Climate Change

[ianch99]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

Did any of those group thinkers who are convinced that man's activities are the cause of climate change consider the 140,000 year cycles and where we are in that cycle?

Why don't you ask all of them? You are the expert and they are not.

Originally Posted by ianch99

Why don't you ask all of them? You are the expert and they are not.

tbf, he does have a graph that tens of thousands of climate scientists have missed…

Originally Posted by Sephiroth
Did any of those group thinkers who are convinced that man's activities are the cause of climate change consider the 140,000 year cycles and where we are in that cycle?

"group thinkers" aka "the scientific method"…

No, no, you’re right, with your extensive climatology experience and your multiple peer-reviewed papers…

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

What a stupid article: "The UK should be taking a global lead on climate change". What utter gollox. As in China and India (and the USA) would follow our magnificent lead! Not!

I thought one benefit of Brexit was that the UK could move with agility to take the lead on matters like addressing climate change, without the need to reach a consensus with fellow EU members.

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

Btw, what does that fool mean by "taking a global lead"? Make us all buy heat pumps at unaffordable process? Make us all buy electric cars at unaffordable prices that we can't charge when we're on the road? Freeze our nainonicles off in winter so that others can continue polluting?

First of all you're sceptical of the UK's ability to take a global lead. Then you ask what a global lead is. This second statement contradicts your first.

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

Doesn't that virtue signaller know that climate change cannot be stopped?

Hundreds of £millions is not virtue-signalling.

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

I thought one benefit of Brexit was that the UK could move with agility to take the lead on matters like addressing climate change, without the need to reach a consensus with fellow EU members.

First of all you're sceptical of the UK's ability to take a global lead. Then you ask what a global lead is. This second statement contradicts your first.

Hundreds of £millions is not virtue-signalling.

Taking your points one by one:

I thought one benefit of Brexit was that the UK could move with agility to take the lead on matters like addressing climate change, without the need to reach a consensus with fellow EU members.

I prefer the "Old Andrew"! Why didn't you address the point that I made? ... Which was why on earth should we take any lead? It's economically and socially unaffordable. Your Brexit point was gratuitous and irrelevant.

First of all you're sceptical of the UK's ability to take a global lead. Then you ask what a global lead is. This second statement contradicts your first.

You must have misread/misunderstood what I wrote. I merely asked what the definition of "take a global lead" meant in terms of the article. It's a piece of string stuff. What would be the boundaries of a "global lead" and who would struggle as a result?

Hundreds of £millions is not virtue-signalling.

Where did I mention money? This "global lead" cobblers is the virtue signalling. The money that you've mentioned would be better spent making heating/cooling solutions cheaper, inclusing energy.

[peanut]

I ain't no expert by any stretch (neither is anyone else here), but just my own ignorant opinon here. ....

I'm on the fence. What this Government wants is stupid. Electric cars, heat pumps, to take the global lead etc etc. We don't have the resources or the infrastructure. To achieve what they want we need to go back in time at least 25-30 years to start it. Their targets will never be met as they are impossible.

It's like Covid all over again, or the war in the Ukraine.. The UK has to be a key player and lead and all for what exactly? Its just willy waving to the rest of the world, apart from that we can't afford it. The people / public can't afford it either for what they are planning, but it sure as hell looks and sounds good for the politicians to score their points.

Where are we in the table of polluters? What we do or try to will surely be wiped out by the real culprits, yet what are they (other countries) actually doing?

To me it's all a bit of a con but at our expense.

As for the actual global warming / climate change, there's for and against on either sides. To pick one only to me is like tossing a coin. Experts are paid etc to suit agendas etc, but now I sound like a conspiracy theorist so will leave it there.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

What is the matter with you and Hugh? We all know that the climate is changing.

But nobody here, apart from OB, is conceding the cyclical nature (140,000 years) of major climate change. We can't stop it.

You’re wasting your time, Seph. Whatever the influencers on social media say, the same old loyal CF band of followers follow, pied-piper-like, and refuse to discuss other possibilities or any faults in the arguments they peddle.

I’ve pretty well given up arguing much on here because I have concluded that it’s utterly pointless.

Of course we all agree there is climate change is happening, but I think the jury is out on whether the causes are man made for all the reasons that have been debated above. The reason that there is scientific ‘consensus’ is because those who question it have been silenced, with threats to their careers.

The scientists are not always right. They were wrong to say 30 years ago that butter was bad for you, and they were wrong to claim we were heading for another ice age in the 1960s.

But I’m afraid you’ll never get to have a sensible discussion on here about other possible causes that may be triggering climate change. The usual suspects would prefer to laugh at you, ridicule you and claim that they know more than you do, selecting snippets from stuff they find on their selected websites that happen to be taken as proof they are right. And when you do the same to prove them wrong, they will ridicule the source of the news item, the author, or whatever they choose to satisfy themselves they are right. If all else fails, they will twist your words to mean something else or subtlety change the subject.

I’m sure that a lot of people watching the posts on this forum stay quiet rather than disagree because they don’t want to get shot down in flames for disagreeing.

What a waste of what could have been a really good debating site. Climate change is a really big issue for the planet, which is why it’s difficult to understand why people don’t want to discuss it, or even consider how unacceptable the population will find it when the power runs out and when they realise that they can’t afford all the rushed changes the politicians want to make to get to where they want to be.

They will find out soon enough. The sale of new petrol and diesel cars will be banned in 2030 under current plans and duel fuel cars from 2035. After seeing the public reaction to the extension of the ULEZ scheme in London, can you imagine the reaction from the public when these bans come into force? And that will be nothing compared to the rush to ban gas boilers in favour of heat pumps!

I’d just sit back and watch if I were you, Seph. It will be amusing to observe all the backtracking that will result.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

I’ve pretty well given up arguing much on here

Said without irony in a few hundred word diatribe insulting most of us.

Dare I remind you that your beloved Conservative Government is mostly responsible for what you criticise here, far more than forum members or “social media influencers”.

consider how unacceptable the population will find it when the power runs out and when they realise that they can’t afford all the rushed changes the politicians want to make to get to where they want to be.

Is there any evidence for this or is it just scaremongering nonsense?

After seeing the public reaction to the extension of the ULEZ scheme in London

One single constituency of Tory voters voted Tory.

Originally Posted by jfman

Is there any evidence for this or is it just scaremongering nonsense?

You mean like the threat of power cuts due to not having enough generation power ?
Having to keep old coal powered stations on standby for shortages instead of closing them down ?

This all happened last year, and atm, electric car usage is still only about 10-15%.

The UK was aiming for 2040, and then for no obvious reason changed that to 2030.
It will make almost no practical difference to the world as a whole, we are just too small.
Plus a little know fact is that HGVs and Buses will still be 2040, and Hybrids will still be 2035

Most of the world is either 2035 or 2040, including the huge users like the USA & China. Some countries are 2050.
I could not find a date for Russia, but the choice of actual cars for them to buy would be very limited by the year 2040.

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

What is the matter with you and Hugh? We all know that the climate is changing.

But nobody here, apart from OB, is conceding the cyclical nature (140,000 years) of major climate change. We can't stop it.

You got this from one graph and you keep ignoring the other context I have asked you to explain, such as the speed of the change.

Can you at least answer that?

If you want crude graphs, this is also a fun way of visualising why it's different: https://xkcd.com/1732/

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by Damien

You got this from one graph and you keep ignoring the other context I have asked you to explain, such as the speed of the change.

Can you at least answer that?

If you want crude graphs, this is also a fun way of visualising why it's different: https://xkcd.com/1732/

Of course I can answer your question and have done several times already.

The speed of the change is the combination of the last 150 years plus where we are on the 140,000 year graph.

Once a tipping point is reached (and that was always going to happen according to the 140,000 year graph), things happen quickly.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

You’re wasting your time, Seph. Whatever the influencers on social media say, the same old loyal CF band of followers follow, pied-piper-like, and refuse to discuss other possibilities or any faults in the arguments they peddle.

I’ve pretty well given up arguing much on here because I have concluded that it’s utterly pointless.

Of course we all agree there is climate change is happening, but I think the jury is out on whether the causes are man made for all the reasons that have been debated above. The reason that there is scientific ‘consensus’ is because those who question it have been silenced, with threats to their careers.

The scientists are not always right. They were wrong to say 30 years ago that butter was bad for you, and they were wrong to claim we were heading for another ice age in the 1960s.

But I’m afraid you’ll never get to have a sensible discussion on here about other possible causes that may be triggering climate change. The usual suspects would prefer to laugh at you, ridicule you and claim that they know more than you do, selecting snippets from stuff they find on their selected websites that happen to be taken as proof they are right. And when you do the same to prove them wrong, they will ridicule the source of the news item, the author, or whatever they choose to satisfy themselves they are right. If all else fails, they will twist your words to mean something else or subtlety change the subject.

I’m sure that a lot of people watching the posts on this forum stay quiet rather than disagree because they don’t want to get shot down in flames for disagreeing.

What a waste of what could have been a really good debating site. Climate change is a really big issue for the planet, which is why it’s difficult to understand why people don’t want to discuss it, or even consider how unacceptable the population will find it when the power runs out and when they realise that they can’t afford all the rushed changes the politicians want to make to get to where they want to be.

They will find out soon enough. The sale of new petrol and diesel cars will be banned in 2030 under current plans and duel fuel cars from 2035. After seeing the public reaction to the extension of the ULEZ scheme in London, can you imagine the reaction from the public when these bans come into force? And that will be nothing compared to the rush to ban gas boilers in favour of heat pumps!

I’d just sit back and watch if I were you, Seph. It will be amusing to observe all the backtracking that will result.

Are you OK, OB?

You didn’t use "lefties" or "woke" in your diatribe…

btw, it’s obvious you’ve never worked with scientific researchers/professors - they never shut up about what they are doing, and they thrive on pointing out where previous research got things wrong/incorrectly interpreted; it’s how the scientific method works

The reason that there is scientific ‘consensus’ is because those who question it have been silenced, with threats to their careers.

Now you’re talking absolute bolleaux - you are stating that every government in the world is suppressing information that shows Climate Change isn’t happening the way the established consensus shows.

Even the Scientists in the Oil companies got the same results as Academic researchers - are you saying the Oil companies suppressed them?

https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/sto...ence.%E2%80%9D

Projections created internally by ExxonMobil starting in the late 1970s on the impact of fossil fuels on climate change were very accurate, even surpassing those of some academic and governmental scientists, according to an analysis published Thursday in Science by a team of Harvard-led researchers. Despite those forecasts, team leaders say, the multinational energy giant continued to sow doubt about the gathering crisis.

In “Assessing ExxonMobil’s Global Warming Projections,” researchers from Harvard and the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research show for the first time the accuracy of previously unreported forecasts created by company scientists from 1977 through 2003. The Harvard team discovered that Exxon researchers created a series of remarkably reliable models and analyses projecting global warming from carbon dioxide emissions over the coming decades. Specifically, Exxon projected that fossil fuel emissions would lead to 0.20 degrees Celsius of global warming per decade, with a margin of error of 0.04 degrees — a trend that has been proven largely accurate.

“This paper is the first ever systematic assessment of a fossil fuel company’s climate projections, the first time we’ve been able to put a number on what they knew,” said Geoffrey Supran, lead author and former research fellow in the History of Science at Harvard. “What we found is that between 1977 and 2003, excellent scientists within Exxon modeled and predicted global warming with, frankly, shocking skill and accuracy only for the company to then spend the next couple of decades denying that very climate science.”

You’ve moved on from the Telegraph to UnHerd & Spiked, haven’t you?

[jfman]

Originally Posted by Paul

You mean like the threat of power cuts due to not having enough generation power ?
Having to keep old coal powered stations on standby for shortages instead of closing them down ?

This all happened last year, and atm, electric car usage is still only about 10-15%.

The UK was aiming for 2040, and then for no obvious reason changed that to 2030.
It will make almost no practical difference to the world as a whole, we are just too small.
Plus a little know fact is that HGVs and Buses will still be 2040, and Hybrids will still be 2035

Most of the world is either 2035 or 2040, including the huge users like the USA & China. Some countries are 2050.
I could not find a date for Russia, but the choice of actual cars for them to buy would be very limited by the year 2040.

Specifically OB said though “when the power runs out”. There’s no actual evidence a Government would be so complacent to let that happen. Last year was also a situation where much of Europe were at short notice chasing the same gas supplies - I don’t think it’s accurate to present it as the demand side being the problem.

Nobody is claiming that the transition will happen overnight. The idea that the (any) Government will sit back and let power cuts become a routine experience as presented is preposterous. They’d very quickly find themselves out on their ear if they did.

I do agree though that our (any) Government are unlikely to go through with being at the front. As we approach those dates I’d expect them to slide. The technologies won’t reach economies of scale to drive down prices until the big players are on board.

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

The speed of the change is the combination of the last 150 years plus where we are on the 140,000 year graph.

Once a tipping point is reached (and that was always going to happen according to the 140,000 year graph), things happen quickly.

The warming period you refer to 'the bit on the graph' took 15,000 - 20,000 years. The only other times the temperature has increased as quickly as it is now is when natural, epic, extinction-level disasters happened.

Your graph is not precise enough to show hundreds of years. You can't know where we are on that graph is so broad. 150 years won't show up on it.

Originally Posted by jfman

Specifically OB said though “when the power runs out”.

I'm pretty sure power cuts are a definition of power running out.

Originally Posted by jfman

There’s no actual evidence a Government would be so complacent to let that happen.

Wow, when did your faith in our government suddenly change.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by Paul

I'm pretty sure power cuts are a definition of power running out.

Wow, when did your faith in our government suddenly change.

It was OB’s presentation that it was inevitable and implication it’d be somehow regular or routine (my local area had a four hour power cut and we didn’t spark a revolution last winter). Sure, it’s always a risk and in particular the energy crisis linked to everyone not buying Russian gas and the blown up pipeline didn’t help.

A Government that can’t keep the lights on while our neighbours can wouldn’t last long. Regardless of incompetence they can’t be that bad. Surely.

Very quickly they’d roll back targets or rebrand some not very green sources.