Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. (Vol 5)
Discussion
turbobloke said:
jshell said:
robinessex said:
Esceptico said:
jshell said:
Hold up, point of order! Regardless of what side you're on, get this correct: The IPCC is not there to take a balanced view of climate science. Their starting point is of utter belief, so they will have not taken any conflicting views into account. That is their major failing as there are exerts on every side that should be listened to.
What evidence do you have of that claim? The IPCC doesn’t do its own research. If 95% of climate scientists showed that AGW wasn’t happening the IPCC couldn’t issue a report saying it was. Of course 95% of climate scientists say the opposite. After Einstein came up with Special Relativity there were scientists (an ever decreasing minority as time went by) that didn’t want to believe it and tried to prove him wrong. There are still cranks out there today claiming he is wrong. Out of “fairness” should we be giving them a platform and an equal hearing?
On the case of funding as a last point. There is massive political opposition to climate change by the fossil fuel industry and by a lot of very rich (mainly US) conservatives. They have very deep pockets and would be very happy to fund climate scientists that could prove AGW is not real. Why would a climate scientist go through the pain of trying to secure charitable or government funds for their research when they could get it from business? If they wanted to feed from a trough why feed from a paupers buffer when they could have a banquet.
No doubt you will either ignore the question or go off on a tangent.
Esceptico said:
turbobloke said:
jshell said:
robinessex said:
Esceptico said:
jshell said:
Hold up, point of order! Regardless of what side you're on, get this correct: The IPCC is not there to take a balanced view of climate science. Their starting point is of utter belief, so they will have not taken any conflicting views into account. That is their major failing as there are exerts on every side that should be listened to.
What evidence do you have of that claim? The IPCC doesn’t do its own research. If 95% of climate scientists showed that AGW wasn’t happening the IPCC couldn’t issue a report saying it was. Of course 95% of climate scientists say the opposite. After Einstein came up with Special Relativity there were scientists (an ever decreasing minority as time went by) that didn’t want to believe it and tried to prove him wrong. There are still cranks out there today claiming he is wrong. Out of “fairness” should we be giving them a platform and an equal hearing?
On the case of funding as a last point. There is massive political opposition to climate change by the fossil fuel industry and by a lot of very rich (mainly US) conservatives. They have very deep pockets and would be very happy to fund climate scientists that could prove AGW is not real. Why would a climate scientist go through the pain of trying to secure charitable or government funds for their research when they could get it from business? If they wanted to feed from a trough why feed from a paupers buffer when they could have a banquet.
No doubt you will either ignore the question or go off on a tangent.
Esceptico said:
turbobloke said:
jshell said:
robinessex said:
Esceptico said:
jshell said:
Hold up, point of order! Regardless of what side you're on, get this correct: The IPCC is not there to take a balanced view of climate science. Their starting point is of utter belief, so they will have not taken any conflicting views into account. That is their major failing as there are exerts on every side that should be listened to.
What evidence do you have of that claim? The IPCC doesn’t do its own research. If 95% of climate scientists showed that AGW wasn’t happening the IPCC couldn’t issue a report saying it was. Of course 95% of climate scientists say the opposite. After Einstein came up with Special Relativity there were scientists (an ever decreasing minority as time went by) that didn’t want to believe it and tried to prove him wrong. There are still cranks out there today claiming he is wrong. Out of “fairness” should we be giving them a platform and an equal hearing?
Then again you sure stuck it to other folks on the thread so well done for that.
Back to climate politics: brexit is bad for the climate.
Unnamed eurodrone said:
It feels like we can’t make any progress on climate change until Brexit is resolved one way or the other – it’s an infuriating distraction.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/davekeating/2019/10/20/brexit-is-delaying-action-to-fight-climate-change/Randy Winkman said:
Well said. I find it an extraordinary argument that scientists can only get money by being pro-climate change. There must be people queuing up to pay them to say the contrary.
And when the “Big Oil” funded climate reports that show that AGW is very weak are peer reviewed and published will you change your mind?Kawasicki said:
Randy Winkman said:
Well said. I find it an extraordinary argument that scientists can only get money by being pro-climate change. There must be people queuing up to pay them to say the contrary.
And when the “Big Oil” funded climate reports that show that AGW is very weak are peer reviewed and published will you change your mind?Randy Winkman said:
Kawasicki said:
Randy Winkman said:
Well said. I find it an extraordinary argument that scientists can only get money by being pro-climate change. There must be people queuing up to pay them to say the contrary.
And when the “Big Oil” funded climate reports that show that AGW is very weak are peer reviewed and published will you change your mind?Kawasicki said:
Randy Winkman said:
Kawasicki said:
Randy Winkman said:
Well said. I find it an extraordinary argument that scientists can only get money by being pro-climate change. There must be people queuing up to pay them to say the contrary.
And when the “Big Oil” funded climate reports that show that AGW is very weak are peer reviewed and published will you change your mind?
Esceptico said:
LongQ said:
Awesome.
You don't think some of the migrants might head for NZ? Like you did.
Clearly you can never come back - think of the emissions that would produce.
The challenge that the world faces in the future is more likely to be one of lack of viable and reliable energy at a cost effective price than it is of climate. The affordable energy problem is likely coming sooner than any climate effects.
The chances of politicians and their servants getting together and running the world, let alone doing it effectively, is unrealistic. The masses would now wait in ever increasing energy poverty while such a situation evolved.
Mass conflict, local or global, would change the balance of economics (in so far as there would be anything familiar to the modern population if the potential for chaos was achieved) and lack of energy and the products it provides that keep the world ticking along hand to mouth in terms of food supplies and the materials that are required to produce food at present volumes.
As noted above - organic methods would not be expected to provide enough food to service the needs of the world's population, even without the social disruption that would occur well before the non-organic (i.e. energy intensive chemical needs and machine dependency) practises could be converted in any sort of controlled way.
Once you have lost control of energy and food the rest becomes a little irrelevant. Population will sort itself out through malnutrition, disease and conflict. The supposed problem will be solved but in a way that is entirely in conflict with the current "think of the children" and "save the world" intended outcome. And well before any claimed climate effects might start causing a few hiccups as claimed.
So, where are you to find the politicians and bureaucrats to manage that transition?
Suggest some existing names - we need them now it seems.
Your grip of geography seems as tenuous as your grip of climate change. Yes migrants might want to come to NZ but how are they going to get here? There is about 10 miles of water between Africa and Europe. It takes about three hours to fly to the next major country (Australia) from NZ. Even then NZ has a lot of space. Same size as the UK but a population of only five and a half million.You don't think some of the migrants might head for NZ? Like you did.
Clearly you can never come back - think of the emissions that would produce.
The challenge that the world faces in the future is more likely to be one of lack of viable and reliable energy at a cost effective price than it is of climate. The affordable energy problem is likely coming sooner than any climate effects.
The chances of politicians and their servants getting together and running the world, let alone doing it effectively, is unrealistic. The masses would now wait in ever increasing energy poverty while such a situation evolved.
Mass conflict, local or global, would change the balance of economics (in so far as there would be anything familiar to the modern population if the potential for chaos was achieved) and lack of energy and the products it provides that keep the world ticking along hand to mouth in terms of food supplies and the materials that are required to produce food at present volumes.
As noted above - organic methods would not be expected to provide enough food to service the needs of the world's population, even without the social disruption that would occur well before the non-organic (i.e. energy intensive chemical needs and machine dependency) practises could be converted in any sort of controlled way.
Once you have lost control of energy and food the rest becomes a little irrelevant. Population will sort itself out through malnutrition, disease and conflict. The supposed problem will be solved but in a way that is entirely in conflict with the current "think of the children" and "save the world" intended outcome. And well before any claimed climate effects might start causing a few hiccups as claimed.
So, where are you to find the politicians and bureaucrats to manage that transition?
Suggest some existing names - we need them now it seems.
Before my first visit to Australia, early 1990s, the general opinion seemed to be that the place was, basically, an offshoot of the UK with sun, loads of space and some deadly critters.
I spent 3 weeks in Melbourne and realised that was not really accurate - there were a lot of european and Arab countries represented.
20 years later on my second visit - mainly Sydney that time - I could see how much things had changed. The population had grown a lot and the balance of ethnicities had changed significantly in a generation. Despite some fairly robust attempts, according to certain reports in the UK, to limit the influx over the years. However, having spent a couple of weeks in Hong Kong a handful of years before the UK gave up the lease and working with a company with strong connections to Aus but a 99.75% HK work force many of whom were being provided with access to Aus should they wish to take advantage of it, the changes in Australia did not surprise me.
In general there are more that 20 miles of sea between Aus and the nearest potential departure point to try to gain access. That matters not when people turn up in boats in large numbers and are prepared to sit out some time elsewhere as the machinations of human rights work their way through the system.
I see no reason to suppose that, in any scenario and especially in a situation with serious social issues, large numbers of people would not consider distant NZ and its empty spaces (as you have pointed out) to be a very suitable places for them head for. Especially since the residents seems to keep voting for leaders who would likely listen to their stories and open the country up for them - just as it seems to have done for you and for much the same reasons.
Is there any reason why that could not happen?
Edited by LongQ on Thursday 24th October 10:14
Esceptico said:
turbobloke said:
jshell said:
robinessex said:
Esceptico said:
jshell said:
Hold up, point of order! Regardless of what side you're on, get this correct: The IPCC is not there to take a balanced view of climate science. Their starting point is of utter belief, so they will have not taken any conflicting views into account. That is their major failing as there are exerts on every side that should be listened to.
What evidence do you have of that claim? The IPCC doesn’t do its own research. If 95% of climate scientists showed that AGW wasn’t happening the IPCC couldn’t issue a report saying it was. Of course 95% of climate scientists say the opposite. After Einstein came up with Special Relativity there were scientists (an ever decreasing minority as time went by) that didn’t want to believe it and tried to prove him wrong. There are still cranks out there today claiming he is wrong. Out of “fairness” should we be giving them a platform and an equal hearing?
On the case of funding as a last point. There is massive political opposition to climate change by the fossil fuel industry and by a lot of very rich (mainly US) conservatives. They have very deep pockets and would be very happy to fund climate scientists that could prove AGW is not real. Why would a climate scientist go through the pain of trying to secure charitable or government funds for their research when they could get it from business? If they wanted to feed from a trough why feed from a paupers buffer when they could have a banquet.
No doubt you will either ignore the question or go off on a tangent.
Just wrong, especially these days but it has been that way for a while.
The fossil fuel industry, as you term it, is just a wealthy, if high risk, area of business like many others.
The people that head to the top of it mainly wish to become relatively rich and it is likely that this generation, being far removed from the original 'oil men' of old, are not especially attached to oil as a means of creating their wealth. The same for the coal guys that remain - but they may be slightly more aligned with workers on home soil (where there are any left). The oil boys went global years ago.
Shell, for example, - that's Royal Dutch Shell - is chaired by an American Environmentalist of long standing. A former banker for some years but originally from a career made in the chemicals industry where he worked his way up through the company and then, basically, took it out of chemicals manufacturing almost entirely before he left.
Today, browsing around the web looking for some ideas about solving a problem I have with a dodgy mobile phone, I was inundated with adverts by Shell promoting some sort of Low Carbon Travel challenge and loads of supporting words that greatly exceeded anything that Saint Greta has produced..
One wonders why they and most of their 'top of the pile' fellows in the industry seem to be offloading assets to smaller outfits.
There could be a number of reasons but one has to consider that if one was running a business in a market where the existing supply of the product one produces was to be curtailed by legal and fiscal means in favour of something that was being promoted by legal and fiscal means with guarantees of income in a legal gift horse of opportunities to turn profits with low costs (compared to extracting oil or even coal) and virtually no obvious risk ... would one really feel the need to resist? Would it not be attractive to to be able to stop banging head on brick walls and simply go with the flow and the tax based largesse that would follow?
I think you probably misread the spending power of various "charitable organisations" and where their money comes from. That they do not have to pay taxes helps. Nor do they have to make profits to keep shareholders (and charitable institutions) happy.
They are well aware that they are not going to get a good press with the Eco crowd for reasons of historic association - plus of course the somewhat ironic 'anti-capitalist' thing - but then that have always had those class challenges to deal with, especially the coal companies.
I think it is looking more and more like the major globals have decided which way the Eco wind will be blowing (when it blows) in political terms for the next decade or two and have decided they can successfully join the game. Now they just need to put in a little effort. a lot of money and significant PR to allow them to make huge returns without really having to go chasing sources of saleable products in risky areas that are expensive to operate.
It should be fun - for them.
How much would it cost to to create an electric vehicle recharging infrastructure across the whole of NZ ready for when the flow of oil turns into an expensive trickle and ICE cars become obsolete almost overnight?
Edited by LongQ on Thursday 24th October 10:12
Randy Winkman said:
Well said. I find it an extraordinary argument that scientists can only get money by being pro-climate change. There must be people queuing up to pay them to say the contrary.
you do realise that here in the uk that is actually the case ? the decision not to provide government (taxpayer) funding for research that doesn't toe the anthropogenic co2 is bad and the cause of the recent small temp increase (even though peak to trough of the atlantic multi decadal oscillation could quite easily be responsible for it in the northern hemisphere ) was made a long time ago. if the uk government only fund climate science with a pro (c)agw view it's no wonder there hasn't been any advance in the science since john tyndall's day. the main example being the numbers on climate sensitivity are the same today as they were 100 years ago, at least those provided by the small cabal that appear to be in charge of the public relations arm. i wonder if any other branch of science has so many scientists in the public facing domain.
a bit like the bbc having a meeting with the likes of green peace in attendance and making the decision to no longer provide a platform for anyone with an alternative view.
given the cost of funding a research project of the magnitude required, who would be these people queuing up to fund research that might show co2 to be a less powerful tax gas than first thought ?
i can't think of any big business that would need to do so. all they have done up until now is throw a few green and eco labels around and that seems to satisfy most consumers. i mean ffs stagecoach actually claim their diesel buses to be "greener smarter travel" even though a large proportion of them appear to run around with very few and quite often no passengers,and no one challenges that.
LongQ said:
How much would it cost to to create an electric vehicle recharging infrastructure across the whole of NZ ready for when the flow of oil turns into an expensive trickle and ICE cars become obsolete almost overnight.
An interesting question and while waiting for a reply from the relevant party, there are some UK equivalent estimates from National Grid. Given that NG 'updated' their online document and I'm still looking for the old one in files (which was more forthright and less pc) this is what they said in 2017 about the future EV burden absent any technological revolution, which of itself would be costly. "8 GW of extra capacity would be required by 2030 and 11 GW extra by 2050."
"This would be achievable but it would be, overall, an expensive solution. This could be as much as £8 billion in electricity network costs by 2050, according to the National Infrastructure Commission."
Bearing in mind the tendency for any official body to under-estimate project costs and to fail in achieving deadlines, we may as well take that as a starting point. NG speaks of 'offsettiing' costs using claimed environmental benefits i.e. made-up sums of money, and let's hope they're not ignoring exported environmental disbenefits in terms of EV raw materials extraction, processing and transport. Let them eat carbon.
More climate politics. Global CO2 emissions from fossil fuel combustion and emissive processes increased by 2% in 2018 compared with 2017. Thanks to India, Russia, USA and China and not forgetting Edgar. That's according to a report from the European Commission Joint Research Centre where there are people who obviously know their manmade 'carbons'. The unanswered question is what happened to the 95% of annually cycled tax gas which is not manmade.
turbobloke said:
The unanswered question is what happened to the 95% of annually cycled tax gas which is not manmade.
Erm, NASA found it here: https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-pinpoints-...
...and it doesn't seem to be man-made... Are NASA suddenly realising that El Nino's cause warming or have I got this all topsy-turvy in my analysis?
turbobloke said:
LongQ said:
How much would it cost to to create an electric vehicle recharging infrastructure across the whole of NZ ready for when the flow of oil turns into an expensive trickle and ICE cars become obsolete almost overnight.
An interesting question and while waiting for a reply from the relevant party, there are some UK equivalent estimates from National Grid. Given that NG 'updated' their online document and I'm still looking for the old one in files (which was more forthright and less pc) this is what they said in 2017 about the future EV burden absent any technological revolution, which of itself would be costly. "8 GW of extra capacity would be required by 2030 and 11 GW extra by 2050."
"This would be achievable but it would be, overall, an expensive solution. This could be as much as £8 billion in electricity network costs by 2050, according to the National Infrastructure Commission."
Bearing in mind the tendency for any official body to under-estimate project costs and to fail in achieving deadlines, we may as well take that as a starting point. NG speaks of 'offsettiing' costs using claimed environmental benefits i.e. made-up sums of money, and let's hope they're not ignoring exported environmental disbenefits in terms of EV raw materials extraction, processing and transport. Let them eat carbon.
More climate politics. Global CO2 emissions from fossil fuel combustion and emissive processes increased by 2% in 2018 compared with 2017. Thanks to India, Russia, USA and China and not forgetting Edgar. That's according to a report from the European Commission Joint Research Centre where there are people who obviously know their manmade 'carbons'. The unanswered question is what happened to the 95% of annually cycled tax gas which is not manmade.
https://www.ft.com/content/9cba0522-f564-11e9-b018...
Apparently on the next 30 years (probably too long for some people) the UK would need to spend about £240Bn on electric car charging infrastructure and heat pumps if carbon zero targets are to be achieved. Plus £48.5Bn to upgrade distribution networks to support them.
Peanuts of course in the overall scheme of things.
Read to the bottom of the piece and one discovers that most of the cost expected to be an attempt to install 22million heat pumps to replace the gas boilers that are about to be banned.
And that the 'report' being quoted was commissioned by ScottishPower who are seeking to place the responsibility for funding this stuff - especially the vehicle charging points - on local and national government. They want someone else to take the stick for the increased costs whilst helping their immediate business opportunities by suggesting "advanced planning" is required. Probably not a great idea at this point, really, considering the smart meter fiasco.
If we are to be lumbered with a 30 year plan starting with a piecemeal set of random developments on a project of this scale is unlikely to tbe the most effect way to deliver it.
However debating the need will be pointless at this time since it is, currently, a matter of political policy for all parties. So the "money" will be spent one way or another so long as they can find some way to beg, tax or borrow it. And it will almost certainly cost, in real terms, far more than has been predicted to date though some of the costs may not be very visible.
Here it is in all of it's industry destroying, energy price raising, gas supply removing, electric car charging glory: https://bbc.in/2UTHUC4
197 pages of horror.
197 pages of horror.
Paris Agreement: Trump confirms US will leave climate accord
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-5016559...
The US will definitely withdraw from the Paris climate agreement, President Trump has confirmed.
He made the announcement at an energy conference in Pittsburgh on a stage flanked by men in hard hats.
He described the accord as a bad deal and said his pro fossil fuel policies had made the US an energy superpower.
The earliest he can formally start the process of withdrawing the US from the Paris accord is 4 November.
The pull-out will take effect a year later - the day after the 2020 US presidential election – assuming that Mr Trump is re-elected.....continues
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-5016559...
The US will definitely withdraw from the Paris climate agreement, President Trump has confirmed.
He made the announcement at an energy conference in Pittsburgh on a stage flanked by men in hard hats.
He described the accord as a bad deal and said his pro fossil fuel policies had made the US an energy superpower.
The earliest he can formally start the process of withdrawing the US from the Paris accord is 4 November.
The pull-out will take effect a year later - the day after the 2020 US presidential election – assuming that Mr Trump is re-elected.....continues
jshell said:
Here it is in all of it's industry destroying, energy price raising, gas supply removing, electric car charging glory: https://bbc.in/2UTHUC4
197 pages of horror.
The "grandchildren" will love this once they realise what has been done in their name.197 pages of horror.
I could imagine them emigrating if they can find anywhere sensible to go.
Edited by LongQ on Thursday 24th October 17:24
Trump is reportedly preparing to take the USA along a formal Paris exit route. Heading to Nice would be nice when it's warm, which it often is.
https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/4672...
https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/4672...
Interesting to add to the debate
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/oct/2...
https://www.pnas.org/content/116/36/17690
Basically, perhaps as the Gaia hypothesis suggests, good old mother earth undoes (some) of the damage we caused her?
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/oct/2...
https://www.pnas.org/content/116/36/17690
Basically, perhaps as the Gaia hypothesis suggests, good old mother earth undoes (some) of the damage we caused her?
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff