Conspiracy theorists... are they all just a bit thick?

Conspiracy theorists... are they all just a bit thick?

Author
Discussion

MikeM6

4,985 posts

101 months

Tuesday 21st March 2023
quotequote all
Kawasicki said:
Gadgetmac said:
Kawasicki said:
andyeds1234 said:
Kawasicki said:
The scientific consensus is that cold is a much bigger killer than heat. Some papers report 7 times as deadly, some 20 times. This is not in any way controversial.

What is also not controversial is the increased global temp has reduced overall temperature related mortality.
You can’t possibly be this stupid.
Have you got some peer reviewed data that proves otherwise. Or do you not trust science?
Unfortunately far more misery and suffering will prevail mainly to those who can least afford it before even the mortality rate advantage for a few countries is wiped away.

It's peer reviewed. The UN published a little something about it yesterday. Or do you not trust science?
The UN recommends a transition away from fossil fuels & nuclear towards wind and solar. Simple statistics has shown that such a transition has increased the cost of energy. Increased cost of energy has increased the misery and suffering of those who can least afford it.
I'm going to assume you don't know much about agriculture or how global food production works, however apologies if you do.

I think we need to be clear that it isn't global WARMING that we are worried about, but climate CHANGE. Our ability to sustain our collective populations are based on our ability to grow food, which is intrinsically linked to our climate. We are already seeing the change in the climate impacting on this ability. Millions dying across the globe won't be because of the temperature, it will be because they cannot grow crops and starve. What little resources are left are fought over. We may not notice so much initially here in Europe, but that does not mean that others are not hugely impacted.

We have also seen shifting weather patterns, so a better term is probably global WEIRDING, as things just get, well... weird. Droughts and floods, unstable patterns that are hard to predict. Not great if you are a farmer, therefore not great if you like eating food.

I hope that helps shed some light on why climate change is an issue and not a conspiracy.

Kawasicki

13,041 posts

234 months

Tuesday 21st March 2023
quotequote all
AW111 said:
Kawasicki said:
The UN recommends a transition away from fossil fuels & nuclear towards wind and solar. Simple statistics has shown that such a transition has increased the cost of energy. Increased cost of energy has increased the misery and suffering of those who can least afford it.
So you clearly don't believe any other negatives will come from increased temperatures, like sea level rise, crop failures, water shortage, etc.

You're just focussed on the effects today, and screw the future - I assume you don't have children?
I am focusing on the effects that we have experienced over the timeframe since the start of the industrial evolution, as we have reasonable data for this period. In that time mankind has obviously flourished. And my kids? Maybe I have the industrial revolution to thank for my and my kids existence?

Sea level rise. Yes, it is rising and yes, people will have to adapt. On the other hand most islands that were expected to be inundated seem to have strangely increased in size.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-023-36171-2





Crop failures, yes likely... but more due to climate policy reducing the use of fertilisers that any additional rise in temperature. We have had over a century of warming, with many predictions of global famine, yet we continue to hit harvest record after harvest record. At least until climate policy kicks in. I predict we will then see food shortages.

Water shortages? A warmer world has more precipitation... so in general water shortages should be reduced. Of course some regions will become drier, some wetter. This is not new, and extremely difficult to predict.

Zumbruk

7,848 posts

259 months

Tuesday 21st March 2023
quotequote all
Kawasicki said:
Sea level rise. Yes, it is rising and yes, people will have to adapt.
212M people/year at a cost of US$27,736B/year, from 2100, according to this paper;

https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fmars...

The tropical islands paper is interesting. IIRC, much of the problem with tropical islands is due to over-population and over-abstraction of fresh water.

But most people don't live on tropical islands.

Not that any of this has anything to do with the thickness, or otherwise, of CT-ers.

Unreal

3,175 posts

24 months

Wednesday 22nd March 2023
quotequote all
Zumbruk said:
Kawasicki said:
Sea level rise. Yes, it is rising and yes, people will have to adapt.
212M people/year at a cost of US$27,736B/year, from 2100, according to this paper;

https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fmars...

The tropical islands paper is interesting. IIRC, much of the problem with tropical islands is due to over-population and over-abstraction of fresh water.

But most people don't live on tropical islands.

Not that any of this has anything to do with the thickness, or otherwise, of CT-ers.
I'm sceptical about papers like these. A prediction of where we'll be 77 years hence, when everyone reading this will almost certainly be long dead. OK, let's bet the bank on that prediction now. I don't think so. At least there is frequent usage of the word 'may'. 77 years ago we had only just developed nuclear weapons and the microprocessor was still decades away. Putting humans on the moon was science fiction. Where are the predictions about what we might have discovered and developed by 2100?

Since this predicted scenario won't suddenly tick over on 1 January 2099, it would be interesting to see the milestones, year on year, starting now. We won't of course, because the predictions would be far too easy to validate. Much better to get your own way now by making alarming projections that no-one reading today will be able to judge. Nostradamus had the right idea and look how much he got right.

Al Gorithum

3,659 posts

207 months

Wednesday 22nd March 2023
quotequote all
I admit to being impressed with the accuracy of weather forecasts nowadays (often completely accurate and to the hour), so I assume the computer modelling used is good.

Do they use the same/similar for modelling climate change?

I suppose this question is for the climate change thread but there's no way I'm going in that asylum!

Gadgetmac

14,984 posts

107 months

Wednesday 22nd March 2023
quotequote all
Al Gorithum said:
I admit to being impressed with the accuracy of weather forecasts nowadays (often completely accurate and to the hour), so I assume the computer modelling used is good.

Do they use the same/similar for modelling climate change?

I suppose this question is for the climate change thread but there's no way I'm going in that asylum!
You could try the Climate Change Science thread - you might get a answer there.

The Climate Change Politics thread is all about Agenda 21 or 30 or some Global Socialist plot which NASA are part of etc...The thread even has it's own David Koresh laugh

Al Gorithum

3,659 posts

207 months

Wednesday 22nd March 2023
quotequote all
Gadgetmac said:
You could try the Climate Change Science thread - you might get a answer there.

The Climate Change Politics thread is all about Agenda 21 or 30 or some Global Socialist plot which NASA are part of etc...The thread even has it's own David Koresh laugh
Thanks but I think I'll swerve that biggrin

I suppose this is PH, but I do find it strange that some humans seem to not want clean air and water, and food security.

Turbotechnic

675 posts

75 months

Wednesday 22nd March 2023
quotequote all

Al Gorithum

3,659 posts

207 months

Wednesday 22nd March 2023
quotequote all
Turbotechnic said:
It's that pesky Bill Gates again. Not content with population control, he's trying to steal our cars now biggrin

Zumbruk

7,848 posts

259 months

Wednesday 22nd March 2023
quotequote all
Unreal said:
I'm sceptical about papers like these. A prediction of where we'll be 77 years hence, when everyone reading this will almost certainly be long dead. OK, let's bet the bank on that prediction now. I don't think so. At least there is frequent usage of the word 'may'. 77 years ago we had only just developed nuclear weapons and the microprocessor was still decades away. Putting humans on the moon was science fiction. Where are the predictions about what we might have discovered and developed by 2100?

Since this predicted scenario won't suddenly tick over on 1 January 2099, it would be interesting to see the milestones, year on year, starting now. We won't of course, because the predictions would be far too easy to validate. Much better to get your own way now by making alarming projections that no-one reading today will be able to judge. Nostradamus had the right idea and look how much he got right.
Well, I tried.

James6112

4,186 posts

27 months

Wednesday 22nd March 2023
quotequote all
Al Gorithum said:
I admit to being impressed with the accuracy of weather forecasts nowadays (often completely accurate and to the hour), so I assume the computer modelling used is good.

Do they use the same/similar for modelling climate change?

I suppose this question is for the climate change thread but there's no way I'm going in that asylum!


An accurate weather forecast, where?
Usually it’s going to P down tomorrow at 10am. 0930 they change it to say it’ll be sunny.
Might as well look out if the window !

Gadgetmac

14,984 posts

107 months

Wednesday 22nd March 2023
quotequote all
MikeM6 said:
I'm going to assume you don't know much about agriculture or how global food production works, however apologies if you do.

I think we need to be clear that it isn't global WARMING that we are worried about, but climate CHANGE. Our ability to sustain our collective populations are based on our ability to grow food, which is intrinsically linked to our climate. We are already seeing the change in the climate impacting on this ability. Millions dying across the globe won't be because of the temperature, it will be because they cannot grow crops and starve. What little resources are left are fought over. We may not notice so much initially here in Europe, but that does not mean that others are not hugely impacted.

We have also seen shifting weather patterns, so a better term is probably global WEIRDING, as things just get, well... weird. Droughts and floods, unstable patterns that are hard to predict. Not great if you are a farmer, therefore not great if you like eating food.

I hope that helps shed some light on why climate change is an issue and not a conspiracy.
I notice you didn't get a reply to this which came as no surprise. However I just stumbled across this: https://phys.org/news/2023-03-climate-farmers-ghan...

bodhi

10,331 posts

228 months

Wednesday 22nd March 2023
quotequote all
MikeM6 said:
I'm going to assume you don't know much about agriculture or how global food production works, however apologies if you do.

I think we need to be clear that it isn't global WARMING that we are worried about, but climate CHANGE. Our ability to sustain our collective populations are based on our ability to grow food, which is intrinsically linked to our climate. We are already seeing the change in the climate impacting on this ability. Millions dying across the globe won't be because of the temperature, it will be because they cannot grow crops and starve. What little resources are left are fought over. We may not notice so much initially here in Europe, but that does not mean that others are not hugely impacted.

We have also seen shifting weather patterns, so a better term is probably global WEIRDING, as things just get, well... weird. Droughts and floods, unstable patterns that are hard to predict. Not great if you are a farmer, therefore not great if you like eating food.

I hope that helps shed some light on why climate change is an issue and not a conspiracy.
Good post with lots of emotion - and I found the random capitalised words really got the message home.

However if we look at the actual data of where we are now, I'm struggling to see any sort of concern:



Seems farmers are currently growing more food than ever, whilst using less land to achieve this. Personally I'd see this as a good thing, but then I don't read The Guardian so what would I know?

Kawasicki

13,041 posts

234 months

Wednesday 22nd March 2023
quotequote all
Al Gorithum said:
Gadgetmac said:
You could try the Climate Change Science thread - you might get a answer there.

The Climate Change Politics thread is all about Agenda 21 or 30 or some Global Socialist plot which NASA are part of etc...The thread even has it's own David Koresh laugh
Thanks but I think I'll swerve that biggrin

I suppose this is PH, but I do find it strange that some humans seem to not want clean air and water, and food security.
What if prioritising cleaner air and water means many more will starve, or freeze to death, or live in abject poverty?

Your moral high ground is maybe a little shaky.

Gadgetmac

14,984 posts

107 months

Wednesday 22nd March 2023
quotequote all
Kawasicki said:
Al Gorithum said:
Gadgetmac said:
You could try the Climate Change Science thread - you might get a answer there.

The Climate Change Politics thread is all about Agenda 21 or 30 or some Global Socialist plot which NASA are part of etc...The thread even has it's own David Koresh laugh
Thanks but I think I'll swerve that biggrin

I suppose this is PH, but I do find it strange that some humans seem to not want clean air and water, and food security.
What if prioritising cleaner air and water means many more will starve, or freeze to death, or live in abject poverty?

Your moral high ground is maybe a little shaky.
It's that going to happen then?

LF5335

5,644 posts

42 months

Wednesday 22nd March 2023
quotequote all
Kawasicki said:
Al Gorithum said:
Gadgetmac said:
You could try the Climate Change Science thread - you might get a answer there.

The Climate Change Politics thread is all about Agenda 21 or 30 or some Global Socialist plot which NASA are part of etc...The thread even has it's own David Koresh laugh
Thanks but I think I'll swerve that biggrin

I suppose this is PH, but I do find it strange that some humans seem to not want clean air and water, and food security.
What if prioritising cleaner air and water means many more will starve, or freeze to death, or live in abject poverty?

Your moral high ground is maybe a little shaky.
But what if your model meant that people would be denied a pet unicorn, shoes became illegal and nobody could paint their front door anymore?

Your obsession with alternative theories is possibly causing major heartache now. How do you feel about that?

Kawasicki

13,041 posts

234 months

Wednesday 22nd March 2023
quotequote all
Gadgetmac said:
Kawasicki said:
Al Gorithum said:
Gadgetmac said:
You could try the Climate Change Science thread - you might get a answer there.

The Climate Change Politics thread is all about Agenda 21 or 30 or some Global Socialist plot which NASA are part of etc...The thread even has it's own David Koresh laugh
Thanks but I think I'll swerve that biggrin

I suppose this is PH, but I do find it strange that some humans seem to not want clean air and water, and food security.
What if prioritising cleaner air and water means many more will starve, or freeze to death, or live in abject poverty?

Your moral high ground is maybe a little shaky.
It's that going to happen then?
Already happening.

Countries with most renewables have the highest electricity prices.

Sri Lankan government restricted fertiliser use and crop yields plummeted, leading to massive riots and the fall of the government.

If doing things in a more environmentally friendly way meant higher food production and lower energy prices they would already have been done, without government intervention and without any debate. So less food and energy are the obvious outcomes of stronger environmental policy.

MikeM6

4,985 posts

101 months

Wednesday 22nd March 2023
quotequote all
bodhi said:
Good post with lots of emotion - and I found the random capitalised words really got the message home.

However if we look at the actual data of where we are now, I'm struggling to see any sort of concern:



Seems farmers are currently growing more food than ever, whilst using less land to achieve this. Personally I'd see this as a good thing, but then I don't read The Guardian so what would I know?
Haha no emotion, and the capitals is just for emphasis. I could have underlined I suppose.

Plenty of evidence that climate change will impact food production, the post above yours is a good start.

The IPCC said, if global average temperatures rose beyond 2°C, this would lead to a more severe risk to food security:

"At 2°C or higher global warming level in the mid-term, food security risks due to climate change will be more severe, leading to malnutrition and micro-nutrient deficiencies, concentrated in Sub-Saharan Africa, South Asia, Central and South America and Small Islands. Global warming will progressively weaken soil health and ecosystem services such as pollination, increase pressure from pests and diseases, and reduce marine animal biomass, undermining food productivity in many regions on land and in the ocean." https://lordslibrary.parliament.uk/impact-of-clima...

Or

"Agricultural production is under threat due to climate change in food insecure regions, especially in Asian countries. Various climate-driven extremes, i.e., drought, heat waves, erratic and intense rainfall patterns, storms, floods, and emerging insect pests have adversely affected the livelihood of the farmers. Future climatic predictions showed a significant increase in temperature, and erratic rainfall with higher intensity while variability exists in climatic patterns for climate extremes prediction"
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpls....

Even a quick search will yield results. My point still stands that it is not getting warmer or colder itself, but the changes to climate and weather impacting on future food production.

I don't read the Guardian either by the way



Gadgetmac

14,984 posts

107 months

Wednesday 22nd March 2023
quotequote all
Kawasicki said:
Gadgetmac said:
Kawasicki said:
Al Gorithum said:
Gadgetmac said:
You could try the Climate Change Science thread - you might get a answer there.

The Climate Change Politics thread is all about Agenda 21 or 30 or some Global Socialist plot which NASA are part of etc...The thread even has it's own David Koresh laugh
Thanks but I think I'll swerve that biggrin

I suppose this is PH, but I do find it strange that some humans seem to not want clean air and water, and food security.
What if prioritising cleaner air and water means many more will starve, or freeze to death, or live in abject poverty?

Your moral high ground is maybe a little shaky.
It's that going to happen then?
Already happening.

Countries with most renewables have the highest electricity prices.

Sri Lankan government restricted fertiliser use and crop yields plummeted, leading to massive riots and the fall of the government.

If doing things in a more environmentally friendly way meant higher food production and lower energy prices they would already have been done, without government intervention and without any debate. So less food and energy are the obvious outcomes of stronger environmental policy.
While it's true that some countries with high levels of renewable energy generation have higher electricity prices, there are several factors that contribute to electricity prices, and renewable energy is just one of them.

1) The cost of electricity generation from renewables has decreased significantly in recent years, making it competitive with or even cheaper than traditional fossil fuel sources. This is particularly true for wind and solar power.

2) The cost of electricity generation depends on several factors such as the availability and cost of fuel, the cost of building and maintaining the infrastructure, and the level of competition in the electricity market. These factors can vary significantly from country to country, and from region to region within countries, which can result in different electricity prices.

3) Countries with high levels of renewable energy generation often have policies in place to support renewable energy development, such as subsidies, tax incentives, and feed-in tariffs. These policies can contribute to higher electricity prices, but they also help to incentivise the transition to a cleaner/more sustainable energy system, which can have long-term economic and environmental benefits.

Also it's worth noting that the environmental and health costs associated with fossil fuel-based electricity generation are often not reflected in the price of electricity. By contrast, renewable energy generation has minimal environmental impacts and can help to reduce the health costs associated with air pollution, which can have significant economic benefits in the long run.

So yes, there may be some correlation between countries with high levels of renewable energy generation and higher electricity prices but it's not a causal relationship as your mate on the politics thread liked to say smile and other factors have to be taken into account when evaluating the costs and benefits of different energy sources.



Kawasicki

13,041 posts

234 months

Thursday 23rd March 2023
quotequote all
Gadgetmac said:
Kawasicki said:
Gadgetmac said:
Kawasicki said:
Al Gorithum said:
Gadgetmac said:
You could try the Climate Change Science thread - you might get a answer there.

The Climate Change Politics thread is all about Agenda 21 or 30 or some Global Socialist plot which NASA are part of etc...The thread even has it's own David Koresh laugh
Thanks but I think I'll swerve that biggrin

I suppose this is PH, but I do find it strange that some humans seem to not want clean air and water, and food security.
What if prioritising cleaner air and water means many more will starve, or freeze to death, or live in abject poverty?

Your moral high ground is maybe a little shaky.
It's that going to happen then?
Already happening.

Countries with most renewables have the highest electricity prices.

Sri Lankan government restricted fertiliser use and crop yields plummeted, leading to massive riots and the fall of the government.

If doing things in a more environmentally friendly way meant higher food production and lower energy prices they would already have been done, without government intervention and without any debate. So less food and energy are the obvious outcomes of stronger environmental policy.
While it's true that some countries with high levels of renewable energy generation have higher electricity prices, there are several factors that contribute to electricity prices, and renewable energy is just one of them.

1) The cost of electricity generation from renewables has decreased significantly in recent years, making it competitive with or even cheaper than traditional fossil fuel sources. This is particularly true for wind and solar power.

2) The cost of electricity generation depends on several factors such as the availability and cost of fuel, the cost of building and maintaining the infrastructure, and the level of competition in the electricity market. These factors can vary significantly from country to country, and from region to region within countries, which can result in different electricity prices.

3) Countries with high levels of renewable energy generation often have policies in place to support renewable energy development, such as subsidies, tax incentives, and feed-in tariffs. These policies can contribute to higher electricity prices, but they also help to incentivise the transition to a cleaner/more sustainable energy system, which can have long-term economic and environmental benefits.

Also it's worth noting that the environmental and health costs associated with fossil fuel-based electricity generation are often not reflected in the price of electricity. By contrast, renewable energy generation has minimal environmental impacts and can help to reduce the health costs associated with air pollution, which can have significant economic benefits in the long run.

So yes, there may be some correlation between countries with high levels of renewable energy generation and higher electricity prices but it's not a causal relationship as your mate on the politics thread liked to say smile and other factors have to be taken into account when evaluating the costs and benefits of different energy sources.
Nowhere in the world does higher penetration of wind and solar coincide with lower/affordable electricity prices. Nowhere.

It's coming though, right?

Really all we need to do is make nuclear or fossil fuel generated electricity significantly more expensive and then... ditto... wind and solar would then be the cheap option.