Climate protesters block roads
Discussion
RobDickinson said:
funkyrobot said:
andy_s said:
RobDickinson said:
The science is done and dusted bar a few details.
Said no scientist ever.
It is challenging to say the least to perform a controlled experiment on a global and atmospheric basis in which every variable is measured and controlled and which could be replicated.
In many ways, climate science is a 'soft' science and is in this manner similar to economics.
As such, there is likely to be debate over which interactions have greater effect over the climate than others for quite some time to come, despite many if not all of the underlying principles being well understood and the product of 'hard' science.
https://www.thoughtco.com/hard-vs-soft-science-397...
amusingduck said:
jfire said:
I note a recent meme that asked whether we should trust the government, funded by oil companies etc.or these good guys, backed by 15,000 scientists. Except the only connection to the scientists is that they agree global warming exists, not that we should ban planes and boilers immediately.
Who funds the scientists? Genuine questionhttps://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/apr/2...
$70 trillion dollars cost ,all you powerfully built company directors must be worried now. with what brains the diesel fumes have left you.
$70 trillion dollars cost ,all you powerfully built company directors must be worried now. with what brains the diesel fumes have left you.
On the subject of lithium mines, a Google image search will illustrate just how destructive lithium mining is. I understand that NASA use lithium mines to test Mars rovers, as they are devoid of all life, including insects.
Hydrogen Fuel cell technology really should be adopted more readily than is currently the case.
Hydrogen Fuel cell technology really should be adopted more readily than is currently the case.
RobDickinson said:
funkyrobot said:
andy_s said:
RobDickinson said:
The science is done and dusted bar a few details.
Said no scientist ever.The sky has been falling in for 5 decades without a single one of the predictions being realised as yet, and indeed a lot of the inconvenient truths, hockey sticks and earth days have been, if not debunked, severely criticised in both methodology and definitiveness of result.
Personally I'm all for cutting down on waste, reducing use of finite resource and curbing pollution in general - these are all beneficial from a security, longevity and caretaker point of view - you don't even have to get into the whole 'climate change' thing for that to make sense. However, since nuclear [which we used to lead the world in] was put out of bounds by the very greens that want us now to switch to renewables [which won't scale up unless you use nuclear] we're painted into a bit of a corner - largely due to emotive response, poor science understanding and agenda ridden vox pop.
When you see a situation where people are being taken to court or losing their job because their research or viewpoints aren't aligned with the perceived status quo you have to question, very hard, the motivations, reasoning and honesty of that status quo...
Mort7 said:
On the subject of lithium mines, a Google image search will illustrate just how destructive lithium mining is. I understand that NASA use lithium mines to test Mars rovers, as they are devoid of all life, including insects.
Hydrogen Fuel cell technology really should be adopted more readily than is currently the case.
If you google lithium mine you will likely see something entirely different...Hydrogen Fuel cell technology really should be adopted more readily than is currently the case.
This is a copper mine, not lithium.
Edited by RobDickinson on Tuesday 23 April 10:42
Roofless Toothless said:
Coolbanana said:
Massive levels of ignorance, despite extensive attempts at educating people like you demonstrates why groups like XR exist – you cause them to exist, to take their message to the Government that it mustn’t be complacent and think everyone is like you.
Of course the Earth goes through natural climate change cycles, that is obvious. But why is it so difficult for some folks to grasp that humans burning fossil fuels at the incredible rate they have in a very short time, has accelerated the natural cycle – unnaturally.
It is the equivalent of a large asteroid impact or large-scale nuclear war, it creates an event that causes widespread damage to Nature very quickly.
If we didn’t accelerate climate change, Nature would try to adapt to the natural cycle over the much slower time. Now, granted, natural cycles still have casualties from those that could not adapt fast enough, but it is incredibly stupid to accelerate the process such that far greater harm is guaranteed. Far more species extinct. Coral reefs wiped out, fish numbers reduced – human food sources severely impacted. Ocean levels raised to put human settlements at great risk.
Why would you risk having this happen when it can be avoided and time gained for not just us, but Nature generally, to try to adapt naturally? Would a 25 year old wish to accelerate their age to 75 and meet the challenges of that age, health and lack of accumulated resources, advancement in knowledge, experience, or would they rather their normal natural cycle play out?
Climate change is a basic fact and natural process. Human impact by way of accelerating that natural process was a debate started in earnest 30 years or so ago and has been settled as fact too.
Anyone still in denial of this is no better than those who still persist the Earth is flat and History will see them as such.
XR is extreme. But it is borne from a general sense that too much ignorance still exists and therefore more pressure needs to be enacted to change Laws faster. For PH’ers, this could mean the acceleration of laws that see your bums out of the seats of V8 cars much faster than it might otherwise have been by knee-jerk Government reactions, rather than a generally-accepted, Universal methodology towards finding and creating solutions to deal with reduced emissions.
All you Deniers are responsible for XR and their ilk.
By refusing to understand and accept basic concepts, by not buying into a need for change, you give rise to these demonstrations by directly creating a sense of non-urgency where some needs to exist.
There is much sense in what you say, Coolbanana, but I think you are underestimating the extent to which climate can and has changed very quickly from natural causes only. Also, we are not accelerating the rate of natural climate change, but rather putting our own blip on the curve of natural change.Of course the Earth goes through natural climate change cycles, that is obvious. But why is it so difficult for some folks to grasp that humans burning fossil fuels at the incredible rate they have in a very short time, has accelerated the natural cycle – unnaturally.
It is the equivalent of a large asteroid impact or large-scale nuclear war, it creates an event that causes widespread damage to Nature very quickly.
If we didn’t accelerate climate change, Nature would try to adapt to the natural cycle over the much slower time. Now, granted, natural cycles still have casualties from those that could not adapt fast enough, but it is incredibly stupid to accelerate the process such that far greater harm is guaranteed. Far more species extinct. Coral reefs wiped out, fish numbers reduced – human food sources severely impacted. Ocean levels raised to put human settlements at great risk.
Why would you risk having this happen when it can be avoided and time gained for not just us, but Nature generally, to try to adapt naturally? Would a 25 year old wish to accelerate their age to 75 and meet the challenges of that age, health and lack of accumulated resources, advancement in knowledge, experience, or would they rather their normal natural cycle play out?
Climate change is a basic fact and natural process. Human impact by way of accelerating that natural process was a debate started in earnest 30 years or so ago and has been settled as fact too.
Anyone still in denial of this is no better than those who still persist the Earth is flat and History will see them as such.
XR is extreme. But it is borne from a general sense that too much ignorance still exists and therefore more pressure needs to be enacted to change Laws faster. For PH’ers, this could mean the acceleration of laws that see your bums out of the seats of V8 cars much faster than it might otherwise have been by knee-jerk Government reactions, rather than a generally-accepted, Universal methodology towards finding and creating solutions to deal with reduced emissions.
All you Deniers are responsible for XR and their ilk.
By refusing to understand and accept basic concepts, by not buying into a need for change, you give rise to these demonstrations by directly creating a sense of non-urgency where some needs to exist.
I was trained as a geologist and oceanographer, and I have no difficulty in appreciating that very great changes in conditions at any one place on the earth's surface can happen over time. For me, the period between, say 15000 years ago, when a kilometre of ice covered these islands (actually not even islands then) and today is just a blink of the eye in geolological terms. But it is not surprising that so many people cannot understand this, and think there is some god-given right for the world to stay exactly as it was on the day they were born.
When the geological sciences were being developed in the 19th century, the crucial concept was that of uniformitarianism, which holds that the seemingly slow processes that can be observed today (weathering, erosion, sedimentation, etc.) over vast periods of time can account for the geological formations under our feet. Perhaps the most important spin off from this is that it gave Darwin millions of years, instead of a Biblical 6000, to explain the equally slow process of natural selection. But fashions change in geology as everywhere else, and today, a 'cataclysmic' philosophy explains how sometimes things can happen very quickly indeed - the formation of the English Channel, or the Black Sea, or meteor strikes for instance. These are natural processes that evolution would have no chance to keep up with.
What drives me to distraction is the loose use of terminology here. Muddled definitions lead to muddled thinking. When I hear the protesters interviewed and say that they want the government to 'stop climate change' then I despair at their ignorance. They may as well demand that the government reverse continental drift.
I am also unsettled at their focus on the impact of a rise in CO2 while simultaneously ignoring the greenhouse effects of water vapour, methane, nitrous oxide, etc. I find it hard to understand how little is mentioned about the former, which on its own dwarfs the effect of the actual gases - 70% of the greenhouse effect according to some sources. Is this because carbon is associated with industry and therefore capitalism, and therefore a more politically inviting target? How many vegan, climate obsessed protesters realise that as much methane is released from rice cultivation as it is from farming ruminants?
At the very most, governments can act to reduce man made carbon emissions, which are only a part of the total atmospheric carbon dioxide content, which is only a part of the total gaseous atmospheric content responsible for climate regulation, all of which together are small compared to the effect of water vapour - the whole lot being only one factor in the climate change story along with astronomical influences, or continental movement, etc. It's a lot of fuss about not very much at the end of the day.
However, I suppose we should do what we can do, but I would like a more informed debate on the street that distinguishes between anthropogenic and natural climate change, and not a King Canute like insistence that we can turn back the tides of natural processes that we have no power to influence. We live on an ever changing, ever threatening earth surface, and should be expending our energy on how we adapt and prepare for the challenges we face as a species, society and economy instead of thinking that like Joshua, we can command the sun to stand still in the sky.
Roofless Toothless said:
There is much sense in what you say, Coolbanana, but I think you are underestimating the extent to which climate can and has changed very quickly from natural causes only. Also, we are not accelerating the rate of natural climate change, but rather putting our own blip on the curve of natural change.
I was trained as a geologist and oceanographer, and I have no difficulty in appreciating that very great changes in conditions at any one place on the earth's surface can happen over time. For me, the period between, say 15000 years ago, when a kilometre of ice covered these islands (actually not even islands then) and today is just a blink of the eye in geolological terms. But it is not surprising that so many people cannot understand this, and think there is some god-given right for the world to stay exactly as it was on the day they were born.
When the geological sciences were being developed in the 19th century, the crucial concept was that of uniformitarianism, which holds that the seemingly slow processes that can be observed today (weathering, erosion, sedimentation, etc.) over vast periods of time can account for the geological formations under our feet. Perhaps the most important spin off from this is that it gave Darwin millions of years, instead of a Biblical 6000, to explain the equally slow process of natural selection. But fashions change in geology as everywhere else, and today, a 'cataclysmic' philosophy explains how sometimes things can happen very quickly indeed - the formation of the English Channel, or the Black Sea, or meteor strikes for instance. These are natural processes that evolution would have no chance to keep up with.
What drives me to distraction is the loose use of terminology here. Muddled definitions lead to muddled thinking. When I hear the protesters interviewed and say that they want the government to 'stop climate change' then I despair at their ignorance. They may as well demand that the government reverse continental drift.
I am also unsettled at their focus on the impact of a rise in CO2 while simultaneously ignoring the greenhouse effects of water vapour, methane, nitrous oxide, etc. I find it hard to understand how little is mentioned about the former, which on its own dwarfs the effect of the actual gases - 70% of the greenhouse effect according to some sources. Is this because carbon is associated with industry and therefore capitalism, and therefore a more politically inviting target? How many vegan, climate obsessed protesters realise that as much methane is released from rice cultivation as it is from farming ruminants?
At the very most, governments can act to reduce man made carbon emissions, which are only a part of the total atmospheric carbon dioxide content, which is only a part of the total gaseous atmospheric content responsible for climate regulation, all of which together are small compared to the effect of water vapour - the whole lot being only one factor in the climate change story along with astronomical influences, or continental movement, etc. It's a lot of fuss about not very much at the end of the day.
However, I suppose we should do what we can do, but I would like a more informed debate on the street that distinguishes between anthropogenic and natural climate change, and not a King Canute like insistence that we can turn back the tides of natural processes that we have no power to influence. We live on an ever changing, ever threatening earth surface, and should be expending our energy on how we adapt and prepare for the challenges we face as a species, society and economy instead of thinking that like Joshua, we can command the sun to stand still in the sky.
I was trained as a geologist and oceanographer, and I have no difficulty in appreciating that very great changes in conditions at any one place on the earth's surface can happen over time. For me, the period between, say 15000 years ago, when a kilometre of ice covered these islands (actually not even islands then) and today is just a blink of the eye in geolological terms. But it is not surprising that so many people cannot understand this, and think there is some god-given right for the world to stay exactly as it was on the day they were born.
When the geological sciences were being developed in the 19th century, the crucial concept was that of uniformitarianism, which holds that the seemingly slow processes that can be observed today (weathering, erosion, sedimentation, etc.) over vast periods of time can account for the geological formations under our feet. Perhaps the most important spin off from this is that it gave Darwin millions of years, instead of a Biblical 6000, to explain the equally slow process of natural selection. But fashions change in geology as everywhere else, and today, a 'cataclysmic' philosophy explains how sometimes things can happen very quickly indeed - the formation of the English Channel, or the Black Sea, or meteor strikes for instance. These are natural processes that evolution would have no chance to keep up with.
What drives me to distraction is the loose use of terminology here. Muddled definitions lead to muddled thinking. When I hear the protesters interviewed and say that they want the government to 'stop climate change' then I despair at their ignorance. They may as well demand that the government reverse continental drift.
I am also unsettled at their focus on the impact of a rise in CO2 while simultaneously ignoring the greenhouse effects of water vapour, methane, nitrous oxide, etc. I find it hard to understand how little is mentioned about the former, which on its own dwarfs the effect of the actual gases - 70% of the greenhouse effect according to some sources. Is this because carbon is associated with industry and therefore capitalism, and therefore a more politically inviting target? How many vegan, climate obsessed protesters realise that as much methane is released from rice cultivation as it is from farming ruminants?
At the very most, governments can act to reduce man made carbon emissions, which are only a part of the total atmospheric carbon dioxide content, which is only a part of the total gaseous atmospheric content responsible for climate regulation, all of which together are small compared to the effect of water vapour - the whole lot being only one factor in the climate change story along with astronomical influences, or continental movement, etc. It's a lot of fuss about not very much at the end of the day.
However, I suppose we should do what we can do, but I would like a more informed debate on the street that distinguishes between anthropogenic and natural climate change, and not a King Canute like insistence that we can turn back the tides of natural processes that we have no power to influence. We live on an ever changing, ever threatening earth surface, and should be expending our energy on how we adapt and prepare for the challenges we face as a species, society and economy instead of thinking that like Joshua, we can command the sun to stand still in the sky.
Coolbanana wont get that though, as he's an Architect
johnxjsc1985 said:
We are one decent sized Asteroid away from oblivion. Scientists change their minds more than their underwear.
What never changes is a group of people who are so up themselves they feel it necessary to educate the poor people on everything.
Totally agree with thisWhat never changes is a group of people who are so up themselves they feel it necessary to educate the poor people on everything.
Also, this solar event nearly caused serious problems to our cosy way of life - apparantly it could have wiped out half the power grids around the world (probably lots of satellites disabled etc)
We dodged this bullet by 2 weeks !
RobDickinson said:
motco said:
The settled statements have mostly proven wrong so far.
Uh no, the oldest climate models were actually quite accurate given the limitations. https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-how-well-have...
"Conclusion
Climate models published since 1973 have generally been quite skillful in projecting future warming. While some were too low and some too high, they all show outcomes reasonably close to what has actually occurred, especially when discrepancies between predicted and actual CO2 concentrations and other climate forcings are taken into account."
The science is done and dusted bar a few details.
motco said:
Does this 'done and dusted' science gloss over the CO2 and temperature rise anomaly in that the CO2 rise lags behind the temperature rises? I do not have the graphs to hand but I have no doubt one will appear soon. Ask Piers Corbyn, he'll know. And does it prove the human connection with any changes?
I suspect the climate scientists who said we were about to enter an ice age in the 1970s thought the science was 'done and dusted' too. Mort7 said:
On the subject of lithium mines, a Google image search will illustrate just how destructive lithium mining is. I understand that NASA use lithium mines to test Mars rovers, as they are devoid of all life, including insects.
Hydrogen Fuel cell technology really should be adopted more readily than is currently the case.
First part is a myth.Hydrogen Fuel cell technology really should be adopted more readily than is currently the case.
Second part - the end to end efficiency is horrible.
RobDickinson said:
If you google lithium mine you will likely see something entirely different...
This is a copper mine, not lithium.
this post marks you out as a kool aid drinking loon. you have obviously done zero research on lithium mining if you think that image is representative of the actual mining process that occurs as opposed to the evaporation stage shown in your image. that is one stage of one method of lithium extraction. those ponds will also be changing the local climate as the moisture evaporated would not normally be entering the local atmosphere, a good example of actual man made climate change.This is a copper mine, not lithium.
Edited by RobDickinson on Tuesday 23 April 10:42
Johnnytheboy said:
I suspect the climate scientists who said we were about to enter an ice age in the 1970s thought the science was 'done and dusted' too.
Well yes. I remember being taught the following FACTS in geography in about 1977:
- we were about to enter a new ice age (didn’t come true)
- oil would run out in 20 years (didn’t come true)
- we would mine minerals from the sea bed (was actually a genuine CIA conspiracy, look it up)
Makes me deeply sceptical about any arguments along the lines of “science is all over, done, dusted”.
Yertis said:
kurt535 said:
a chalk stream thats ran dry in Hertfordshire due to water demand from it outstripping replenishment. CC has arrived for that river and it won't be the last.
Has demand gone up or has replenishment reduced?other river systems appear to have seen abstraction increase by over 90% in a similar timescale according to the article. https://www.ft.com/content/b3ba1684-d875-11e8-a854...
wc98 said:
this post marks you out as a kool aid drinking loon. you have obviously done zero research on lithium mining if you think that image is representative of the actual mining process that occurs as opposed to the evaporation stage shown in your image. that is one stage of one method of lithium extraction. those ponds will also be changing the local climate as the moisture evaporated would not normally be entering the local atmosphere, a good example of actual man made climate change.
Like these, next to an absolutely massive salt pan from which they extract the brine into those small ponds to evaporate?https://goo.gl/maps/JQnfKyPT4bQWYshT9
Most lithium "mining" (87%) is like this - brine is extracted from lagoons or pumped from underground and allowed to evaporate. The impact of hard rock mining is greater, but I don't see anyone clutching their pearls over aluminium or iron mining.
Johnnytheboy said:
That' just it. They may well be bang on the money about climate change and what we need to do about it for all I know or care, but their appearance and method is so alienating to Joe Public as to be largely counterproductive.
My wife works in New Cavendish Street, north of Oxford Street, her way to work involves getting off a Victoria Line train at Oxford Circus, and walking up Regent Street, and the reverse in coming home.She said that since the demo started, it’s impossible for pedestrians to cross the road at the junction of Oxford and Regent Streets, so they go downstairs to the station, then upstairs to the street they want from the station.
She said that it is so much of a crush, to get out of the station in the a.m., and back into it in the p.m., that she now travels a more circuitous route, using Great Portland Street station to get to and from work, it adds maybe 8 to 10 minutes to her travel time, and an extra 4 or 500 metre walk, which doesn’t bother her in the slightest, but she says that while she agrees in principle with the demonstrators aims, her sympathies are becoming strained now.
kurt535 said:
Yertis said:
kurt535 said:
a chalk stream thats ran dry in Hertfordshire due to water demand from it outstripping replenishment. CC has arrived for that river and it won't be the last.
Has demand gone up or has replenishment reduced?Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff