Climate change - the POLITICAL debate (Vol 7)
Discussion
Essarell said:
Scotland to drop its net zero targets….. strange it’s not getting more traction in the media……… a brief mention in the headlines, poor Greta will have a meltdown…..
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-68841141
Is the front page of the BBC News website not enough?https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-68841141
Randy Winkman said:
Essarell said:
Scotland to drop its net zero targets….. strange it’s not getting more traction in the media……… a brief mention in the headlines, poor Greta will have a meltdown…..
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-68841141
Is the front page of the BBC News website not enough?https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-68841141
Under commit and over deliver.
Politicians oft have a problem with this very simple philosophy.
Diderot said:
mike9009 said:
turbobloke said:
Kawasicki said:
Weekend driving bans threatened in Germany to save the climate
https://www.welt.de/politik/deutschland/article250...
Article in English
https://www.thelocal.de/20240412/german-minister-t...
Although climate crisis liepoop has been out of the donkey for some time and won't be going back, it'll be 5 to 10 years at best before the farce unwinds. This is obvious, even with opinion-type content from Prof Pielke who, being no different to IPCC, isn't infallible. In God We Trust everyone else must bring data...nullius in verba Prof P.https://www.welt.de/politik/deutschland/article250...
Article in English
https://www.thelocal.de/20240412/german-minister-t...
Some well-funded and influential interests have been at work.
Prof Pielke said:
I have updated a piece that I first published at Forbes in January 2020. It tells an very important part of the story of how the most extreme emissions scenario — RCP8.5 — came to dominate climate research, assessment, and policy. It is quite an amazing tale.
Which means that it dominated USA and UK climate politics.Climate Cooking
How a few billionaires helped push climate science to the extremes
https://rogerpielkejr.substack.com/p/climate-cooki...
Do you read any articles you post?? Not sure if you read beyond the headlines?
Prof Pielke thinks the same as Mike Hulme, that the climate crisis propaganda actually undermines any real action on man made climate change.
They both acknowledge that man made climate change is real but think a different political approach is needed to help.
I know that opinion is unpopular and maybe if we want some positive action we need to appeal to each nations characteristics. The 'boiling' narrative seems to be a shock and awe tactic....which many 'Brits' are not seduced by and does feel a bit condescending .... But how else could you accelerate decarbonisation? To be fair, I think the current pace of change to net zero in the UK is about right.....
These papers are a little frustrating as they don't paint a picture of a way forward, they just feel like in-fighting in the scientific community rather than dealing with the elephant in the room.
'Lie poop' is a new one on me too
I suppose I just need to get used to the posting style, it just reminds me of chatting to my teenage kids not a researcher..... Once again: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-00177-3
You, Mike, seem to still imagine that the colossally idiotic ‘global boiling’ statement and Gore’s stupid ‘the oceans are boiling’ f
kwittery is ‘shock and awe’, but the reality is that the ‘crisis/emergency’ rhetoric is equally absurd and fantastical. What is the elephant in the room you write of?
They will want to do things, You know, things like eating, and drinking, wearing clothes, and shoes.
They will want to move further away from where they were born, than they can walk (Without shoes!)
They will want hospitals, shops, and supermarkets (Which have all sorts of goods in them)
They will want schools, and universities.
They will want places of employment and factories to work in.
They will want roads, bicycles, buses, trains and railways, cars, motorbikes, and trucks, airliners, ships, and myriad goods made in other parts of the world.
They will want a TV, iPad, mobile and home phone, a computer, computer games, cinemas, theatres, and music festivals
They will want to be kept warm in winter, and cool in summer.
They will want holidays, some of them foreign, and to visit other countries and to go to Disneyworld with the kids etc.
They will probably want a home of their own.
Crucially they will also want children of their own.
To provide all the things, and more, described above, will cause the consumption of resources, (e,g Air, land, water, timber, minerals, fuels, fish, and food animals etc) , and the production of waste, and the emission of of CO2.
The more people there are, the more consumption of resources, production of waste, and emissions of CO2 will take place.
(Unless there are some out there who believe that the 40 loaves, and 40 fish will feed five thousand)
I am just amazed, that there are some out there who actually believe we can carry on increasing the numbers of resource consuming, (even like the computers we use to post here) waste producing, CO2 emitting humans to the planet, as we are doing right now, and yet completely avoid having to pay the environmental price for doing so.
Perhaps some peoples idea of a `sustainable' life is sitting in the middle of a field, in all weathers, eating weeds and drinking their own urine.
ALL other activities however, cause the consumption of resources (If there are any to be had) the production of waste, and the emission of CO2, and other gases in gargantuan and growing quantities.
Perhaps `that' is the `Elephant in the room' that some make reference to?
Pan Pan Pan said:
J210 said:
Unfortunately, like other organizations The UN say quite a lot, that is not actually true.Net Zero Watch in a circular PR note yesterday mentioned thathe Scottish Government has decided to abandon its decarbonisation targets.
Comments from NZW people note that the SNP and their Green chums (!) are the first administration to face up to reality, but they won’t be the last given that the era of virtue-signalling via climate targets is fading away. Nevertheless, NZW adds that most politicians still have their head in the sand.
Watch this SNP greenspace.
The climate crisis, now seen more widely as a lie, will follow, though it can't help but take a long time unfortunately.
turbobloke said:
Pan Pan Pan said:
J210 said:
Unfortunately, like other organizations The UN say quite a lot, that is not actually true.Net Zero Watch in a circular PR note yesterday mentioned thathe Scottish Government has decided to abandon its decarbonisation targets.
Comments from NZW people note that the SNP and their Green chums (!) are the first administration to face up to reality, but they won’t be the last given that the era of virtue-signalling via climate targets is fading away. Nevertheless, NZW adds that most politicians still have their head in the sand.
Watch this SNP greenspace.
The climate crisis, now seen more widely as a lie, will follow, though it can't help but take a long time unfortunately.
It would be interesting to see which parts of the Scottish plan failed to materialise.
I suspect, sadly, that much of the target was based on wishful thinking. 'the tech will soon be along'.....
All the targets are probably largely based on new tech to come and save the day. It would be interesting to find out.... And then judge the real feasibility. Might have a quick Google on it, unless someone else can chime in? Interested in the tech rather than the costs.....
I suspect, sadly, that much of the target was based on wishful thinking. 'the tech will soon be along'.....
All the targets are probably largely based on new tech to come and save the day. It would be interesting to find out.... And then judge the real feasibility. Might have a quick Google on it, unless someone else can chime in? Interested in the tech rather than the costs.....
Sadly most of us can't safe guard ourselves against rising seas by spend millions buying sea front properties like Al Gore, Bill Gates, Barack Obama, or helping to cut emissions by flying around in private jets
This is interesting.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E1e5HAZo4iw&li...
This is interesting.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E1e5HAZo4iw&li...
Edited by Oliver Hardy on Saturday 20th April 03:38
Oliver Hardy said:
To save anyone a click, it's yet another conspiracy-grifting YouTube channel recycling the usual climate propaganda. The thumbnail headline isn't even descriptiive because the video is just cherry picking a handful of comments said to newspapers over the last few decades and presenting them as if they were more than just part of the discourse at the time.This stuff has been rehashed over and over for decades now. Clickbait.
durbster said:
Oliver Hardy said:
To save anyone a click, it's yet another conspiracy-grifting YouTube channel recycling the usual climate propaganda. The thumbnail headline isn't even descriptiive because the video is just cherry picking a handful of comments said to newspapers over the last few decades and presenting them as if they were more than just part of the discourse at the time.This stuff has been rehashed over and over for decades now. Clickbait.
durbster said:
Oliver Hardy said:
To save anyone a click, it's yet another conspiracy-grifting YouTube channel recycling the usual climate propaganda. The thumbnail headline isn't even descriptiive because the video is just cherry picking a handful of comments said to newspapers over the last few decades and presenting them as if they were more than just part of the discourse at the time.This stuff has been rehashed over and over for decades now. Clickbait.
I guess because it rained heavily this year proves man made climate change is not propaganda but scientific fact.
Oliver Hardy said:
durbster said:
Oliver Hardy said:
To save anyone a click, it's yet another conspiracy-grifting YouTube channel recycling the usual climate propaganda. The thumbnail headline isn't even descriptiive because the video is just cherry picking a handful of comments said to newspapers over the last few decades and presenting them as if they were more than just part of the discourse at the time.This stuff has been rehashed over and over for decades now. Clickbait.
It's the same old material that's been shown countless times before. All they've done is repeated a few newspaper stories that contain a quote about something that was wrong (and even misrepresented some of those), while totally ignoring the fact that climate science has been continuously validated over the last half century. How is that not cherry picking?
Oliver Hardy said:
durbster said:
Oliver Hardy said:
To save anyone a click, it's yet another conspiracy-grifting YouTube channel recycling the usual climate propaganda. The thumbnail headline isn't even descriptiive because the video is just cherry picking a handful of comments said to newspapers over the last few decades and presenting them as if they were more than just part of the discourse at the time.This stuff has been rehashed over and over for decades now. Clickbait.
I guess because it rained heavily this year proves man made climate change is not propaganda but scientific fact.
And because 1933 was the driest year on a ~ 100 year timescale that also proves man made climate change is not propaganda but scientific fact.
Or not.
Also...conspiracy grifting = another shoot-the-messenger ad hom logical fallacy nothingburger, with no cherries even.
durbster said:
Oliver Hardy said:
durbster said:
Oliver Hardy said:
To save anyone a click, it's yet another conspiracy-grifting YouTube channel recycling the usual climate propaganda. The thumbnail headline isn't even descriptiive because the video is just cherry picking a handful of comments said to newspapers over the last few decades and presenting them as if they were more than just part of the discourse at the time.This stuff has been rehashed over and over for decades now. Clickbait.
It's the same old material that's been shown countless times before. All they've done is repeated a few newspaper stories that contain a quote about something that was wrong (and even misrepresented some of those), while totally ignoring the fact that climate science has been continuously validated over the last half century. How is that not cherry picking?
If it was constantly validated we are heading into a ice age while going into a man made heat wave
Oliver Hardy said:
durbster said:
Oliver Hardy said:
The video points to expert reports that predicted things and are now proven wrong, not cherry picking.
Can you name one field of science where you can't find people in the past who were wrong about something?It's the same old material that's been shown countless times before. All they've done is repeated a few newspaper stories that contain a quote about something that was wrong (and even misrepresented some of those), while totally ignoring the fact that climate science has been continuously validated over the last half century. How is that not cherry picking?
If it was constantly validated we are heading into a ice age while going into a man made heat wave
In the early days of climate science, some scientists had a theory that human activity would cause cooling. After they gathered more data and with all the research done by the fossil fuel industry, they disproved their theory. It became clear the warming effect of human activitiy would overwhelm the cooling.
That's exactly how science should work imo.
Questions on net zero at the senate.
https://youtu.be/KT9DsBNecko?si=nBKUWp6amooPiK9u
It's obvious she can't answer the question and doesn't care about the poor, but she is like all religious types you just have to believe...........
https://youtu.be/KT9DsBNecko?si=nBKUWp6amooPiK9u
It's obvious she can't answer the question and doesn't care about the poor, but she is like all religious types you just have to believe...........
PRTVR said:
Questions on net zero at the senate.
https://youtu.be/KT9DsBNecko?si=nBKUWp6amooPiK9u
It's obvious she can't answer the question and doesn't care about the poor, but she is like all religious types you just have to believe...........
Even better from the same inquiry I think. Her snout is firmly in the trough............................https://youtu.be/KT9DsBNecko?si=nBKUWp6amooPiK9u
It's obvious she can't answer the question and doesn't care about the poor, but she is like all religious types you just have to believe...........
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff