes a global issue that only the left can solve. With the sole intention being that voters should be voting left if they wanted to "save the planet".
Which is also one reason why the impending doomsday clock is always within reach of term elections (about 10 or 12 years away) - just enough time for voters to think that if they voted left then there will be just enough time for their policies to save them from certain death. But people must act quickly of course, project fear only works if they act quickly.
Randy Winkman said:
V10leptoquark said:
I've always wondered when the realisation of what climate change politics is all about will finally take hold.
Its nothing more than left wing anti-capitalist global authoritarianism.
Ban oil, ban factories, ban cars, ban planes, ban meat eaters - what do you have left?, well you have a greeny left wing utopia where no one is subject to those bad oppressive big company employers and where likely everyone only has the state to rely on for income, whilst also being a vegetarian tree hugger who should identify as a cis-trans polar bear so that records show polar bear numbers are satisfactory.
Its likely that the issue of climate change is a left vs right issue to be honest - and nothing more.
Always wondered why the issue took hold in the late 90's when Clinton and Blair were leaders. With the left at the time creating a problem surrounding their core issue that separates them from the right, which is capitalism vs socialism. So if they could create a "project fear" issue with capitalism at the heart of the problem then it becomes a global issue that only the left can solve. With the sole intention being that voters should be voting left if they wanted to "save the planet".
Which is also one reason why the impending doomsday clock is always within reach of term elections (about 10 or 12 years away) - just enough time for voters to think that if they voted left then there will be just enough time for their policies to save them from certain death. But people must act quickly of course, project fear only works if they act quickly.
aturalIts nothing more than left wing anti-capitalist global authoritarianism.
Ban oil, ban factories, ban cars, ban planes, ban meat eaters - what do you have left?, well you have a greeny left wing utopia where no one is subject to those bad oppressive big company employers and where likely everyone only has the state to rely on for income, whilst also being a vegetarian tree hugger who should identify as a cis-trans polar bear so that records show polar bear numbers are satisfactory.
Its likely that the issue of climate change is a left vs right issue to be honest - and nothing more.
Always wondered why the issue took hold in the late 90's when Clinton and Blair were leaders. With the left at the time creating a problem surrounding their core issue that separates them from the right, which is capitalism vs socialism. So if they could create a "project fear" issue with capitalism at the heart of the problem then it becomes a global issue that only the left can solve. With the sole intention being that voters should be voting left if they wanted to "save the planet".
Which is also one reason why the impending doomsday clock is always within reach of term elections (about 10 or 12 years away) - just enough time for voters to think that if they voted left then there will be just enough time for their policies to save them from certain death. But people must act quickly of course, project fear only works if they act quickly.
I agree that concern about climate change and individuals spending loads of money don't really fit well together. Hence issues about private jets. But it doesn't stop me thinking that climate change is a significant concern.
Put aside politically motivated opinion and look at the evidence.
Given that the average temperature of the lower atmosphere is currently the same as it was in 1988 (UAH LTT v6), that in spite of hysterical propaganda there has been no increase in extreme weather (Pielke, Goklany and others) which science tells us is a symptom of global cooling in any case, ocean changes are no different to the 17th, 18th and 19th centuries (Kamenos & Hennige, Andersson, and others), and so and and so forth, why are you concerned any more than any person living in any era should be concerned that mother nature can and will splatter humans at any time with any number of natural phenomena? Is it because of a choice (i.e. yours) in who to listen to rather than pursuing evidence for what's being said?
This is a political phenomenon and as indicated by Labour's Lord Donoughue, it's been adopted by left-wing activists to pursue typical left-wing agendas i.e. class struggle, anti-corporatism and redistribution of wealth generally.
jshell said:
LongQ said:
What covered them in the first place?
ETA.
Culbin Sands in Scotland - an extreme weather event that covered a large area of productive farm land.
https://www.climate4you.com/ClimateAndHistory%2016...
Culbin is very interesting and close to my interests. There are some strange historical 'things' in that region. Culbin though, and I have a copy of the Geographical Society study, it seems took longer to cover in sand than is suggested in that web page. It was a number of years ISTR.ETA.
Culbin Sands in Scotland - an extreme weather event that covered a large area of productive farm land.
https://www.climate4you.com/ClimateAndHistory%2016...
In addition the probably use of the marram grass (that helps to consolidate the dunes and reduce erosion) for local thatching (which at first reading would seems to be a very Eco-friendly approach to sourcing local building materials - the sort of thing we might see proposed today) may have been somewhat contributory. The final straw, if you will excuse the semi-pun, seems to have been the ferocity and length of that particular storm though the result as seen today may include later events that added to the sand movement.
In some respects it is just one variation of the various forms of coastal erosion and coastal change that are hardly likely to be abnormal anywhere around the world.
robinessex said:
I do religiously re-cycle my stuff, I even have the old compost bin at the bottom of the garden (is that good thing, can't keep up these days?). I do get pissed off when the local rubbish collectors then toss it all in with the general rubbish though.
So do I. What the council does with it after that I have no idea.
I'm fairly sure that "sorting" it is just a complete waste of time.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff