Climate change - the POLITICAL debate (Vol 6)
Discussion
Just out of interest (and I prob won't post again on this thread, you guys are having a fun time without me), what is the official classification for someone who "believes" that temps are currently warming slightly but doesn't subscribe to the whole CC belief system, involving man being the death of the planet within 10 (or is it 12 years now? I forget) but does think that the relatively recent burning of fossil fuels on a massive scale really isn't a good thing on so many levels? These concerns go waaaaay beyond any local skirmish over CC causes. Am I to be classified as a denier?
I am only asking because my day job is removing CO2 from the atmosphere to feed the people on planet Earth and I've recently been receiving a kicking from the media for doing this.
I am only asking because my day job is removing CO2 from the atmosphere to feed the people on planet Earth and I've recently been receiving a kicking from the media for doing this.
Reasonable enough surely, but given you confessed your sin in not truly believing doomsday climageddonism due to nasty humans you're definitely risking denier labelling according to the track record of those who like to use such ridiculous terminology. So, welcome to the club? May I respectfully add: nice work there with plant food / tree food / crop food gas.
DaveGrohl said:
Just out of interest (and I prob won't post again on this thread, you guys are having a fun time without me), what is the official classification for someone who "believes" that temps are currently warming slightly but doesn't subscribe to the whole CC belief system, involving man being the death of the planet within 10 (or is it 12 years now? I forget) but does think that the relatively recent burning of fossil fuels on a massive scale really isn't a good thing on so many levels? These concerns go waaaaay beyond any local skirmish over CC causes. Am I to be classified as a denier?
I am only asking because my day job is removing CO2 from the atmosphere to feed the people on planet Earth and I've recently been receiving a kicking from the media for doing this.
A short summary for your entertainment should you ever return.I am only asking because my day job is removing CO2 from the atmosphere to feed the people on planet Earth and I've recently been receiving a kicking from the media for doing this.
Rating your post contents in denier value.
Nothing reposted from WUWT or another shill site*. -1 denier points.
Not hints about the corruption of climate science. -1 denier points.
Overblown out of context statement about the timeline of climate change. +3 denier points.
'*many bonus points awarded if you go out of your way to hide sources.
So overall a +1 semi-skimmed denier, you're aware of your environment, you're aware of science and rely on it like we all do. However when environmental science comes around calling making logical and consistent statements about the impact of carbon on our future, suddenly there's a problem?
Off-topic, I thought Harry Metcalf's position on the use of herbicides as an enabler of a low/no till field management really interesting and entire logical.
DaveGrohl said:
Just out of interest (and I prob won't post again on this thread, you guys are having a fun time without me), what is the official classification for someone who "believes" that temps are currently warming slightly but doesn't subscribe to the whole CC belief system, involving man being the death of the planet within 10 (or is it 12 years now? I forget) but does think that the relatively recent burning of fossil fuels on a massive scale really isn't a good thing on so many levels? These concerns go waaaaay beyond any local skirmish over CC causes. Am I to be classified as a denier?
I am only asking because my day job is removing CO2 from the atmosphere to feed the people on planet Earth and I've recently been receiving a kicking from the media for doing this.
Some would call you a lukewarmer, others would call you a luckwarmer I am only asking because my day job is removing CO2 from the atmosphere to feed the people on planet Earth and I've recently been receiving a kicking from the media for doing this.
turbobloke said:
Carbon free by 2050, nice slogan to placate the media/mystics but no chance, regardless of whether it's a good thing or not.
If it doesn't work out whoever is around by then can simply re-identify the UK (or what is left of it) as being part of Poland and carry on for as long whatever economic lash-up of fossil and non-fossil energy "policy" allows.Climate change: Stalemate at UN talks as splits re-appear
UN climate talks in Madrid enter their final scheduled day with divisions emerging between major emitting countries and small island states.
Negotiators are attempting to agree a deal in the Spanish capital that would see countries commit to make new climate pledges by the end of 2020.
But serious disagreements have emerged over how much carbon-cutting the major emitters should undertake.
The talks have also become bogged down in rows over key technical issues.
Negotiators arrived in Madrid two weeks ago with the words of the UN secretary general ringing in their ears - António Guterres told delegates that "the point of no return is no longer over the horizon"...........continues
The children at the party are still squabbling !!
UN climate talks in Madrid enter their final scheduled day with divisions emerging between major emitting countries and small island states.
Negotiators are attempting to agree a deal in the Spanish capital that would see countries commit to make new climate pledges by the end of 2020.
But serious disagreements have emerged over how much carbon-cutting the major emitters should undertake.
The talks have also become bogged down in rows over key technical issues.
Negotiators arrived in Madrid two weeks ago with the words of the UN secretary general ringing in their ears - António Guterres told delegates that "the point of no return is no longer over the horizon"...........continues
The children at the party are still squabbling !!
dickymint said:
El stovey said:
The conservatives policies regarding carbon emissions aren’t much different to labour’s though are they?
Yes but Boris is a liar right? ....... happy days.Spouting 2050 decarbonisation carp and going through the right motions i.e. attempting it, is a sound political strategy, the loons will lap it up. It won't happen, but like the fools spouting imminent doomsday tipping point "bulls
t" (copyright NASA GISS climate modeller Dr Gavin Schmidt) that doesn't matter as Boris won't be PM in 2050 and long before then the resulting political fallout from such costly and pointless greenblobbism will be felt. Macron and his mates have had a taster already.turbobloke said:
and long before then the resulting political fallout from such costly and pointless greenblobbism will be felt. Macron and his mates have had a taster already.
So you keep saying but most countries, like the U.K. are making and increasing commitments that completely contradict your statement.You also keep saying the tide is turning, but it obviously isn’t. So now you’re changing it to some other nonsense.
Do you think Boris is deliberately making commitments that damage the U.K. economically and will damage him and his party politically just to appease environmentalists?
kerplunk said:
oh dear more rubbish. CO2 measurements in ice cores are NOT a proxy! They are direct measurements of carbon dioxide in captured air. Temperature is inferred from isotopes and therefore is a proxy (of regional sea temperature).
I'm also pretty sure the notion that ice core CO2 measurements aren't a reliable indicator of global background CO2 levels is made up too. To justify that claim you'd need to present plausible local CO2 sources/sinks that could affect the measurements. Not many of those on the frozen high plains of Antarctica 4km above sea level.
You really need to read up on the subject. Air is trapped in tiny bubbles in ice. The air is then subject to many external factors. From snow fall to sun, temperature and melt water. The air bubbles also move and combine so a bubble my cover decades or even centuries. All of which needs to be dealt with in the reconstruction. . They also know separating ice core rings become much more difficult with age because the ice is crushed by new ice. I'm also pretty sure the notion that ice core CO2 measurements aren't a reliable indicator of global background CO2 levels is made up too. To justify that claim you'd need to present plausible local CO2 sources/sinks that could affect the measurements. Not many of those on the frozen high plains of Antarctica 4km above sea level.
So CO2 data from ice cores is very much a proxy for actual CO2 level in any year.
The problem then with any proxy is how good it is. To do that you need to have a control. At the moment no good control exists and will not for many years.
It's an emergency! The fast food queue is too long. Cop that line...
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/dec/12/b...
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/dec/12/b...
El stovey said:
turbobloke said:
and long before then the resulting political fallout from such costly and pointless greenblobbism will be felt. Macron and his mates have had a taster already.
So you keep saying but most countries, like the U.K. are making and increasing commitments that completely contradict your statement.You also keep saying the tide is turning, but it obviously isn’t. So now you’re changing it to some other nonsense.
Do you think Boris is deliberately making commitments that damage the U.K. economically and will damage him and his party politically just to appease environmentalists?
if history is a guide going forward, the jobs will be minimal, solar panels from Germany, wind turbines from Norway, Germany and Denmark.
Then we come to batteries, most of the rare earth materials come from China, basically because they don't care about pollution,
So what do we do? Well as part of NATO we decided they are now an enemy, China threatens to the militarization of the supply, that will make it interesting when everything we have is battery powered, great joined up thinking don't you think?
When the move to diesels from petrol we discussed the subject on here, all thought it mad, the particulate problem was ignored totally, well until many years down the line when the government decided on advice from the scientists that diesels are bad for people.
With this history I do not hold out much hope to the drive to zero being anything but a disaster, whilst we are destroying ourselves, the rest of the world will be using cheap carbon based energy.
Finally the difference we will make for the costs paid will be insignificant, in the end you have to ask why ?
Costs of New Zealand’s drive to go zero carbon by 2050...
“getting all the way, rather than halfway, will likely cost 16 percent of GDP by 2050. That is more than New Zealand today spends on social security and welfare, health, education, police, courts, defense, environment, and every other part of government combined.”
https://nypost.com/2019/12/08/reality-check-drive-...
Ah, I’m sure that will be fine.
“getting all the way, rather than halfway, will likely cost 16 percent of GDP by 2050. That is more than New Zealand today spends on social security and welfare, health, education, police, courts, defense, environment, and every other part of government combined.”
https://nypost.com/2019/12/08/reality-check-drive-...
Ah, I’m sure that will be fine.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff