# Lots of hot air



## Spectric (10 Aug 2021)

We have all seen the news recently regarding the increasing threats from global warming, so what is going to change following the UN climate summit in Glasgow this November, maybe a list of promises to do something one day but I doubt very little else because in reality what can they do. To make a big change will require an immediate ban on all fossil fuels and crude oil /gas extraction, come on let's be realistic as who can or would support such an action because it means winding down economies and telling people what to do, no more flying for a holiday. This pandemic taught us that governments will try and protect their economy at all cost because it provides the revenue to do anything, and that people do not follow guidance so now what. We no longer have time on our side because we have been to lethargic to react and instead of spending money on technology and ways to save the planet we spend millions on ways to destroy each other and too much time looking at making money at the expense of others, so as they say all good things must come to an end.

The government is not looking at the bigger picture and is just being way to slow with change. They know house building standards do not meet the needs of the future, yet there are thousands of sub standard sheds being built that will be around for the next fifty years, surely things that are longer term problems should have been addresed by now as they are all just contributing to the changes.

So in the Uk, no more ICE vehicles from 2030 and a transition to EV, not the magic cure because the UK is not a large contributor to greenhouse gasses, look at Asia where the population is booming with huge demands for power that cannot be met with just renewables, without coal how do they keep the lights on and industry going.

Given the timescales what can come out of that climate summit apart from a lot more hot air just adding to the problem, they all know what has to be done but who is willing to impose such drastic change on their country first, measures like birth control and reducing available choice of goods, basically a massive impact to our way of living.


----------



## danst96 (10 Aug 2021)

Its all in Gods hand. Those that can see it can see it for want of a better phrase. There is nothing us "highly intelligent" humans can do about it. We carry on thinking we can but when you really look into it, theres truly nothing we can do. Its a one way path and the end of it is not far away, what is in the book in Revelation is happening today.

Regardless of what you believe or dont believe, its becoming increasingly obvious nothing can be done about it as you say. Shoot me down those who will but I believe what I believe and wont change that for anything.


----------



## hog&amp;bodge (10 Aug 2021)

Your preaching to the converted.
"UK plastics sent for recycling in Turkey dumped and burned" 
Sorting out the waist is just basic start to going green.
Saw some eco grown fruits yesterday in sainsburys wrapped in plastic.
We are !* doomed* ! and we will take all life on earth with us...lol


----------



## danst96 (10 Aug 2021)

You are right, 45% of waste in the uk is "recycled". What they dont tell you that over half of that 45% is burnt in incinerators. so in theory really less than 25% of waste in uk is actually recycled. but then you dig into that even further and a lot of that 25% is sent over to the far east to countries like Malaysia and Philippines for "recycling" where in fact it is just burnt or dumped in riverways and the ocean because those countries receive way more waste than they can process all the while having no internal infrastructure themselves to deal with their own waste that could be recycled. 

Climate change is just a convenient discussion to have when in reality governments cant do anything. People scream for change but like the OP says, any real change would have a severe impact on our liberty and freedom and those same people screaming out today will tear down their own governments tomorrow for the changes they made should they listen to them today. There is no win here.


----------



## Spectric (10 Aug 2021)

There is a lot of desperation going on, leaders making farcical claims without any obvious means of implementation. 

Joe Biden, has vowed to halve US emissions by 2030, provide billions in climate finance to poor countries and initiate a sweeping programme of incentives and regulations to stimulate a low-carbon economy. 

“The US Congress must pass President Biden’s ambitious climate plan ahead of Cop26, to both lock in strong American action and put added pressure on China and other major emitters to finally cut their emissions,” 

Again a case of "you need to do this" but how? China like others cannot just turn off the lights, there is no magic solution and they are not just producing green house gases for the fun of it, more out of necessity.

Climate change needs to be treated like a control system, the bigger the problem then the larger should be the response to correct the error, but you can only control what is within your remit.


----------



## Spectric (10 Aug 2021)

danst96 said:


> but then you dig into that even further and a lot of that 25% is sent over to the far east to countries like Malaysia and Philippines for "recycling" where in fact it is just burnt or dumped in riverways and the ocean because those countries receive way more waste than they can process all the while having no internal infrastructure themselves to deal with their own waste that could be recycled.


A good old western concept, out of sight & out of mind but take the brownie points. If nuclear waste could be dumped somewhere else then they would have by now but they know that it could be returned by terrorist against us so instead we will dig a big hole and hide it underneath some unfortunate community in exchange for a small bribe, it is these ideas that have got us to this point and very deep into the pooooh.


----------



## thetyreman (10 Aug 2021)

they are trying to control the worlds weather systems, that in itself it hilarious and laughable, reality is we aren't in control, chaos is the natural state not order.


----------



## Rorschach (10 Aug 2021)

Why worry about it, nothing we can do. Technology will adapt to overcome any problems that occur, it's not a like an asteroid is going to hit the earth or anything like that, we are talking very slow changes and we don't even know the outcome. Live your life and be happy, that's what I am trying to do, just surviving day to day is hard enough, let alone worrying about the future.


----------



## RobinBHM (10 Aug 2021)

Spectric said:


> basically a massive impact to our way of living



my understanding is climate change will cause that whether we act or not.


----------



## Jacob (10 Aug 2021)

Rorschach said:


> Why worry about it, nothing we can do. Technology will adapt to overcome any problems that occur,


It hasn't done so far in the various regions suffering the worst of the fires, floods, droughts. When are they going to press the button?


> it's not a like an asteroid is going to hit the earth or anything like that,


Er, it is though.


> we are talking very slow changes and we don't even know the outcome.


We are talking very fast changes and we are experiencing the outcome.


----------



## Jacob (10 Aug 2021)

danst96 said:


> ......I believe what I believe and wont change that for anything.


A lot of people have the same problem even when the evidence is in front of them. 
Add that to the vested interests (oil and coal industry) and we have years of inertia and resistance making the thing unstoppable.


----------



## danst96 (10 Aug 2021)

Have what problem Jacob? A belief that is different to yours?


----------



## Jacob (10 Aug 2021)

danst96 said:


> Have what problem Jacob? A belief that is different to yours?


No. Ignoring evidence and hoping things will just go away. It's not about beliefs it's about evidence.


----------



## MARK.B. (10 Aug 2021)

There will be a guest speaker at the summit in Glasgow, fella by the name of Thanos, rumour has it he has a idea that might help


----------



## danst96 (10 Aug 2021)

Jacob said:


> No. Ignoring evidence and hoping things will just go away. It's not about beliefs it's about evidence.


Im fully aware of the evidence but clearly you misunderstood my post. I believe what i believe due to the first part of my post.


----------



## Jacob (10 Aug 2021)

danst96 said:


> Im fully aware of the evidence but clearly you misunderstood my post. I believe what i believe due to the first part of my post.


You mean it has been wished upon us by God?


----------



## danst96 (10 Aug 2021)

Jacob said:


> You mean it has been wished upon us by God?


Like I say you don't get it. So don't worry, I won't argue with you about it. Just accept I have a differing opinion to yours, it's truly not that hard. I have no problem with your opinion I just politely disagree and shan't argue with you over it any further.


----------



## Jacob (10 Aug 2021)

danst96 said:


> Like I say you don't get it. So don't worry, I won't argue with you about it. Just accept I have a differing opinion to yours, it's truly not that hard. I have no problem with your opinion I just politely disagree and shan't argue with you over it any further.


I accept that people have different opinions to me, otherwise we wouldn't be here talking about them!
OK. I politely disagree, won't argue but would say you don't get it. It's hard to see how people can ignore evidence so easily.
I think you need to worry a little more!


----------



## danst96 (10 Aug 2021)

Thanks Jacob. I do worry and I do what I can as much as possible in terms of recycling, adjusting my buying habits as well as many other things. My main point is i just don't believe we can influence as much as we think we can.


----------



## Trainee neophyte (10 Aug 2021)

Because every single weather event is obvious evidence of the Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Emergency, whether it be warming, cooling or neutral, we are all, imminently, going to die. The only way to fix this is to have a command economy run by experts, who will tell us what we can and cannot do, what we can and cannot eat, and where we can and cannot go. Interestingly the same command economy with the same brutal invasions of all aspects of life is also required (and being put in place) to save us from the appalling pandemic. What an astonishing coincidence!

Today I have been reading about Jupiter being 500 °C hotter than it should be. This has, allegedly, been conclusively proven to be caused by solar winds. Currently the IPCC make no allowance for the sun doing any heating other than the the obvious and unvarying sunshine, so that may need to change. Perhaps climate is driven by the sun after all, rather than burned dinosaur bones as supposed. 

I have also been reading up on the Beaufort Gyre, and how this will, at some point soon, tip us into a dramatic cooling something like the little ice age. 

Lots of intriguing "alternative" Science out there, but you won't find it in the Guardian. The climate is quite possibly about to do some very alarming things, but also possibly not what people are telling you it is going to do. Hotter is better for all plants and animals; cold kills everything. We are overdue for the end of our current interglacial, so what could possibly go wrong?


----------



## Jacob (10 Aug 2021)

danst96 said:


> Thanks Jacob. I do worry and I do what I can as much as possible in terms of recycling, adjusting my buying habits as well as many other things.


Recycling is just a detail part of the bigger picture. In terms of buying, going vegetarian/vegan seems to be the single most effective thing to do. Haven't done it myself yet! Have eased off though, for health reasons - much less meat than we used to have


> My main point is i just don't believe we can influence as much as we think we can.


You are probably right but there seems to be no alternative other than to try. We know how it could be done in theory, just as we now know how we brought it about in the first place.


----------



## Jacob (10 Aug 2021)

Trainee neophyte said:


> .....
> Lots of intriguing "alternative" Science out there, but you won't find it in the Guardian.


One good reason for reading the Guardian then!


> The climate is quite possibly about to do some very alarming things, but also possibly not what people are telling you it is going to do.


Quite possibly


> Hotter is better for all plants and animals


No it isn't and eventually kills everything as it rises


> cold kills everything.


Yes - almost. Some stuff seems to survive at very low temps. Things are preserved in the cold, which has a bottom limit (-273ºC), but there is no top limit to high temperatures


> We are overdue for the end of our current interglacial, so what could possibly go wrong?


Arguably, the only bit of good news about the whole issue, is that we _just may_ be able control what happens next. It's even argued that the holocene is a result of human activity itself. It coincides with the beginning of agriculture. Maybe we created it unknowingly and could conserve it.


----------



## Spectric (10 Aug 2021)

MARK.B. said:


> There will be a guest speaker at the summit in Glasgow, fella by the name of Thanos, rumour has it he has a idea that might help


The thing is that we know what needs to be done but it is the actual doing which is not happening, maybe because some people believe that at some point technology will catch up and give us a solution that will not impose such a great change on everyone but how long do you wait?

Trainee neophyte has the solution, our freedoms need to be curbed so we cannot be wasteful with resources, breed like rabbits or manufacture pointless objects just for the wealthy. 

What do you think a being from another part of the universe would have to say about the human race if they passed by, it would be the same outcome that AI will also conclude and that is pointless, we are in reality not much more than a bacteria infesting planet earth, we take everything and give nothing, and unlike probably every other life form we are not even food for anything else.


----------



## Rorschach (10 Aug 2021)

Spectric said:


> unlike probably every other life form we are not even food for anything else.



Of course we are, there is life eating bits of you right now as you sit there, and a huge colony of microorganisms in your gut that are only alive because of you. 

So what do we do, start shooting people? Starve them to death? (we are already pretty good at letting that happen needlessly). Or do we just make life so miserable we all long for death?


----------



## Jacob (10 Aug 2021)

Spectric said:


> The thing is that we know what needs to be done but it is the actual doing which is not happening, maybe because some people believe that at some point technology will catch up and give us a solution that will not impose such a great change on everyone .........


Yes that is the big illusion.


> Trainee neophyte has the solution, our freedoms need to be curbed so we cannot be wasteful with resources, breed like rabbits or manufacture pointless objects just for the wealthy.


Sounds a bit marxist for TN?
He's into Science Fiction too but may be getting it confused with the real thing.


> ..........., and unlike probably every other life form we are not even food for anything else.


They are lining up as we speak -slugs, worms, bacteria, crows, vultures, dogs (including your favourite pet), wolves and a whole army of carrion eaters. A big free barbecue if they are lucky. Yum yum!


----------



## Terry - Somerset (10 Aug 2021)

It seems humanity has already made progress. Five years ago their was something of a balance between those who thought climate change was fake news and those who think it a real threat.

There is an increasing consensus that CC is real and caused by us (homo sapiens). The difference seems now to be between those who think nothing can be done and those who believe we should try to do something (however futile it may ultimately be).

Do nothing increases the probability of thoroughly unpleasant outcomes - war, famine, death, rising sea levels, mass climate refugees etc etc. We could endlessly debate which outcome is the most likely.

The alternative is to try and do something. There are challenges and uncertainties, but the outcome is probably better than do nothing - and unlikely to be worse. 

Some actions will cause more pain than others - another potentially endless debate - but may include birth control, cover the country with wind farms, the coasts with tidal energy systems, ban flying, tax carbon use not income etc etc.

The status quo will not be maintained. Taxes may need to be increased, legislation implemented, and funding of other public expenditure reduced. What covid has demonstrated is that large shifts in behaviours and spending are feasible. It is just a question of priorities. 

Personally I would prefer to leave a world in which my children and grandchildren can live secure, comfortable, fed, watered, and free to pursue whatever life goals they may have.


----------



## Rorschach (10 Aug 2021)

Good timing, just spotted this on twitter.


----------



## D_W (10 Aug 2021)

Spectric said:


> The thing is that we know what needs to be done but it is the actual doing which is not happening, maybe because some people believe that at some point technology will catch up and give us a solution that will not impose such a great change on everyone but how long do you wait?
> 
> Trainee neophyte has the solution, our freedoms need to be curbed so we cannot be wasteful with resources, breed like rabbits or manufacture pointless objects just for the wealthy.
> 
> What do you think a being from another part of the universe would have to say about the human race if they passed by, it would be the same outcome that AI will also conclude and that is pointless, we are in reality not much more than a bacteria infesting planet earth, we take everything and give nothing, and unlike probably every other life form we are not even food for anything else.



The "What would someone else think" is an artifact we make for ourselves. Sort of a social anxiety trigger up in front of the class in our underwear dream kind of thing. That's not the kind of thing we should be focused on because it leads to trying to please hypotheticals.

We're food for the same things as other apex predators. But we have the advantage over other apex predators...The ability to build a situation into odds in our favor before acting. When it becomes our best interest to act in our favor a different way, we'll do it.


----------



## Valhalla (10 Aug 2021)

The 'net zero' target that this government is pinning their future on is absolutely and unequivocally doomed to failure. The move to all electric vehicles is not the answer and will not happen whilst the cost of puchasing one is 50% more than an equivalent fossil fuel guzzling version.

Forcing home owners to remove all gas/oil/log burning devices will cause mayhem especially for the poorer people in society. Ground source heat pumps are way too expensive and require lots of pipework to work at their optimum levels.

This government (and the rest of the world for that matter) should be looking at ways of making electricity as cheap to produce as possible since everything (if you believe the propaganda in the dailies) will be run by it.

Also think about what happens when you don't have a choice about which fuel you use - what do you think will happen to the price of electricity? Having no choice will be another form of control imposed on the populus by the government.... the same applies to the withdrawal of cash as a means of transaction - cash is king - digital money is another control mechanism that will be used to the detriment of the public all over the world - you can rest assured that our government will extract every last penny from you by way of taxes when cash is gone.

If the UK could even get close to zero carbon - do you think it would make one iota of difference to the global carbon content being spewed into the atmosphere?
.....No it won't.....not while you have countries like China, USA, Russia and India (not to mention all the other industrialised nations in the world). I saw in the news China is planning on generating another 247GW of power all from coal fired power stations.....

Also factor in the burning and deforestation of vast regions of the Amazon and other tropical areas around the globe. So if the UK government think all of the pain the public will suffer will actually make any difference to the carbon content of the atmosphere - they are barking.....

You have also got to take into account the exponential rise in the number of people living on the planet - all want want space to live and resources to satisfy their needs which leads to more and more of the planet being covered in concrete and thereby further reducing the stuff that actually absorbs carbon, the more flood plains get built on the less natural ground there is to absorb rainfall......and so it goes on

The only way, in my very humble opinion, is for all governments' to wake up and start realising that the reduction of the number of people on the planet is the only true solution. I think that if this does not happen, eventually there will be a truly global war - far more horrific than any that has gone before......and what will that war will be over? - WATER. Those countries with vast reserves will protect it until their dying breaths..... 

Other things to consider are: has the earth's temperature ever increased by 1.5C in any geological period in the past (before the mid 1800s - when records began to be collated) - don't forget we had an ice age 20k yrs ago - so the earth's temperature must have increased at some point and it survived.

How much of global warming is attributed to the human race in comparison to a possibly natural phase of the earth's evolution?

Don't forget that this planet was a heaving mass of molten rock and volcanoes that would have spewed billions upon billions of tons of carbon into the atmosphere yet somehow, somewhere life began and prevailed.......

Is there a hidden agenda behind all of this? There is a lot of money at stake here with 'planet saving' strategies and the attendant manufacturing boom to counter the temperature rise.

What I'm hearing is a huge deluge of state supported propaganda - with every (what might be a nutural - fires in Greece, floods etc) occurence being caused by global warming.....

I could go on - but I've got RSI typing this lot..............this subject is so vast that a few paragraphs just will not even scratch the surface


----------



## Jacob (10 Aug 2021)

Valhalla said:


> The 'net zero' target that this government is pinning their future on is absolutely and unequivocally doomed to failure. The move to all electric vehicles is not the answer and will not happen whilst the cost of puchasing one is 50% more than an equivalent fossil fuel guzzling version.
> 
> Forcing home owners to remove all gas/oil/log burning devices will cause mayhem especially for the poorer people in society. Ground source heat pumps are way too expensive and require lots of pipework to work at their optimum levels.
> 
> ...


You are asking a lot of questions and raising a lot of points.
Why not read some of the information coming out, find some answers instead of trying to work it all out for yourself?




__





Climate Change: Basic Information | Climate Change | US EPA







19january2017snapshot.epa.gov


----------



## woodieallen (10 Aug 2021)

Rorschach said:


> Why worry about it, nothing we can do. Technology will adapt to overcome any problems that occur, it's not a like an asteroid is going to hit the earth or anything like that, we are talking very slow changes and we don't even know the outcome. Live your life and be happy, that's what I am trying to do, just surviving day to day is hard enough, let alone worrying about the future.



Yeah, right. To hell with the children. I'm alright, Jack.


----------



## woodieallen (10 Aug 2021)

Spectric said:


> ......or manufacture pointless objects just for the wealthy.
> 
> ......



Pointless objects are not the exclusive domain of the wealthy. Take that smartphone in your pocket. The early mobile phone worked very well.


----------



## Spectric (10 Aug 2021)

Valhalla said:


> You have also got to take into account the exponential rise in the number of people living on the planet


That is a huge problem that is like pouring more fuel onto the fire, add more people and all the issues increase. You have 1.5 billion chinese all wanting more, plus the rest of asia so demand for resources is just growing. The planets population has increased from 1 billion in 1800 to 7.7 billion today, that level is not sustainable without intense farming. 



woodieallen said:


> Pointless objects are not the exclusive domain of the wealthy. Take that smartphone in your pocket. The early mobile phone worked very well.


I think I was looking more at the likes of the million pound car where they use a lot of resources to produce just a handful to keep prices high due to exclusivity, but yes it also applies to high value smartphones and the like, this goes back to people having to give up choice, far more efficient if just a handful of companys produce a certain product.


----------



## Valhalla (10 Aug 2021)

Jacob said:


> You are asking a lot of questions and raising a lot of points.
> Why not read some of the information coming out, find some answers instead of trying to work it all out for yourself?
> 
> 
> ...


That's the whole point - to raise questions and open up the debate.....


----------



## Valhalla (10 Aug 2021)

Spectric said:


> that level is not sustainable without intense farming.


We're already messing with nature (in GM crops) in order to improve crops and protect them from insects, drought and disease - yet still there are millions of hungry people in the world. The more we mess with nature - the bigger bite nature will take out of our backsides in the future.


----------



## JSW (11 Aug 2021)

Valhalla said:


> We're already messing with nature (in GM crops) in order to improve crops and protect them from insects, drought and disease - yet still there are millions of hungry people in the world. The more we mess with nature - the bigger bite nature will take out of our backsides in the future.


I may be mistaken here, but I don't think @Spectric was referring to agricultural crops? Or maybe the cynic in me bought into the REAL problem the planet has.


----------



## Terry - Somerset (11 Aug 2021)

> That's the whole point - to raise questions and open up the debate.....



That is not the point - it has all the characteristics of a delaying tactic and an unwillingness to address a well documented issue for which there is extensive science evidence..

Believing that nothing workable is feasible can be a legitimate opinion. If you are over 60 and care not for future generations it is a reasonable point of view. Just be honest about it!

The UK and other wealthy countries may be able to largely ignore climate change. We have the resources and skill base to mitigate and/or adapt to most impacts.

It needs investment and commitment to attain self sufficiency in green energy, food, and most things a modern society requires. A strategy implemented now would need to be sustained for several decades but is entirely feasible.

As a plan, it has the characteristics of individual "preppers" who believe that they can survive whilst the rest of society perishes, albeit on a national basis. When the "balloon goes up" we close the borders, hunker down, shoot all who risk our national security.

There are parallels with covid - only when images of overwhelmed Italian hospitals were broadcast was it plausible that a lockdown could be implemented. Consider the likely level of compliance were lockdown imposed (say) 6 weeks earlier with no visible evidence/narrative.

This may mean waiting until central London is under water with the barrier breached, flooding in low lying areas of the UK, imagery of survivors clinging to the last palm tree still above water on an island in the Pacific, etc etc. Then it will be an actionable emergency - just a few decades too late to have much effect.


----------



## Jacob (11 Aug 2021)

Valhalla said:


> That's the whole point - to raise questions and open up the debate.....


Questions have been asked and the debate has been open for 2000 years Environmental Problems of the Greeks and Romans: Ecology in the Ancient Mediterranean (Ancient Society and History) (Review)
It got a big boost 1962 with Rachel Carson Silent Spring - Wikipedia
Then 1972 with the Ecologist A Blueprint for Survival - Wikipedia
The CO2 greenhouse effect has been known since 1859 Meet the woman who first identified the greenhouse effect
The just released IPCC report Sixth Assessment Report could be seen as the culmination of all this, coming at the end of the process as world-wide change arrives, loud, strong and impossible to ignore.


----------



## Jacob (11 Aug 2021)

Rorschach said:


> Good timing, just spotted this on twitter.
> 
> View attachment 115659


Could be Johnson's Churchill moment except he hasn't got the imagination or the personality. The worst time to have an old Etonian smart-alec Billy Bunter as PM.


----------



## Trainee neophyte (11 Aug 2021)

Spectric said:


> Trainee neophyte has the solution, our freedoms need to be curbed so we cannot be wasteful with resources, breed like rabbits or manufacture pointless objects just for the wealthy.


It was ironic at best : you are asking for a permanent dictatorial top-down government, which knows best at all times. Run by people like Boris, or even Jacob's antisemitic chum. Are you sure you understand the implications? The USSR tried that sort of thing, as did Mao, as did Pol Pot, and always with the best of intentions The WEF have said "You will own nothing, and like it", which sounds like a threat to me. Have you come across the Georgia Guidestones? Perhaps they fit in with your plans for humanity - ie almost everyone dead and a limited number of slaves caring for the needs of the inbred billionaire owner class.



Terry - Somerset said:


> This may mean waiting until central London is under water with the barrier breached, flooding in low lying areas of the UK, imagery of survivors clinging to the last palm tree still above water on an island in the Pacific, etc etc. Then it will be an actionable emergency - just a few decades too late to have much effect.


London is sinking anyway so even if sea levels don't rise, "something would need to be done". How about we fix the problems as they arise, rather than imagining the worst possible problems and then making everyone much, much poorer now, to fix any potential disaster due in the next 500 years, just in case? Oh, and that impoverishment only applies to "The West", because...? Give people like Neil Fergusson the chance to project potential disaster and they will have you paying for a Giant Meteor Defence System before you know what's hit you.

If you were cynical you might think it is a cunning plan to transfer _all_ the wealth from the middle classes across the world to someone else. I wonder who?


----------



## Jacob (11 Aug 2021)

Trainee neophyte said:


> It was ironic at best : you are asking for a permanent dictatorial top-down government, which knows best at all times. Run by people like Boris, or even Jacob's antisemitic chum.


I don't have any antisemitic chums.
You are still suffering from the anti Corbyn media brain washing. A lot of people still have the conditioned reflex reaction to the word "Corbyn" but it will wear off eventually don't worry.
Interestingly Corbyn is gradually being reassessed - not least due to the abject failure of the Starmelite project


> bAre you sure you understand the implications? The USSR tried that sort of thing, as did Mao, as did Pol Pot, and always with the best of intentions


Didn't Churchill mobilise Britain in a similar emergency? The trouble is we only have Johnson the old etonian fat boy buffoon.


> London is sinking anyway so even if sea levels don't rise, "something would need to be done". How about we fix the problems as they arise,


Because by then it is too late - as many people currently burned/flooded/starved out worldwide, would tell you. Near you too - do you not get the news in Greece?


----------



## NormanB (11 Aug 2021)

Jacob said:


> Could be Johnson's Churchill moment except he hasn't got the imagination or the personality. The worst time to have an old Etonian smart-alec Billy Bunter as PM.





Jacob said:


> Could be Johnson's Churchill moment except he hasn't got the imagination or the personality. The worst time to have an old Etonian smart-alec Billy Bunter as PM.


Maybe less focus is required on what is a series of temporary prime ministers and more on the radical overhaul of our political and administration structures and cultures. Since the Industrial Revolution our government and administration (civil service) have not exactly been STEM majors and any education but STEM is preferred for that ‘class’ with undue representation and protection of the interest of landowners. Technical progress has largely been made by visionary non governmental individuals slowly in peace time and more quickly during times of war. I do not think our apparatus is capable of evolving and charting our progress through this problem (impending crisis) coherently. What can we expect when we allow these important institutions to be over populated by innumerate Arts, Social Sciences , Legal, Politcsi & Economics, Media graduates. Nothing wrong with those degrees in the right place but a much more improved balance towards STEM and overall numeracy would serve us better for the future. Oh and come on kick out the disproportionate land owner representation that is the House of Lords and reform.


----------



## Rorschach (11 Aug 2021)

Well it's great to see everyone in agreement.


----------



## Jacob (11 Aug 2021)

NormanB said:


> Maybe less focus is required on what is a series of temporary prime ministers and more on the radical overhaul of our political and administration structures and cultures. Since the Industrial Revolution our government and administration (civil service) have not exactly been STEM majors and any education but STEM is preferred for that ‘class’ with undue representation and protection of the interest of landowners. Technical progress has largely been made by visionary non governmental individuals slowly in peace time and more quickly during times of war. I do not think our apparatus is capable of evolving and charting our progress through this problem (impending crisis) coherently. What can we expect when we allow these important institutions to be over populated by innumerate Arts, Social Sciences , Legal, Politcsi & Economics, Media graduates. Nothing wrong with those degrees in the right place but a much more improved balance towards STEM and overall numeracy would serve us better for the future. Oh and come on kick out the disproportionate land owner representation that is the House of Lords and reform.


Agree. In fact I think that private education, an Oxbridge degree in PPE, excess property ownership, should all be bars to public office.


----------



## Trainee neophyte (11 Aug 2021)

Jacob said:


> I don't have any antisemitic chums.


You're right -that was an entirely unnecessary, gratuitous dig. Corby was stitched up by everyone, because he a) might have won and b) wasn't entirely in the pockets of the "right" people. Can't have any loose cannons rolling around. Nothing like a good Stalinist purge to clean the ranks and purify the party.


----------



## Jacob (11 Aug 2021)

Trainee neophyte said:


> You're right -that was an entirely unnecessary, gratuitous dig. Corby was stitched up by everyone, because he a) might have won and b) wasn't entirely in the pockets of the "right" people. Can't have any loose cannons rolling around. Nothing like a good Stalinist purge to clean the ranks and purify the party.


 Good job you don't read the Guardian then - it is leader of the anti Corbyn pack and probably did more to swing the 2019 election than anybody.


----------



## selectortone (11 Aug 2021)

Valhalla said:


> . The move to all electric vehicles is not the answer and will not happen whilst the cost of puchasing one is 50% more than an equivalent fossil fuel guzzling version.


The price of electric cars will be cheaper than ICE cars before they begin to be phased out.

Given the comparative complexity of a modern internal combustion engine compared to an electric motor I can believe it. Right now motor manufacturers are recouping R&D and tooling costs. 

Electric cars ‘will be cheaper to produce than fossil fuel vehicles by 2027’


----------



## Rorschach (11 Aug 2021)

selectortone said:


> The price of electric cars will be cheaper than ICE cars before they begin to be phased out.
> 
> Given the comparative complexity of a modern internal combustion engine compared to an electric motor I can believe it. Right now motor manufacturers are recouping R&D and tooling costs.
> 
> Electric cars ‘will be cheaper to produce than fossil fuel vehicles by 2027’



That's good, but how long until EV are better than ICE? Or will we all be confined to travel within 20 miles of our home so it will be a moot point anyway.


----------



## BenB (11 Aug 2021)

1. Thanks for cheering us all up. I really needed that. Fabulous.
2. You haven’t written anything original and you haven’t provided any solutions so what was the point of this?
3. I came to this forum to escape into a joyful world of woodworking, not to read poorly punctuated amateur climate science. Perhaps there’s a better forum for you called “uk doom beacon” please go there and let me enjoy people making stuff out of wood. 

And maybe, if the climate is upsetting you, give yourself a couple of days off from reading the paper.


----------



## Chris152 (11 Aug 2021)

BenB said:


> 1. Thanks for cheering us all up. I really needed that. Fabulous.
> 2. You haven’t written anything original and you haven’t provided any solutions so what was the point of this?
> 3. I came to this forum to escape into a joyful world of woodworking, not to read poorly punctuated amateur climate science. Perhaps there’s a better forum for you called “uk doom beacon” please go there and let me enjoy people making stuff out of wood.
> 
> And maybe, if the climate is upsetting you, give yourself a couple of days off from reading the paper.


It's a game called 'doubt the experts' that a handful of people on UKW like to play, Ben. It involves skipping around the net trying to find contrary views and then presenting them as the truth, preferably with a bit of conspiracy theory thrown in. It's harmless enough and often quite amusing.


----------



## Jacob (11 Aug 2021)

Maybe the mods could move it into the padded room? Don't want to upset the old folk!


----------



## bansobaby (11 Aug 2021)

All very interesting and as recently noted, rather amusing.

My slant on things: one of the most 'convincing' articles on the subject that I have seen used a basic risk assessment analysis; up one side you have 'do nothing' to 'do everything possible at whatever the cost', along the bottom you have impacts from 'booger all' to 'complete Armageddon'.

It's a very simple way of grasping the situation.

The BIG problem is that the money is controlled by a sector of the planets population on whose agenda the rest of us do not factor.


----------



## Droogs (11 Aug 2021)

We can no longer prevent it only mitigate it, IF we can actually get off our entitled fat behinds and are prepare to be inconvenienced for a while. It is well known by many here I am a greenie and have been since the early 80's (never voted anything but Green), still love woodwork and try to be as eco as I can. 

But as a movement, environmentalism has failed. Mainly due to greed and laziness for the most part of the average person. Just look at the EV threads to see how opposed people are to being inconvenienced, even for the sake of keeping their kids and grandkids ability to breathe clean air and eat good healthy food. The environment that has allowed humanity to prosper over the last 15K years has now been so damaged that it is no longer viable. The "tipping point" has been passed and there is nothing we can do, absolutely nothing to prevent catastrophic changes happening, impacting our ability to feed and water the majority of the earths human population (forget about wildlife). We are also now on the road to a point where it is now thought that the level of CO2 could reach a density that will in fact be high enough to actually affect our cognitive abilities.

As much of a technophile that I am, I do at times wish Stevenson, Brunnel et al had succumb to childhood cholera or TB but hey ho it is what it is and in the words of the most learned Scotsman I know of


----------



## Rorschach (11 Aug 2021)

Glad to see you have a positive attitude @Droogs , I mean, why do you even get up in the morning with an outlook like that?


----------



## Droogs (11 Aug 2021)

It's not an attitude just a statement of fact. The latest climatic reports from various different sources show we have indeed passed the point of no return. Peoples inane self centred arguments against EVs show how short sighted and narrow minded people can be and generally are when they have to be the ones to actually do something and put in some effort. As to why I get up in the morning, well until very recently I had to get up in order to take around 40 tablets each morning around 6am. Now I am down to just 2 and can have a bit of a lie in until 7am as it now only takes a minute and a mouthful of milk rather than an hour and a pint. 

For me I know I am only going to be around long enough to not be really affected nor see the effects of full on change. So, I now get to be the selfish one and not give a flying monkies about what's coming and get to join in with the rest of the ostriches and do what the hell I want. So yes I have a nice new positive attitude as now I get to not give a dung anymore. I have just ordered 2CWT of good old fashioned coal for the stove this winter and a cord of wood. I will be able to mix it together and no one will be any the wiser once it's dark; oh and I have just bought an nice old wreck of a 3LV6 Diesel Crafter to turn into a permanent camper, so I can travel around and see all of natures beauty before either I die or it does. Also changed the spec on the new house build from COB to good old concrete as thats the dirtiest material I can find to build with. Also looking to buy good prime agricultural land 10 acres should do that I can take out of production and have just as a nice piece of Astroturf.


----------



## Blackswanwood (11 Aug 2021)

Droogs said:


> Just look at the EV threads to see how opposed people are to being inconvenienced, even for the sake of keeping their kids and grandkids ability to breathe clean air and eat good healthy food.



I tend not to take the sentiment on here as indicative of wider public opinion as the membership is probably not representative of UK society (thankfully  )


----------



## stuart little (11 Aug 2021)

Trainee neophyte said:


> Because every single weather event is obvious evidence of the Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Emergency, whether it be warming, cooling or neutral, we are all, imminently, going to die. The only way to fix this is to have a command economy run by experts, who will tell us what we can and cannot do, what we can and cannot eat, and where we can and cannot go. Interestingly the same command economy with the same brutal invasions of all aspects of life is also required (and being put in place) to save us from the appalling pandemic. What an astonishing coincidence!
> 
> Today I have been reading about Jupiter being 500 °C hotter than it should be. This has, allegedly, been conclusively proven to be caused by solar winds. Currently the IPCC make no allowance for the sun doing any heating other than the the obvious and unvarying sunshine, so that may need to change. Perhaps climate is driven by the sun after all, rather than burned dinosaur bones as supposed.
> 
> ...


I'm a great believer of the Mayans' prophecy of the world ending!


----------



## paulbohs (11 Aug 2021)

The very first post says that "the UK is not a large contributor to greenhouse gases". This is not true. The UK is responsible for 1.1% of greenhouse emissions and only has 0.87% of the population. 17th largest emissions in the world. 

I do believe we can make a difference to greenhouse emissions. I have seen the change in my friends and my own mindsets. I also believe the worlds population will start to decrease slowly from 2025 so at least it wont be growing anymore.


----------



## Jacob (11 Aug 2021)

Blackswanwood said:


> I tend not to take the sentiment on here as indicative of wider public opinion as the membership is probably not representative of UK society (thankfully  )


Dunno I think we are more of a cross section than many other groups - and it makes it more interesting.


----------



## Rorschach (11 Aug 2021)

Jacob said:


> Dunno I think we are more of a cross section than many other groups - and it makes it more interesting.



Ummm this forum is most definitely not anywhere near a cross section of society.


----------



## planesleuth (11 Aug 2021)

ZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz


----------



## Droogs (11 Aug 2021)

definitely a section of society that is very cross


----------



## Selwyn (11 Aug 2021)

Can someone tell me how much sea levels have risen in the past 30 years in the UK?


----------



## Rorschach (11 Aug 2021)

Selwyn said:


> Can someone tell me how much sea levels have risen in the past 30 years in the UK?



Not as much a Monbiot's blood pressure.


----------



## Droogs (11 Aug 2021)

Selwyn said:


> Can someone tell me how much sea levels have risen in the past 30 years in the UK?


It is not a localised differential level. globally sea level has risen by 200mm since 1901. However since WW2 the rise has started to be more exponential in its rate of increase


----------



## Selwyn (11 Aug 2021)

Droogs said:


> It is not a localised differential level. globally sea level has risen by 200mm since 1901. However since WW2 the rise has started to be almost exponential in its rate of increase



My estuary village should be under water then. But its not.

I wonder how much the exponential rise has been since WW2. We probably didn't have people measuring sea level rises so fervently as today either


----------



## RobinBHM (11 Aug 2021)

Rorschach said:


> just surviving day to day is hard enough, let alone worrying about the future


this is a fair point.


----------



## RobinBHM (11 Aug 2021)

Trainee neophyte said:


> The only way to fix this is to have a command economy run by experts, who will tell us what we can and cannot do



as opposed to having the economy run by capitalists, who run the world and tell us what we can and cannot do.

How do you think a farmer would get on if he said to Tesco "Im going to have to put my prices up"


----------



## Jacob (11 Aug 2021)

Selwyn said:


> Can someone tell me how much sea levels have risen in the past 30 years in the UK?


Read the science then you can tell us! Changes in mean sea level around Great Britain over the past 200 years








This map shows which Edinburgh streets will be submerged if sea levels rise


An interactive map highlighting the potentially devastating effects of global warming to the world's coastlines has provided a scary insight into the potential future of Edinburgh.




www.edinburghnews.scotsman.com






https://www.adaptationscotland.org.uk/application/files/5816/1797/9967/LOW_RES_4656_Climate_Projections_report_FINAL.pdf


Apparently there are regional variations in projected sea level rise primarily due to vertical land movement caused by rebound from the last ice age. i.e. still recovering from the ice age 20000 years ago, which is a hint of how short the holocene has been in geological time


----------



## RobinBHM (11 Aug 2021)

danst96 said:


> You are right, 45% of waste in the uk is "recycled". What they dont tell you that over half of that 45% is burnt in incinerators. so in theory really less than 25% of waste in uk is actually recycled. but then you dig into that even further and a lot of that 25% is sent over to the far east to countries like Malaysia and Philippines for "recycling" where in fact it is just burnt or dumped in riverways and the ocean because those countries receive way more waste than they can process all the while having no internal infrastructure themselves to deal with their own waste that could be recycled.
> 
> Climate change is just a convenient discussion to have when in reality governments cant do anything. People scream for change but like the OP says, any real change would have a severe impact on our liberty and freedom and those same people screaming out today will tear down their own governments tomorrow for the changes they made should they listen to them today. There is no win here.



it is difficult.

capitalism ignores long term problems -the capitalist drive is short term profit.

lets have a think what health and safety would be like if we left it to businesses to choose......


----------



## Selwyn (11 Aug 2021)

Jacob said:


> Read the science then you can tell us! Changes in mean sea level around Great Britain over the past 200 years
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I was asking how much they've risen already, not how much they've been "modelled" to rise


----------



## Jacob (11 Aug 2021)

Selwyn said:


> I was asking how much they've risen already, not how much they've been "modelled" to rise


It's all here as per earlier post Changes in mean sea level around Great Britain over the past 200 years
Or here Rising Sea Levels - POST where the rounded up figure for the last century is 200mm as stated earlier by Droogs.
If your estuary village "should be underwater" are you saying it is only 200mm above sea level? Where is this? Does it get flooded?


----------



## danst96 (11 Aug 2021)

RobinBHM said:


> it is difficult.
> 
> capitalism ignores long term problems -the capitalist drive is short term profit.
> 
> lets have a think what health and safety would be like if we left it to businesses to choose......


True but would you accept a political regime such as Russian/China/Cuba where you have little control even over your smallest liberties. 

Realistically it won't happen and that's why it will all come to a head sooner rather than later.


----------



## Jacob (11 Aug 2021)

danst96 said:


> True but would you accept a political regime such as Russian/China/Cuba where you have little control even over your smallest liberties.
> 
> Realistically it won't happen and that's why it will all come to a head sooner rather than later.


A regime more like Britain in wartime would be nearer the mark. People took great pride in it and didn't regard it as repressive, they had more sense.


----------



## selectortone (11 Aug 2021)

Rorschach said:


> That's good, but how long until EV are better than ICE? Or will we all be confined to travel within 20 miles of our home so it will be a moot point anyway.


I bet it's a laugh a minute in your house.


----------



## Rorschach (11 Aug 2021)

Jacob said:


> A regime more like Britain in wartime would be nearer the mark. People took great pride in it and didn't regard it as repressive, they had more sense.



There was a war on. You simply cannot compare something like climate change to a war.


----------



## Rorschach (11 Aug 2021)

selectortone said:


> I bet it's a laugh a minute in your house.



You might be surprised to learn I have an excellent sense of humour. I mean I am a member here after all.


----------



## Jacob (11 Aug 2021)

Rorschach said:


> There was a war on. You simply cannot compare something like climate change to a war.


It's a rapidly approaching major emergency and the worst outcomes could be far worse than war.


----------



## Selwyn (11 Aug 2021)

Jacob said:


> It's all here as per earlier post Changes in mean sea level around Great Britain over the past 200 years
> Or here Rising Sea Levels - POST where the rounded up figure for the last century is 200mm as stated earlier by Droogs.
> If your estuary village "should be underwater" are you saying it is only 200mm above sea level? Where is this? Does it get flooded?



It does rarely flood. But I think it used to rarely flood a 100 years ago too. 

Most of the floods we see on TV are due to changes in river management, value of real estate being newsworthy and a lack of drainage maintenance


----------



## Selwyn (11 Aug 2021)

Jacob said:


> It's a rapidly approaching major emergency and the worst outcomes could be far worse than war.



I just think people will adapt and will continue to adapt


----------



## Rorschach (11 Aug 2021)

Jacob said:


> It's a rapidly approaching major emergency and the worst outcomes could be far worse than war.



Give me a call when that happens.


----------



## rafezetter (11 Aug 2021)

danst96 said:


> Like I say you don't get it. So don't worry, I won't argue with you about it. Just accept I have a differing opinion to yours, it's truly not that hard. I have no problem with your opinion I just politely disagree and shan't argue with you over it any further.




Sorry Danst, but are you saying that this has been and will continue to be visited upon us by God? Why would God take the "slow death" approach when he has other far more efficient options at his disposal - and why would God decide that the way to solve this problem is to kill off the *entire planet* with pollution - doesn't sound like a very intelligent, carefully considered, plan to me; if humans are the problem, why not just inflict a plague upon us, no I mean a REAL plague, or another global (though that part was never actually specified) flood.

"God loves all his children" (but he'll slowly poison them to death over a period of a century or two, and killing, most of the flora and fauna with it, redering the planet a wasteland)

"The meek - sorry, cockroaches - will inherit the earth (or what's left of it)."

You remind me of that joke about the blind faith guy who drowns saying "god will save me" when God said "I send you a man, a boat AND a helicopter... what more do you want?"

And if I was God, I'd be quite angry that you are blaming his magnificence for our goddam stupidity.

If you think this is God's will and we can (or should) do nothing about it, then YOU are part of the problem.


----------



## Jacob (11 Aug 2021)

Selwyn said:


> .......Most of the floods we see on TV are due to changes in river management, value of real estate being newsworthy and a lack of drainage maintenance


Most of the floods we see on TV are down to exceptional rainfall. Error - Cookies Turned Off


> I just think people will adapt and will continue to adapt


Yes these Germans will probably be quite pleased to have an excuse to whip out and by new EVs!


----------



## RobinBHM (11 Aug 2021)

danst96 said:


> True but would you accept a political regime such as Russian/China/Cuba where you have little control even over your smallest liberties.
> 
> Realistically it won't happen and that's why it will all come to a head sooner rather than later.



The world economic forum has recognised capitalism can’t solve climate change. The have been talking about the great reset, which unfortunately has been taken up by the nutter conspiracists.


We already have wide ranging environmental controls, I don’t think it needs to be all state control.

The state can manipulate rules and pricing and let capitalists innovate…..look at the price of renewables…cost of wind Kwh is rapidly dropping and will be well below fossil fuels before long.


----------



## Trainee neophyte (11 Aug 2021)

RobinBHM said:


> How do you think a farmer would get on if he said to Tesco "Im going to have to put my prices up"


What a fabulous idea - a farmer could set the price of his product based on his costs, plus a small markup. It will never catch on, though. 

Once enough farmers are bankrupt and Bill Gates has bought all their land, the pricing structure may change. Got to love that free market


----------



## Rorschach (11 Aug 2021)

Trainee neophyte said:


> What a fabulous idea - a farmer could set the price of his product based on his costs, plus a small markup. It will never catch on, though.
> 
> Once enough farmers are bankrupt and Bill Gates has bought all their land, the pricing structure may change. Got to love that free market



He would probably like an organisation for food set up like British Wool, because that works great for the farmers..........


----------



## danst96 (11 Aug 2021)

rafezetter said:


> Sorry Danst, but are you saying that this has been and will continue to be visited upon us by God? Why would God take the "slow death" approach when he has other far more efficient options at his disposal - and why would God decide that the way to solve this problem is to kill off the *entire planet* with pollution - doesn't sound like a very intelligent, carefully considered, plan to me; if humans are the problem, why not just inflict a plague upon us, no I mean a REAL plague, or another global (though that part was never actually specified) flood.
> 
> "God loves all his children" (but he'll slowly poison them to death over a period of a century or two, and killing, most of the flora and fauna with it, redering the planet a wasteland)
> 
> ...


I think you answered your own question. As for that "joke" it makes no sense since if the person went to heaven after refusing all other things, then he was saved?? The irony of the ignorant. Anyway im not here to preach, like i said before, i have my belief, you are entitled to your own and as much as we like to trash each other for believing something different it really isnt that bad.

You are 100% correct though it is mans stupidity and greed we are in this mess. The earth and resources was created to be used by man but not abused to the extent it has been.


----------



## Rorschach (11 Aug 2021)

danst96 said:


> You are 100% correct though it is mans stupidity and greed we are in this mess. The earth and resources was created to be used by man but not abused to the extent it has been.



Wouldn't an all knowing creator, know that we would do this though?


----------



## Jameshow (11 Aug 2021)

Droogs said:


> It's not an attitude just a statement of fact. The latest climatic reports from various different sources show we have indeed passed the point of no return. Peoples inane self centred arguments against EVs show how short sighted and narrow minded people can be and generally are when they have to be the ones to actually do something and put in some effort. As to why I get up in the morning, well until very recently I had to get up in order to take around 40 tablets each morning around 6am. Now I am down to just 2 and can have a bit of a lie in until 7am as it now only takes a minute and a mouthful of milk rather than an hour and a pint.
> 
> For me I know I am only going to be around long enough to not be really affected nor see the effects of full on change. So, I now get to be the selfish one and not give a flying monkies about what's coming and get to join in with the rest of the ostriches and do what the hell I want. So yes I have a nice new positive attitude as now I get to not give a dung anymore. I have just ordered 2CWT of good old fashioned coal for the stove this winter and a cord of wood. I will be able to mix it together and no one will be any the wiser once it's dark; oh and I have just bought an nice old wreck of a 3LV6 Diesel Crafter to turn into a permanent camper, so I can travel around and see all of natures beauty before either I die or it does. Also changed the spec on the new house build from COB to good old concrete as thats the dirtiest material I can find to build with. Also looking to buy good prime agricultural land 10 acres should do that I can take out of production and have just as a nice piece of Astroturf.


Please do post pics of the crafter as a fellow self builder! 

Cheers James


----------



## Terry - Somerset (11 Aug 2021)

There are several ways to change behaviours to achieve reduced consumption of fossil fuels. If you think all is OK so why bother - don't waste time reading the rest of this post.

Legislation limiting consumption - eg: gas central heating boilers, EV and ICE banned from 2030. This can work if alternative technologies allow a fairly smooth transition. Measures need to be easily enforcable. Will not change all behaviours.

Allow the market to decide when/if it actually becomes a problem - the less able will be driven into poverty or worse. Wealthy and educated will survive relatively unscathed. Risk of chaos and societal meltdown, needs active police or military enforcement.

Possible solution - tax carbon consumption, not income. Will make consumers rethink their own spending and priorites. Assume a very average income of £30k pa, £1000 domestic energy and 12000 miles pa in a small car. Other VAT etc unchanged:

current total tax bill is income tax £3500, NI £2450, VAT on household energy £50, VAT and duty on fuel £900 = total £6900
reduce income tax rate fom 20% to 10%. Increase personal allowance to £15k. Halve national insurance, increase VAT on domestic energy to 100%, increase fuel duty and VAT to £2700 = total £6700.
Detail needs refinement - eg: tax imported goods on their embedded energy. Individual groups may get vocal about different elements - low paid and domestic energy costs, trades needing vans/transport etc. Changes to be phased over say 10 years as a consistent policy.

The main message is that without burdening people with more tax (generally) their behaviours would change markedly. Suddenly home insulation and efficiency would be important and worth investment. Small cars and less driving for non-essential purposes would preferred.

Those staying ahead of the environmental game would benefit with more disposable income and a tax regime encouraging "green" activities. Those who don't care or won't change will be penalised - tough isn't it!!


----------



## Jacob (11 Aug 2021)

Terry - Somerset said:


> There are several ways to change behaviours to achieve reduced consumption of fossil fuels. If you think all is OK so why bother - don't waste time reading the rest of this post.
> 
> Legislation limiting consumption - eg: gas central heating boilers, EV and ICE banned from 2030. This can work if alternative technologies allow a fairly smooth transition. Measures need to be easily enforcable. Will not change all behaviours.
> 
> ...


There's all manner of possible schemes but the elephant in the room is that wealth redistribution downwards (for a change) looks inevitable, person to person, or nation to nation. This is because a large part of the world population already live one pay-check / benefit hand-out / emergency relief measure, from destitution, if not already destitute. There would have to be a very thorough safety net at low income levels and for welfare and special needs. 
Rationing was another wartime measure which seemed to work?


----------



## Jacob (11 Aug 2021)

danst96 said:


> ..... i have my belief, you are entitled to your own ...


Not sure about that. "Beliefs" are all very well if they are inconsequential but if they become material to the way people live in a community then obligations take precedence over entitlements.


----------



## Spectric (11 Aug 2021)

Terry - Somerset said:


> Believing that nothing workable is feasible can be a legitimate opinion. If you are over 60 and care not for future generations it is a reasonable point of view. Just be honest about it!


I would say over fifty, been around long enough to understand society and witness the downhill changes.

Just like this pandemic, to address climate change requires global co-operation and for everyone to pull in the same direction, so being honest what is the chance of that, too many people with conflicting interest and not willing to accept change. We could resolve the issues that are causing climate change, that is not really that hard but getting people to accept this is the big challenge.


----------



## Valhalla (11 Aug 2021)

Terry - Somerset said:


> The UK and other wealthy countries may be able to largely ignore climate change. We have the resources and skill base to mitigate and/or adapt to most impacts.


Really??

Most countries in the world rely on imports and exports of food, goods, fuel and many other commodities. If exporting countries begin to suffer from climate change and can no longer provide these exports which then has a knock-on effect- we have seen this through the covid nightmare. Some countries may be able to handle shortages, but not for a sustained period. The UK is most definitely not self-sufficient..... so ignoring climate change would be extremely naive


----------



## Valhalla (11 Aug 2021)

Trainee neophyte said:


> you are asking for a permanent dictatorial top-down governmen


We've already got one of those........


----------



## Valhalla (11 Aug 2021)

Chris152 said:


> It involves skipping around the net trying to find contrary views and then presenting them as the truth, preferably with a bit of conspiracy theory thrown in.


Sounds like the House of Commons if you ask me......


----------



## Valhalla (11 Aug 2021)

Rorschach said:


> Ummm this forum is most definitely not anywhere near a cross section of society.


Of course it is - if you take the power set of all cross-sections of society (which by definition is formed of groups) then this group would be in that power set


----------



## Valhalla (11 Aug 2021)

Rorschach said:


> You simply cannot compare something like climate change to a war.


Well - it depends on your viewpoint

If you look at if from the point of climate change devasting countries and communities in the same way war does, you can draw a comparison with the number of dead, the loss of industry, property, family etc etc


----------



## bansobaby (11 Aug 2021)

danst96 said:


> I think you answered your own question. As for that "joke" it makes no sense since if the person went to heaven after refusing all other things, then he was saved?? The irony of the ignorant. Anyway im not here to preach, like i said before, i have my belief, you are entitled to your own and as much as we like to trash each other for believing something different it really isnt that bad.
> 
> You are 100% correct though it is mans stupidity and greed we are in this mess. The earth and resources was created to be used by man but not abused to the extent it has been.


I beg to differ, in respect of the Earth and it’s resources being created for man alone. An awful amount of sentient beings other than Homo sapiens would call this planet their home…


----------



## Terry - Somerset (11 Aug 2021)

Wars and rationing are not a good analogue for the climate change challenge.

WW2 was a case of an immediate and real threat. National full and immediate cooperation was the only realistic defence. 

Covid had some of these characteristics - immediate, threatening and sufficient to get substantial compliance with lockdown measures - a largely cooperative response.

Climate change is a long tem threat. If no action is taken to limit emissions or take action to mitigate for 10-20 years it will make no difference to the next 10-20 years. We could not put heads in the sand facing an imminent Nazi invasion threat, but we can with climate change.

The response to climate change need not be immediate, but actions today do need to be part of a coherent strategy and plan running for the next 20 years.

If we wait until the threat becomes unavoidable, it will be too late for cooperative action. Those who can will build walls to keep the rabble out.


----------



## Spectric (11 Aug 2021)

bansobaby said:


> An awful amount of sentient beings other than Homo sapiens would call this planet their home…


So what good things have humans done for the planet, fact is we have really only done things that benefit us at the expense of everything else. We are actually dismantling everything that nature has created including our planet.


----------



## bansobaby (11 Aug 2021)

Terry - Somerset said:


> There are several ways to change behaviours to achieve reduced consumption of fossil fuels. If you think all is OK so why bother - don't waste time reading the rest of this post.
> 
> Legislation limiting consumption - eg: gas central heating boilers, EV and ICE banned from 2030. This can work if alternative technologies allow a fairly smooth transition. Measures need to be easily enforcable. Will not change all behaviours.
> 
> ...


That’s a great analysis, and I agree 91.247% with your analysis, but my fundamental problem with all of this is that you wont get the people with all the money to spend it on stuff that doesn’t make them richer……


----------



## bansobaby (11 Aug 2021)

Spectric said:


> So what good things have humans done for the planet, fact is we have really only done things that benefit us at the expense of everything else. We are actually dismantling everything that nature has created including our planet.


I totally agree, mankind is the worst thing to happen to this planet….so far


----------



## Trainee neophyte (12 Aug 2021)

Spectric said:


> So what good things have humans done for the planet, fact is we have really only done things that benefit us at the expense of everything else. We are actually dismantling everything that nature has created including our planet.


If you are of the opinion that CO2 levels have risen because of human activity, you can proudly point to the fact that plants do much, much better with high levels of CO2. There has been a significant, measurable greening of the entire planet over the last 50 years, due to an increase in CO2 in the atmosphere. Below 180 ppm all photosynthesis stops, with predictably dire consequences for most life on the planet. Plants actually do best at about 1,200ppm. Well done you for keeping the planet alive.

According to the Lancet, half a million people die globally from excess heat, but 4.5 million from cold. The assumption is that global warming saves 166,000 lives per year, and rising. Given that we want to reduce CO2, who do we nominate to die?


----------



## Jacob (12 Aug 2021)

Terry - Somerset said:


> ....
> 
> Climate change is a long tem threat. .....


Climate change is here now. It is a threat now. The only thing long term about it is that it will take many years for action to have effect. Even if every button was pressed today it would many years before it halted and reversed. Syracuse is likely to experience even higher temperatures, for some time to come.


----------



## Keith Cocker (12 Aug 2021)

danst96 said:


> The earth and resources was created to be used by man but not abused to the extent it has been.



Man has evolved to be “top dog” with a disproportionate amount of power. That is not a “belief” it’s a “fact”.


----------



## danst96 (12 Aug 2021)

Keith Cocker said:


> Man has evolved to be “top dog” with a disproportionate amount of power. That is not a “belief” it’s a “fact”.


Man has always been top of the food chain but we have taken it to a different level where we are just abusing our resources now through greed.


----------



## Jacob (12 Aug 2021)

Trainee neophyte said:


> If you are of the opinion that CO2 levels have risen because of human activity, you can proudly point to the fact that plants do much, much better with high levels of CO2. There has been a significant, measurable greening of the entire planet over the last 50 years, due to an increase in CO2 in the atmosphere. Below 180 ppm all photosynthesis stops, with predictably dire consequences for most life on the planet. Plants actually do best at about 1,200ppm. Well done you for keeping the planet alive.


This is true and it is beneficial but not a game changer - unless we help the process along with massive reforestation and other unlikely things like developing peat bogs which apparently sequester massive amounts of CO2 compared even to rain forests.








Peatlands store twice as much carbon as all the world’s forests


World Wetlands Day on 2 February is a chance to highlight the vital role of peatlands in mitigating climate change.




www.unep.org


----------



## Jacob (12 Aug 2021)

danst96 said:


> Man has always been top of the food chain ...


Depends on your point of view. We dung beetles think we are the best thing since sliced bread.


----------



## danst96 (12 Aug 2021)

Jacob said:


> Depends on your point of view. We dung beetles think we are the best thing since sliced bread.


You do have a crappy job though, admit it


----------



## Rorschach (12 Aug 2021)

danst96 said:


> Man has always been top of the food chain but we have taken it to a different level where we are just abusing our resources now through greed.



Who says? You are assigning some kind of external moral/ethical framework that says we shouldn't use the resources the planet has. Why? No other species on this planets manages their resources or purposely limits their potential. Does the wolf limit how many deer it eats for the benefit of others?


----------



## Jacob (12 Aug 2021)

danst96 said:


> You do have a crappy job though, admit it


Don't knock it if you haven't tried it. And we are definitely top of our food chain. We belief the universe was created for us by an all seeing all knowing benevolent dung beetle in the sky.


----------



## danst96 (12 Aug 2021)

Rorschach said:


> Who says? You are assigning some kind of external moral/ethical framework that says we shouldn't use the resources the planet has. Why? No other species on this planets manages their resources or purposely limits their potential. Does the wolf limit how many deer it eats for the benefit of others?


You entirely misunderstood. The resources are there to be used and of course we can and should use them but they have been exploited and plundered beyond our immediate need. A wolf doesn't limit its intake but nor does it kill more than it needs.


----------



## Jacob (12 Aug 2021)

danst96 said:


> You entirely misunderstood. The resources are there to be used and of course we can and should use them but they have been exploited and plundered beyond our immediate need. A wolf doesn't limit its intake but nor does it kill more than it needs.


Populations wax and wane in the non human world and they too can eat themselves out of house and home, depending on circumstances. It's all part of life's rich pattern.


----------



## Rorschach (12 Aug 2021)

danst96 said:


> You entirely misunderstood. The resources are there to be used and of course we can and should use them but they have been exploited and plundered beyond our immediate need. A wolf doesn't limit its intake but nor does it kill more than it needs.



Who says it has been plundered? Who says it isn't our immediate need? We aren't using resources for a laugh, we don't drill for oil and then squirt it into space for the fun of it. I'll admit we aren't always the most efficient at using them, but we don't purposely waste them either.


----------



## planesleuth (12 Aug 2021)

Rorschach said:


> Who says it has been plundered? Who says it isn't our immediate need? We aren't using resources for a laugh, we don't drill for oil and then squirt it into space for the fun of it. I'll admit we aren't always the most efficient at using them, but we don't purposely waste them either.



'but we don't purposely waste them either' lmao 

Planes that burn a gallon of fuel every second and container ships that burn 60000 gallons per day. Yet folks seem to think they are entitled to a ‘holiday in the sun’ and others buying things they don’t actually need, made by the biggest polluter in the world and straight from those same container ships.


----------



## Rorschach (12 Aug 2021)

planesleuth said:


> 'but we don't purposely waste them either' lmao
> 
> Planes that burn a gallon of fuel every second and container ships that burn 60000 gallons per day. Yet folks seem to think they are entitled to a ‘holiday in the sun’ and others buying things they don’t actually need, made by the biggest polluter in the world and straight from those same container ships.



You might consider that a waste, those going on holiday don't think so, those whose businesses rely on the tourists don't think so, those who design and build the planes don't think so, those who fly the planes and take care of the passengers or work at the airports or build the airports don't think so, I could go on, but it will be a very long list and will make you look very silly.
You are committing the fallacy of assuming that because that container ship bringing items that are not for you, it must therefore be full of useless things that people don't need.


----------



## Terry - Somerset (12 Aug 2021)

Humans have two capabilities which separate them from animals.

The first is now the capacity to impact the global environment rather than just the local and accessible. A statement of the obvious over any but geological timescales.

The second is to understand, and in theory moderate, natural instincts to limit negative environmental impacts which could compromise future survival of the species.

The second is only a theory - mankind has, and is, demonstrating it behaves precisely like its animal kingdom conterparts. Exploit the environment with little regard for the future. When resources run low we will fight over the scraps that remain. 

There may be sufficient a population left at the end of the process to start the cycle again, or another species will then dominate (with ultimately the same result). 

Homo sapiens from the latin means* 'wise (or astute) human'*. We are anything but!


----------



## planesleuth (12 Aug 2021)

Rorschach said:


> You might consider that a waste, those going on holiday don't think so, those whose businesses rely on the tourists don't think so, those who design and build the planes don't think so, those who fly the planes and take care of the passengers or work at the airports or build the airports don't think so, I could go on, but it will be a very long list and will make you look very silly.
> You are committing the fallacy of assuming that because that container ship bringing items that are not for you, it must therefore be full of useless things that people don't need.



Thanks for the insult. Go on then, give us the very long list. You know, the one that keeps you on the supporting pedestal that preaches hominids have an inane right to blindly continue to stumble into the hell hole they created. You think you have a right to judge me and accuse me of assumation? Get your head out of the sand and look around you.


----------



## Chris152 (12 Aug 2021)

Rorschach said:


> You might consider that a waste, those going on holiday don't think so, those whose businesses rely on the tourists don't think so, those who design and build the planes don't think so, those who fly the planes and take care of the passengers or work at the airports or build the airports don't think so, I could go on, but it will be a very long list and will make you look very silly.
> You are committing the fallacy of assuming that because that container ship bringing items that are not for you, it must therefore be full of useless things that people don't need.


You seem to be confusing needs and wants. You need something (fuel, for eg) to achieve a want ( a holiday, for eg). Obviously, if you want to be slack in the use of the terms you can call most people's summer hols a need, but that's a pretty flabby definition of a need in the context of this thread. Your list is far from making planesleuth's thoughts look silly, quite the opposite.


----------



## Rorschach (12 Aug 2021)

Chris152 said:


> You seem to be confusing needs and wants. You need something (fuel, for eg) to achieve a want ( a holiday, for eg). Obviously, if you want to be slack in the use of the terms you can call most people's summer hols a need, but that's a pretty flabby definition of a need in the context of this thread. Your list is far from making planesleuth's thoughts look silly, quite the opposite.



Everything except 2-3k calories a day and a few litres of water are wants, we don't "need" anything else.


----------



## Droogs (12 Aug 2021)

we do - shelter clothing and heat. We are not designed to live up here without assistance


----------



## Rorschach (12 Aug 2021)

Droogs said:


> we do - shelter clothing and heat. We are not designed to live up here without assistance



Yes because you are living in an area that we can only colonise because of our technological advancement. If we go back to living on the plains of Africa we wouldn't need the shelter and heat, of course many of us would die, only the tough would survive.


----------



## Droogs (12 Aug 2021)

yay, mind you bee there done that and it isn't as easy as you would think


----------



## Rorschach (12 Aug 2021)

Droogs said:


> yay, mind you bee there done that and it isn't as easy as you would think



Oh no, surviving on what we "need" isn't easy, that's why it is calling surviving. But these people are talking about what is essential and just being silly really, they say we are using more than we "need" that we don't "need" to go on holiday etc, they are doing this sat in a nice warm home, dry, comfortable, clothed, well fed and on an electronic device maybe even sat in a well tooled workshop. They don't "need" any of these things, they "want" them, but they don't want others to enjoy themselves like they do.


----------



## Jacob (12 Aug 2021)

Truth leaking out: "Rich people, in every country, are overwhelmingly more responsible for global heating than the poor, with SUVs and meat-eating singled out for blame, while the high-carbon basis for future economic growth comes under question" Greenhouse gas emissions must peak within 4 years, says leaked UN report


----------



## Rorschach (12 Aug 2021)

Jacob said:


> Truth leaking out: "Rich people, in every country, are overwhelmingly more responsible for global heating than the poor, with SUVs and meat-eating singled out for blame, while the high-carbon basis for future economic growth comes under question" Greenhouse gas emissions must peak within 4 years, says leaked UN report



You know what rich people in western countries don't do that contributes massively to emissions? They don't have lots of kids.


----------



## Trainee neophyte (12 Aug 2021)

Jacob said:


> Truth leaking out: "Rich people, in every country, are overwhelmingly more responsible for global heating than the poor, with SUVs and meat-eating singled out for blame, while the high-carbon basis for future economic growth comes under question" Greenhouse gas emissions must peak within 4 years, says leaked UN report


Does this mean that all our wealth MUST be confiscated, for the good of the planet? I think the term is "watermellon": green on the outside, but red on the inside.


----------



## Jacob (12 Aug 2021)

Trainee neophyte said:


> Does this mean that all our wealth MUST be confiscated, for the good of the planet?.......


No, only yours.


----------



## Jacob (12 Aug 2021)

Rorschach said:


> You know what rich people in western countries don't do that contributes massively to emissions? They don't have lots of kids.


They make up for it by consuming more themselves. Much more. 








Population growth rate - Country Comparison






www.indexmundi.com


----------



## Rorschach (12 Aug 2021)

Jacob said:


> They make up for it by consuming more themselves. Much more.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Nope, there is nothing you can do that is more polluting that having a child. Having children create a theoretical infinite amount of pollution (assuming they all themselves go on to have children)


----------



## Spectric (12 Aug 2021)

Rorschach said:


> Nope, there is nothing you can do that is more polluting that having a child.


There is if you have two, three or more.


----------



## Trainee neophyte (12 Aug 2021)

Jacob said:


> No, only yours.


How very Animal Farm of you.


----------



## Rorschach (12 Aug 2021)

Spectric said:


> There is if you have two, three or more.



Well that is very true!


----------



## Keith Cocker (12 Aug 2021)

danst96 said:


> Man has always been top of the food chain



Sorry, not so. Life started long before man came on the scene and the animals that evolved into man were prey to other more evolved creatures. We gradually overtook them and now have an unassailable lead - which, I agree, we are misusing hugely.


----------



## Valhalla (12 Aug 2021)

Jacob said:


> Questions have been asked and the debate has been open for 2000 years Environmental Problems of the Greeks and Romans: Ecology in the Ancient Mediterranean (Ancient Society and History) (Review)
> It got a big boost 1962 with Rachel Carson Silent Spring - Wikipedia
> Then 1972 with the Ecologist A Blueprint for Survival - Wikipedia
> The CO2 greenhouse effect has been known since 1859 Meet the woman who first identified the greenhouse effect
> The just released IPCC report Sixth Assessment Report could be seen as the culmination of all this, coming at the end of the process as world-wide change arrives, loud, strong and impossible to ignore.


Are these articles you've actually read or did you google the subject and cut and paste the list of returned documents?


----------



## Valhalla (12 Aug 2021)

danst96 said:


> The earth and resources was created to be used by man


Have you never watched Brian Cox's 'The Planets' on tv? This planet was NOT created by some unseen hand - it evolved........ and the sooner it can be proved beyond any doubt the better.


----------



## Jacob (12 Aug 2021)

Valhalla said:


> Are these articles you've actually read or did you google the subject and cut and paste the list of returned documents?


Of course I read them, except the last one of course, which is huge and can only be flipped through at first. Easier to pick up on the commentaries first.
I knew about the Romans and environment but that was a new read. The gist of early ecology is well known Ancient civilizations were already messing up the planet
I read Rachel Carson when it came out I was still at school. Still got the same copy from nearly 60 years ago!
I read The Ecologist Blueprint when it came out I had a sub to the Ecologist at the time and I have a copy still in a box somewhere. I was into ecology at the time and read Konrad Lorenz and others. Darwin, Richard Dawkins, etc etc
I knew about John Tyndall but not about Eunice Foot, so that was a new read
I've been reading this sort of stuff on and off all my life. Scientific American, New Scientist etc
Just spotted my copy of "The Old Red Sandstone, or, New Walks in an Old Field" by Miller 1841 that's a little gem!
PS every time I google something interesting turns up - I 'd never heard of Tim Watkins before last week Seeing the harness but not the horse


----------



## Jacob (12 Aug 2021)

Valhalla said:


> Have you never watched Brian Cox's 'The Planets' on tv? This planet was NOT created by some unseen hand - it evolved........ and the sooner it can be proved beyond any doubt the better.


It can never be proved unless the unseen hand chooses to pop in and admit or deny it. He (She ) might say "no that's not one of mine"!


----------



## Spectric (12 Aug 2021)

Two stages, pre steam engine and mankind had undertaken a large amount of forrest clearance for farming and then post steam engine where we began digging for coal, followed by oil. First lot could plead ignorance but by the end of the victorian period someone must have been thinking about the enviroment but just like now it may have come up in conversation but no action.


----------



## Valhalla (12 Aug 2021)

Jacob said:


> It can never be proved unless the unseen hand chooses to pop in and admit or deny it. He (She ) might say "no that's not one of mine"!


" It can never be proved" - True (at the moment), but as every day passes there is more and more evidence that supports an evolutionary theory and less and less evidence to support a creationist one


----------



## Jacob (12 Aug 2021)

Valhalla said:


> " It can never be proved" - True (at the moment), but as every day passes there is more and more evidence that supports an evolutionary theory and less and less evidence to support a creationist one


There is no evidence at all of a "creationist" one, nor ever was.


----------



## Sachakins (13 Aug 2021)

Spectric said:


> Snip.... this goes back to people having to give up choice, far more efficient if just a handful of companys produce a certain product.


Telling people to give up choice, will immediately cause an outcry of denying my rights.
I think a different approach is need, namely the use of persuasion.
Just like companies "Convince you of a need to update, update and update" by massive marketing campaigns.
Then we need similar campaigns to "Convince you of the benefits to not update."
Not just socio-economic and sustainability mantras, as people just switch off to that, and leave it up to others.
It first needs to target the individual, define the benefits to the them, define immediate gains they can get, not long term benefits to others.
We need to break the short term upgrade cycle, and take it out of the hands of the manufacturers.
One way, especially on the technology front, is to force manufacturers into providing support for their products for a minimum time, say 8 years from the date of last production. During which time the must be made responsible to provide spares to enable fair cost repairs, they must provide continuous security and software updates and patches to keep the products in a safe, secure and usable state, without cost to the users.

The individual must be incentivised to not upgrade, show them the financial gain they get, by keeping products longer.


----------



## Trainee neophyte (13 Aug 2021)

Looking at ancient civilizations is always fun, but did you know that the Romans enjoyed a significant warm period which allowed them to feed their empire (using slaves to do the dirty work, obviously)?

Things cooled down, and the empire declined. A random link: 








Roman Warm Period Was 3.6°F Warmer Than Today, New Study Shows


Roman Empire coincided with the hottest period of the last 2,000 years in the Mediterranean.




climatechangedispatch.com





"The Mediterranean Sea was 3.6°F (2°C) hotter during the Roman Empire than other average temperatures at the time, a new study claims.

The Empire coincided with a 500-year period, from AD 1 to AD 500, which was the warmest period of the last 2,000 years in the almost completely land-locked sea.

The climate later progressed towards colder and arid conditions that coincided with the historical fall of the Empire, scientists claim."

2°C warmer than now. This was a good thing for the Roman Empire, but spells catastrophe for us. Hmm. ...


----------



## Chris152 (13 Aug 2021)




----------



## John Brown (13 Aug 2021)

Trainee neophyte said:


> If you are of the opinion that CO2 levels have risen because of human activity, you can proudly point to the fact that plants do much, much better with high levels of CO2. There has been a significant, measurable greening of the entire planet over the last 50 years, due to an increase in CO2 in the atmosphere. Below 180 ppm all photosynthesis stops, with predictably dire consequences for most life on the planet. Plants actually do best at about 1,200ppm. Well done you for keeping the planet alive.
> 
> According to the Lancet, half a million people die globally from excess heat, but 4.5 million from cold. The assumption is that global warming saves 166,000 lives per year, and rising. Given that we want to reduce CO2, who do we nominate to die?


I read that 20% of road accidents are caused by people who've drunk too much, so by my reckoning, 80% are caused by people who haven't drunk enough.


----------



## Rorschach (13 Aug 2021)

Trainee neophyte said:


> 2°C warmer than now. This was a good thing for the Roman Empire, but spells catastrophe for us. Hmm. ...



Yeah bit that's natural warming, that's ok, manmade warming is bad. It's just like the organic anti GMO arguments, nature good, man bad. All nonsense of course.


----------



## RobinBHM (13 Aug 2021)

Trainee neophyte said:


> Things cooled down, and the empire declined. A random link



a random link, not a good link
“Overall, we rate Climate Change Dispatch as a Conspiracy and Quackery level Pseudoscience source for the promotion of false or misleading information that is not in line with the consensus of science”


----------



## RobinBHM (13 Aug 2021)

Rorschach said:


> Yeah bit that's natural warming, that's ok, manmade warming is bad. It's just like the organic anti GMO arguments, nature good, man bad. All nonsense of course.



yeah you are correct, that link from TN is all nonsense.

your arguments on climate change are the same misleading garbage arguments you use on Covid.

you ignore facts and evidence on Covid endlessly, so climate change will be the same.


fanot a right wing libertarian like yourself having exactly the views as right wing libertarian funded think tanks…..you’ve been manipulated.


----------



## Trainee neophyte (13 Aug 2021)

RobinBHM said:


> a random link, not a good link
> “Overall, we rate Climate Change Dispatch as a Conspiracy and Quackery level Pseudoscience source for the promotion of false or misleading information that is not in line with the consensus of science”


So their wasn't a Roman warm period? Are you sure?









Roman Warm Period - Wikipedia







en.m.wikipedia.org













Tree rings suggest Roman world was warmer than thought


It's long been thought that tree ring data indicate 2000 years of stable global temperatures – a new analysis suggests we have been reading them the wrong way




www.newscientist.com





And my favourite: Tree-rings prove climate was WARMER in Roman and Medieval times than it is now - and world has been cooling for 2,000 years

The problem with fact checking is that the fact checkers are just gatekeepers. They cheat, lie and change their facts just as much as everyone else, but they smugly claim to have the sole repository of all knowledge at the same time.

That being said, I quite agree that I should have paid more attention and put up the New Scientist link instead - can't argue with New Scientist, now, can you.


----------



## highwood122 (13 Aug 2021)

danst96 said:


> You entirely misunderstood. The resources are there to be used and of course we can and should use them but they have been exploited and plundered beyond our immediate need. A wolf doesn't limit its intake but nor does it kill more than it needs.


a fox does


----------



## Rorschach (13 Aug 2021)

highwood122 said:


> a fox does



no they dont.


----------



## Keith Cocker (13 Aug 2021)

Jacob said:


> We belief the universe was created for us by an all seeing all knowing benevolent dung beetle in the sky.



That a load of


----------



## Jacob (13 Aug 2021)

Sachakins said:


> Telling people to give up choice, will immediately cause an outcry of denying my rights.
> .........


Not if they've got any sense, make an effort to understand the issues and have them well presented. People recognise emergencies and generally rise to the occasion.


----------



## Jacob (13 Aug 2021)

Trainee neophyte said:


> Looking at ancient civilizations is always fun, but did you know that the Romans enjoyed a significant warm period which allowed them to feed their empire (using slaves to do the dirty work, obviously)?
> 
> Things cooled down, and the empire declined. A random link:
> 
> ...


It's from a 100% loony sceptic site. There's a lot of it about.
Ditto the Daily Mail.
Yes there have been big variations during the holocene but the current trend takes us off the scale and there has been massive research over the last 50 years or so.


----------



## Rorschach (13 Aug 2021)

Jacob said:


> People recognise emergencies and generally rise to the occasion.



Well they might if they weren't gaslighted about every "emergency" that turned it wasn't really an emergency it was just a good excuse to grab power and make money.


----------



## Jacob (13 Aug 2021)

Rorschach said:


> Well they might if they weren't gaslighted about every "emergency" that turned it wasn't really an emergency it was just a good excuse to grab power and make money.


You mean all that stuff about fires in Greece and America and a lot of other places, and floods and droughts, are all gaslighting and the people there have nothing to worry about? Are they leaving their homes to soon, is it a mass panic and everything is OK really?
Maybe government agencies, or Jeremy Corbyn, are setting them off deliberately? Who is making money out of them, except emergency services on overtime?








The devastating wildfires of 2021 are breaking records and satellites are tracking it all


Wildfires in Siberia have broken a record for annual fire-related emissions of carbon dioxide.




www.space.com












Today’s Wildfires Are Taking Us into Uncharted Territory


Data on 2,000 years of Rocky Mountain forest fires shows skyrocketing damage




www.scientificamerican.com





PS there is some truth in the gaslighting notion - but the other way around. The main stream media have been extremely slow on reporting on this and generally sceptical. Even the BBC has until recently felt it should show a "balanced" picture and every comment on climate change was accompanied by counter comments from an ignorant sceptical fruit cake such as Nigel Lawson. By and large climate change has been under reported and derided by the media.


----------



## Chris152 (13 Aug 2021)

It's the green energy lobby Jacob, trying to rob the fossil-fuel industries of their meagre incomes.


----------



## Rorschach (13 Aug 2021)

@Jacob you know exactly what I meant but don't let that stop you doing your usual rants


----------



## Jacob (13 Aug 2021)

Rorschach said:


> @Jacob you know exactly what I meant but don't let that stop you doing your usual rants


Er - what exactly did you mean or is this just another of your meaningless silly comments?


----------



## Phil Pascoe (13 Aug 2021)

highwood122 said:


> a fox does


as does a badger.


----------



## Rorschach (13 Aug 2021)

Phil Pascoe said:


> as does a badger.



Wrong again. I assume you are both referring to surplus killing? If so, this is not the same as purposely overusing finite resources.


----------



## Selwyn (13 Aug 2021)

Jacob said:


> You mean all that stuff about fires in Greece and America and a lot of other places, and floods and droughts, are all gaslighting and the people there have nothing to worry about? Are they leaving their homes to soon, is it a mass panic and everything is OK really?
> Maybe government agencies, or Jeremy Corbyn, are setting them off deliberately? Who is making money out of them, except emergency services on overtime?
> 
> 
> ...



There are quite a few people - Patrick Moore, Mike Schellenberger, Matt Ridley, Bjorn Lomborg etc who are all intelligent thinking people (not fruitcakes) who say the climate is changing but that it does not have to be view in such catastrophic terms.


----------



## Rorschach (13 Aug 2021)

Selwyn said:


> There are quite a few people - Patrick Moore, Mike Schellenberger, Matt Ridley, Bjorn Lomborg etc who are all intelligent thinking people (not fruitcakes) who say the climate is changing but that it does not have to be view in such catastrophic terms.



Not very exciting though is it? Doesn't give governments opportunities to make money for themselves and their mates and claim emergency powers either. Let's go with the catastrophe instead.


----------



## Jacob (13 Aug 2021)

Selwyn said:


> There are quite a few people - Patrick Moore, Mike Schellenberger, Matt Ridley, Bjorn Lomborg etc who are all intelligent thinking people (not fruitcakes) who say the climate is changing but that it does not have to be view in such catastrophic terms.


They are a very, very, tiny eccentric minority of the scientific community, if they know anything about climate science at all. Patrick Moore was an astronomer - brilliant in his own way but had no formal science education. I don't know about the others but I suspect they are fruitcakes.


----------



## Rorschach (13 Aug 2021)

Jacob said:


> They are a very, very, tiny eccentric minority of the scientific community, if they know anything about climate science at all. Patrick Moore was an astronomer - brilliant in his own way but had no formal science education. I don't know about the others but I suspect they are fruitcakes.



    Wrong Patrick Moore, shows how much you really know


----------



## Jacob (13 Aug 2021)

Rorschach said:


> Wrong Patrick Moore, shows how much you really know


Never heard of the other one. So he's a sceptic, so what?
According to Greenpeace, Moore is "a paid spokesman for the nuclear industry, the logging industry, and genetic engineering industry" who "exploits long-gone ties with Greenpeace to sell himself as a speaker and pro-corporate spokesperson"
So if it is all exaggerated, do you believe the current global round of fires is nothing to worry about? 
Don't sceptics change their minds when presented with evidence? 
The climate change forecasts have been right so far but a bit over cautious; things happening sooner than forecast. Do you believe this is just a blip and everything will be back to normal sooner or later?


----------



## AlanY (13 Aug 2021)

I will believe there is a crisis when the rich are forced to stop using their yachts and private jets. Until then, this is all just a power grab by governments against the common man/woman and, as far as I am concerned they can go and screw themselves.
Also, to those who scream about container ships that burn 1 billion tonnes of fuel a second (or whatever it was), I say 'so what?'. The alternative to this would be that we manufacture those goods locally and, back when we did that, our air and rivers were poisoned by the factories and industrial processes. Now our air is good and our rivers are clean. All that sh*t is now in China.


----------



## Jacob (13 Aug 2021)

AlanY said:


> .....All that sh*t is now in China.


Except for the CO2 which will find its way all round the world and the water pollution which will find its way around half the world. It's not about local pollution any longer.


----------



## Trainee neophyte (13 Aug 2021)

Jacob said:


> You mean all that stuff about fires in Greece and America and a lot of other places, and floods and droughts, are all gaslighting and the people there have nothing to worry about? Are they leaving their homes to soon, is it a mass panic and everything is OK really?
> Maybe government agencies, or Jeremy Corbyn, are setting them off deliberately? Who is making money out of them, except emergency services on overtime?


A few facts about the Greek fires, which I am somewhat qualified to talk about.
1. According to the BBC, the wildfires this year were, and I quote, "unprecedented ". The Greek prime minister also used the term "unorecedented". This is a lie. It's not even close to being true. In 2007 10% of the landmass of greece caught fire, in the space of 4 days. _That_ was unprecedented. The reason for the fires is a simple: it has been a dry spring, and people set fire to the forest, sometimes by accident but mostly on purpose. This happens every year, but this year is more difficult because of the dry spring. I will leave you to find out what the total landmass percentage of fires has been so far, but it isnt even 1%, as far as I am aware. That may change, obviously.

Some man made fires:









Briton arrested for setting fires | eKathimerini.com


Police arrested a 57-year-old British man in Afidnes, north of Athens, Thursday on suspicion of arson after he allegedly started several fires in a wooded area.




www.ekathimerini.com












New fires break out in Fokida, east Mani | eKathimerini.com


Two new fires broke out on Friday, further stretching the Greek fire service that has been battling major blazes in northern Athens, Evia and the western Peloponnese since the start of the week during the biggest heatwave in decades.




www.ekathimerini.com












Man arrested for arson in Ancient Olympia | eKathimerini.com


Police on Sunday arrested a man suspected of multiple acts of arson in the municipality of Ancient Olympia in the Peloponnese, the fire service said in a press release.




www.ekathimerini.com





(Yesterday we had a few new fires caused by lightning, but up until then everything was man made, and not global warming).

2. Change of land use. Until recently most forests were managed resources with controlled fires to clear unburned fuel, and villagers would be using fuel for cooking, heating and even burning limestone to make quicklime. These things no longer happen, especially in the national parks. This means that the underbrush builds up, and then a small fire becomes a raging inferno. Apparently this is also true in the usa, among other countries. Bigger fires are due to more fuel caused mostly by changing use by humans, but I would be happy to acknowledge that more CO2 means more and faster tree growth.

3. Weather. This year, just like 2006/7 sees a Pacific El Niño event move immediately to a La Niña system. We are getting similar weather conditions to 2007. Interestingly, although everyone is claiming that this year is hotter/dryer/changier than it has ever been before, I remember 2007 as being both dryer over the winter and hotter during the summer. While I do have some records of rainfall, water table height and temperature, these are very local to me and mostly anecdotal.

4. Politics. A Greek cartoon:






In summary, fires happen. They have always happened, and they will always happen. Using them for alarmism and fear mongering doesn't really change much, except it frightens the frightenable.

One of the ancient historians (which one exactly I forget) reported fires in Greece that burned for _years. _Nothing new under the sun.


----------



## Selwyn (13 Aug 2021)

Jacob said:


> They are a very, very, tiny eccentric minority of the scientific community, if they know anything about climate science at all. Patrick Moore was an astronomer - brilliant in his own way but had no formal science education. I don't know about the others but I suspect they are fruitcakes.



Wrong Patrick Moore.

They are not eccentrics or fruitcakes. Matt Ridley and Bjorn Lomborg are very intelligent, independent thinkers. 

You are of course entitled to disagree with them but it doesn't make them fruitcakes. They just see the bigger picture differently to you.


----------



## Jacob (13 Aug 2021)

Trainee neophyte said:


> A few facts about the Greek fires, which I am somewhat qualified to talk about.
> 1. According to the BBC, the wildfires this year were, and I quote, "unprecedented ". The Greek prime minister also used the term "unorecedented". This is a lie. It's not even close to being true. In 2007 10% of the landmass of greece caught fire, in the space of 4 days. _That_ was unprecedented. The reason for the fires is a simple: it has been a dry spring, and people set fire to the forest, sometimes by accident but mostly on purpose. This happens every year, but this year is more difficult because of the dry spring. ..........


You've completely missed the point. 
More "dry springs" as in 2007 and also this year, are a feature of climate change, whatever the actual incident which set off the fires. 
This is what climate change is bringing about: "Hot temperatures, including three consecutive heat waves of over 40 °C (105 °F), and severe drought rendered the 2007 summer unprecedented in modern Greek history." 2007 Greek forest fires - Wikipedia


----------



## Jacob (13 Aug 2021)

Selwyn said:


> Wrong Patrick Moore.
> 
> They are not eccentrics or fruitcakes. Matt Ridley and Bjorn Lomborg are very intelligent, independent thinkers.
> 
> You are of course entitled to disagree with them but it doesn't make them fruitcakes. They just see the bigger picture differently to you.


It's not _my_ picture, it's the vast majority of the scientific community picture.


----------



## Selwyn (13 Aug 2021)

Jacob said:


> Never heard of the other one. So he's a sceptic, so what?
> According to Greenpeace, Moore is "a paid spokesman for the nuclear industry, the logging industry, and genetic engineering industry" who "exploits long-gone ties with Greenpeace to sell himself as a speaker and pro-corporate spokesperson"
> So if it is all exaggerated, do you believe the current global round of fires is nothing to worry about?
> Don't sceptics change their minds when presented with evidence?
> The climate change forecasts have been right so far but a bit over cautious; things happening sooner than forecast. Do you believe this is just a blip and everything will be back to normal sooner or later?



Everywhere in the world there is a fire. You cannot exclusively say these fires are a result of climate change. There are loads of factors - value of land, proximity to population, forest management etc etc. 

This May was very cold in the UK. End of July was very Hot. August is currently below average.

In France June was below average. Currently it is v hot in the med. 

Things change all the time.

I think it is a good idea to increase electrification and reduce fossil fuel use but I don't think we need to catastrophise.


----------



## Selwyn (13 Aug 2021)

Jacob said:


> You've completely missed the point. More "dry springs" as in 2007 and also this year, are a feature of climate change, whatever the actual incident which set off the fires.



What about the wet June?


----------



## Jacob (13 Aug 2021)

Selwyn said:


> What about the wet June?


 You tell me. What do you think about the wet June?


----------



## Jacob (13 Aug 2021)

Selwyn said:


> Everywhere in the world there is a fire. You cannot exclusively say these fires are a result of climate change. There are loads of factors - value of land, proximity to population, forest management etc etc.
> .....


They are all compound incidents. Climate change isn't a separate thing and whatever the other circumstances surrounding a fire, or a drought, flood, whatever, climate change will change is changing the probability of it happening. 
This crops up a lot e.g. people point to floods and say "not climate change it's low lying land already prone to flooding" but the effect of climate change will make it happen more often and to a greater degree, in places already vulnerable.


----------



## Selwyn (13 Aug 2021)

Rorschach said:


> Not very exciting though is it? Doesn't give governments opportunities to make money for themselves and their mates and claim emergency powers either. Let's go with the catastrophe instead.




World economies need massive kickstarts to keep them functioning. Its often not about slow continued growth but big leaps forward from innovation eg the wheel, the printing press, the train, the car, the internet etc. Climate change is one way ensuring another "big leap forward"


----------



## Selwyn (13 Aug 2021)

Jacob said:


> You tell me. What do you think about the wet June?



Its called weather


----------



## Selwyn (13 Aug 2021)

Jacob said:


> They are all compound incidents. Climate change isn't a separate thing and whatever the other circumstances surrounding a fire, or a drought, flood, whatever, climate change will change is changing the probability of it happening.
> This crops up a lot e.g. people point to floods and say "not climate change it's low lying land already prone to flooding" but the effect of climate change will make it happen more often and to a greater degree, in places already vulnerable.



It all depends on where the floodplain is, the value of the damage (hence it gets more reported), what is going on upstream and downstream, the drainage management etc.


----------



## Chris152 (13 Aug 2021)

So, it's pretty clear that UKW's covid (denying) experts have now retrained as climate change (denying) experts. Seems to be a pattern that speaks of individual psychologies/ personality traits rather than the issues under discussion. The shame is, it's not possible to have a sensible discussion about the issues as the denials generate so much noise. Fascinating psychologically, but gets nowhere.


----------



## Rorschach (13 Aug 2021)

It's good fun isn't it ?


----------



## Chris152 (13 Aug 2021)

Rorschach said:


> It's good fun isn't it ?


Not really, I find foolishness quite irritating. But it is quite interesting to think about how it comes into being.


----------



## Rorschach (13 Aug 2021)

Chris152 said:


> Not really, I find foolishness quite irritating.



I know exactly how you feel.


----------



## Trainee neophyte (13 Aug 2021)

Mother, should I trust the government?






If only government were honest in their dealings with the people, "experts" could and would be trusted. However all governments lie, about nearly everything. How on earth do you go through life, on the one hand freely accepting that government lies, and on the other accepting expert government opinion as truth? Or do you genuinely believe your government in all things?


----------



## Selwyn (13 Aug 2021)

Chris152 said:


> Not really, I find foolishness quite irritating. But it is quite interesting to think about how it comes into being.




You fell for the Covid scare, not me. It was obvious it was ridiculous from the start. Covid is spreading regardless of all interventions and stupid stupid modellers. If you think we have done a wonderful job of Covid management that's up to you. Its not even an exceptional disease, but billions have been spent on pretending it is. Also we will never get the freedoms we had back, students have missed two years, a levels have been trashed etc.

I actually think the climate is changing but I don't think it will be case that that it will be catastrophic above and beyond anything else that has been catastrophic in our history, the hockey stick graph was long ago debunked.


----------



## Jacob (13 Aug 2021)

Selwyn said:


> .... actually think the climate is changing but I don't think it will be case that that it will be catastrophic above and beyond anything else that has been catastrophic in our history,...


Maybe you should pop along to the COP26 conference and tell them why they are so wrong? They'd be really pleased if your evidence stood up and they could all go home and stop worrying
....


> ..., the hockey stick graph was long ago debunked.


No it wasn't.
It was disputed by the usual sceptics but is now refined, reviewed and verified by events so far _"....More than two dozen reconstructions, using various statistical methods and combinations of proxy records, support the broad consensus shown in the original 1998 hockey-stick graph, with variations in how flat the pre-20th century "shaft" appears...."_








Hockey stick graph - Wikipedia







en.wikipedia.org


----------



## Phil Pascoe (13 Aug 2021)

Jacob said:


> Maybe you should pop along to the COP26 conference and tell them why they are so wrong? They'd be really pleased if your evidence stood up and they could all go home and stop worrying ...



No they wouldn't, they'd lose their income.


----------



## Chris152 (13 Aug 2021)

Trainee neophyte said:


> Mother, should I trust the government?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I quite enjoy the 'devil's advocate' approach, Tn - in fact, I think it's important for us all to consider alternative accounts. What bothers me is when people latch on to an alternative account of things and bark on about it endlessly as if they've somehow - without having any expertise in the field - divined the truth. I see governments and businesses etc conspire to shape our consciousness and behaviour all the time, and they are enormously successful in that. It's not so tricky to observe how those conspiracies have developed historically if you study them. But that doesn't mean, for example, that the UN IPCC experts who have been sharing their findings are working on behalf of governments to deceive us. Of course, they might be but to convince me of that, you'd need an awful lot of evidence, and certainly not a general statement about govts lying. Not seen the Pink Floyd vid since I was a teenager, made sense then - to a teenage mind.


----------



## Jacob (13 Aug 2021)

Phil Pascoe said:


> No they wouldn't, they'd lose their income.


I think thats one of the most weird and improbable sceptic notions - that almost the whole of the scientific community worldwide including university research departments, meteorologists, highly skilled experts in various fields, should set about making the whole thing up, falsifying evidence, as a money making scam.


----------



## harvestbarn (13 Aug 2021)

I am sure many of us can remember the Experts predicting we were about to enter another ice age a good few years ago. That has not yet happened to state the obvious!

We seem to have had less volcanic activity latley, It could be the lack of the ash in the air has allowed a little extra warming?


----------



## Valhalla (13 Aug 2021)

Chris152 said:


> So, it's pretty clear that UKW's covid (denying) experts have now retrained as climate change (denying) experts. Seems to be a pattern that speaks of individual psychologies/ personality traits rather than the issues under discussion. The shame is, it's not possible to have a sensible discussion about the issues as the denials generate so much noise. Fascinating psychologically, but gets nowhere.
> View attachment 115876



Does this mean that those 'Genuinely smart people' who are at the top of the 'smart tree' don't know that they are at the top of the 'smart tree' and waste endless time and energy looking for people smarter than themselves to get answers from.....so who's really smart?


----------



## Jacob (13 Aug 2021)

harvestbarn said:


> I am sure many of us can remember the Experts predicting we were about to enter another ice age a good few years ago.


Yes and no. You could find out about it if you could be bothered


> We seem to have had less volcanic activity latley, It could be the lack of the ash in the air has allowed a little extra warming?


Guess what - it's crossed their minds too! Volcanoes and Climate Change | Earthdata


----------



## Jacob (13 Aug 2021)

Valhalla said:


> Does this mean that those 'Genuinely smart people' who are at the top of the 'smart tree' don't know that they are at the top of the 'smart tree' and waste endless time and energy looking for people smarter than themselves to get answers from.....so who's really smart?


No, they do masses of research and produce masses of evidence.


----------



## Rorschach (13 Aug 2021)

Jacob said:


> I think thats one of the most weird and improbable sceptic notions - that almost the whole of the scientific community worldwide including university research departments, meteorologists, highly skilled experts in various fields, should set about making the whole thing up, falsifying evidence, as a money making scam.



For some it's a money making scam of course, but for many it's simply going along with the consensus because otherwise your funding gets cut. This happens in many areas of science of course, not just climate.


----------



## Valhalla (13 Aug 2021)

Jacob said:


> No, they do masses of research and produce masses of evidence.


I would say that they produce theoretical evidence which then has to stand up to scrutiny and undergo extensive testing before being accepted as being true based on current knowledge


----------



## Jacob (13 Aug 2021)

Valhalla said:


> I would say that they produce theoretical evidence which then has to stand up to scrutiny and undergo extensive testing before being accepted as being true based on current knowledge


They certainly do. Though "testing" isn't quite the word - you can't test a forecast, except by waiting to see how it turns out. So far they are turning out as forecast but rather quicker than anticipated..


----------



## J-G (13 Aug 2021)

Jacob said:


> Guess what - it's crossed their minds too! Volcanoes and Climate Change | Earthdata


It's not just volcanoes - the 'Clean Air Act' also has its part to play. Less air pollution = lighter clouds = more sunlight getting through !


----------



## John Brown (13 Aug 2021)

One thing about climate change, it will affect those who don't believe in it as much as those who do. A sort of reverse Pascal's wager.
It will, of course, affect the rich less than the poor, like most things.
Out here in Des Moines WA, the temperature is unpleasantly high in an area that is usually comparable to the UK weather-wise, and in Spokane WA the smoke from wildfires was worse than I've seen in 20 years.
Only anecdotal, I know...


----------



## Selwyn (13 Aug 2021)

John Brown said:


> One thing about climate change, it will affect those who don't believe in it as much as those who do. A sort of reverse Pascal's wager.
> It will, of course, affect the rich less than the poor, like most things.
> Out here in Des Moines WA, the temperature is unpleasantly high in an area that is usually comparable to the UK weather-wise, and in Spokane WA the smoke from wildfires was worse than I've seen in 20 years.
> Only anecdotal, I know...




We had a hot july and currently have a cold august in the UK.

Amount of rainfall over 12 months in the UK has changed very little in 100 years. Potentially we have heavier storms some times but lets not pretend that never happened in the past.


----------



## Rorschach (13 Aug 2021)

Selwyn said:


> We had a hot july and currently have a cold august in the UK.
> 
> Amount of rainfall over 12 months in the UK has changed very little in 100 years. Potentially we have heavier storms some times but lets not pretend that never happened in the past.



Yep I had to go to London, normally this time of year I would avoid it at almost any cost because it is hot, humid and smelly in the summer. It was very pleasant, actually rather chilly in the mornings, very comfortable indeed. So cool in fact the children wore jumpers and didn't even complain about being hot.


----------



## Selwyn (13 Aug 2021)

Chris152 said:


> I quite enjoy the 'devil's advocate' approach, Tn - in fact, I think it's important for us all to consider alternative accounts. What bothers me is when people latch on to an alternative account of things and bark on about it endlessly as if they've somehow - without having any expertise in the field - divined the truth. I see governments and businesses etc conspire to shape our consciousness and behaviour all the time, and they are enormously successful in that. It's not so tricky to observe how those conspiracies have developed historically if you study them. But that doesn't mean, for example, that the UN IPCC experts who have been sharing their findings are working on behalf of governments to deceive us. Of course, they might be but to convince me of that, you'd need an awful lot of evidence, and certainly not a general statement about govts lying. Not seen the Pink Floyd vid since I was a teenager, made sense then - to a teenage mind.



A lot of the aim of politics at a practical level is to keep people "alarmed", thereby needing the politicians to lead them to safety. We have some good examples of this


----------



## Trainee neophyte (13 Aug 2021)

Chris152 said:


> But that doesn't mean, for example, that the UN IPCC experts who have been sharing their findings are working on behalf of governments to deceive us.


I am of the opinion that the government (all governments) require a fearful population who look to their leaders for safety and salvation. In the old days (up until perhaps 100 years ago) we had good old religion to keep the congregation frightened and compliant. Now that religion has been sidelined we need other things to be scared of. 

Climate change is the new religion, requiring faith, and needing tithes, sacrifices and obedience.

Covid serves a similar purpose, with all its arbitrary, ever - changing rules, requirements and beliefs.

Is the climate changing? Of course - it's what climates do. Is it all the fault of humans? Probably not, given that the climate changed for billions of years before humans existed, and will continue to change for billions of years after we have gone. Is there a small portion of change that might be attributed to humans? Perhaps. Maybe. The IPCC says (I think - it's hard to tell) that human are responsible for 5% of annual CO2 planetary output. If you removed all the humans from the planet, you might be able to make a small change to the climate...or you might not. Hard to say.

As to outright lies by climate scientists - remember "Climategate"? 

Here's an alternative view of the current hockey stick graph and the underlying data that makes it so scarey: 








The IPCC AR6 Hockeystick


Although climate scientists keep telling that defects in their “hockey stick” proxy reconstructions don’t matter – that it doesn’t matter whether they use data upside …




climateaudit.org





Roger will be along shortly to tell us that this is a heretic site run by unbelievers, and must be expunged from the record immediately. No different to any other religion.

As a farmer, it is far more important for me to work out what is actually going to happen, as opposed to what the "experts" claim is going to happen. For the moment I think globally we _might_ be in for a bout of cooling which will cause me far more problems than a trivial bit of warming. Look to the southern hemisphere winter weather for a hint of what we will be getting this winter - it's not looking good so far, but one winter doesn't make a climate trend. I'll be proven right or wrong by 2030, hopefully.


----------



## Jacob (13 Aug 2021)

Selwyn said:


> We had a hot july and currently have a cold august in the UK.
> 
> Amount of rainfall over 12 months in the UK has changed very little in 100 years. Potentially we have heavier storms some times but lets not pretend that never happened in the past.


nobody is pretending they didn't happen in the past, especially in the UK which has very varied weather. 
The issues are frequency and intensity UK extreme events - Heavy rainfall and floods


----------



## Jacob (13 Aug 2021)

Trainee neophyte said:


> I am of the opinion that the government (all governments) require a fearful population who look to their leaders for safety and salvation. In the old days (up until perhaps 100 years ago) we had good old religion to keep the congregation frightened and compliant. Now that religion has been sidelined we need other things to be scared of.
> 
> Climate change is the new religion, requiring faith, and needing tithes, sacrifices and obedience.
> 
> ...


That site is complete drivel from the very first paragraph: _Although climate scientists keep telling that defects in their “hockey stick” proxy reconstructions don’t matter – that it doesn’t matter whether they use data upside down, that it doesn’t matter if they cherry pick individual series depending on whether they go up in the 20th century, that it doesn’t matter if they discard series that don’t go the “right” way (“hide the decline”), that it doesn’t matter if they used contaminated data or stripbark bristlecones, that such errors don’t matter because the hockey stick itself doesn’t matter_


----------



## Chris152 (13 Aug 2021)

Trainee neophyte said:


> The IPCC says (I think - it's hard to tell) that human are responsible for 5% of annual CO2 planetary output. If you removed all the humans from the planet, you might be able to make a small change to the climate...or you might not. Hard to say.


'The figure below from the IPCC report illustrates why 96–97% of climate science experts and peer-reviewed research agree that humans are _the main cause_ of global warming.'








The 97% v the 3% – just how much global warming are humans causing? | Dana Nuccitelli


Dana Nuccitelli: The preponderance of evidence shows that humans are responsible for about 100% of the warming since 1950




www.theguardian.com





I agree completely that governments seek to create a docile, compliant populace, and they do it in ways and to an extent that the populace isn't generally aware of. But simply saying that the science that governments respond to and take into account in policy, laws and so on - precisely the science that the broader scientific community have consensus on - is corrupt in all cases by virtue of the fact governments are referring to it, is lazy. Offering anecdotal evidence, picking out moments from the past when climate events happened as if the scientists hadn't taken them into account is utterly subjective and by itself certainly not the way knowledge is achieved. 
I enjoy doubting, wondering if there are other ways of seeing things as much as you seem to, but when it comes to things that I know next to nothing about, I'm quite happy to accept what the experts in the field have to say - unless, of course, there's clear evidence that the information that the consensus of expert opinion is corrupt, which isn't the case here. 

Again, it's not possible to talk about ways of responding to climate change because discussion gets stuck on whether or not it's real etc. We could do the same with making a table - is this wood I see before me, out there in the world, or is it a construction of my mind? - but we tend not to treat wood in that way, all evidence suggests it's real, and has the potential to be a table. So we talk about the best joints etc. We can doubt everything, but doing so without good reason leads to madness.


----------



## Selwyn (13 Aug 2021)

Jacob said:


> nobody is pretending they didn't happen in the past, especially in the UK which has very varied weather.
> The issues are frequency and intensity UK extreme events - Heavy rainfall and floods



Look they only record floods when it happens. Lots of areas used to flood and no one ever recorded it if it was on farmland. Now we have tarmaced so much more. This is not a "climate crisis"

Its alarmism


----------



## Terry - Somerset (13 Aug 2021)

Weather is what is happening now or in the last few days/weeks. A forecast has a timescale - usually the next few days or weeks. Climate is usually defined as what has happened (or will happen) over a 30 year period.

A few execeptionally hot/cold/windy days is not proof of climate change. Repeated events and trends probably are!

However it is increasingly clear debate is futile. Apparently some are willing to believe that analysis by world leading scientists is corrupted by funding and personal career aspirations.

They also seem to believe that their personal views and those of selected (obviously gifted and knowledgeable) journalists with no real scientific credibilty should carry equal weight. 

One has to question whether certainty in the views of the clearly uninformed, and often ill-informed, should be carried through into daily life. 

Why bother with the doctor when the supermarket shelf stacker claims to know all about chest pain and bowel movements. The local joiner is much cheaper than a qualified dentist - no need for several years study when chisel, pliers and Black and Decker can do the job. And when buying your new house get the local hairdresser to take a good look at the lease before signing on the bottom line.

Or perhaps they are simply trolling - a bit of fun to raise blood pressure and stimulate debates.


----------



## Selwyn (13 Aug 2021)

Ok lets put it another way.

Is it ethical for those who are worried about climate change and see it as terrible to have children? At the end of the day such actions cause harm to the planet.


----------



## Rorschach (13 Aug 2021)

Selwyn said:


> Ok lets put it another way.
> 
> Is it ethical for those who are worried about climate change and see it as terrible to have children? At the end of the day such actions cause harm to the planet.



All those making a fuss appear to have kids.


----------



## Trainee neophyte (13 Aug 2021)

@Chris152 thankyou for the reasoned and polite replies. It's unusual with this topic, so much appreciated. 

One point - I was talking about the percentage of CO2 attributed to human sources, vs "natural" sources - not the percentage of warming attributed, which is not the same. 

Another point - consensus is irrelevant: it takes just one proof to demolish a hypothesis, not a committee, as Einstein was keen to point out. Science isn't (or at least shouldn't be) a collection of religious cults, with the one with the most believers winning the day. Max Planke suggested science advances one funeral at a time, and I don't think things have improved since his day.

And no, I won't abrogate my duty to consider things just because I haven't spent the required number of years obtaining the required certificates to confirm my initiation into the holy mysteries. I'll continue to think for myself, even if I don't do it conventionally. Everyone needs a hobby, and it's indoor work with no heavy lifting. I can even do it when it's raining.

Future historians, assuming there are such things, will have some interesting things to say about the early 21st century. Possibly similar to what they say about the Dutch tulip mania or South Sea Bubble. We live in interesting times.


----------



## Chris152 (13 Aug 2021)

Trainee neophyte said:


> @Chris152 thankyou for the reasoned and polite replies.


Hedging my bets for SUPing at your gaff in the small window that may yet open after Covid restrictions and before armageddon.


----------



## woodieallen (13 Aug 2021)

Rorschach said:


> All those making a fuss appear to have kids.


Interesting statement. Do you have any evidence to back up that statement ? I don't have a view either way but when someone makes a black and white statement like that, I'm always interested in the provenance.


----------



## Jacob (13 Aug 2021)

Trainee neophyte said:


> @Chris152 thankyou for the reasoned and polite replies. It's unusual with this topic, so much appreciated.
> 
> One point - I was talking about the percentage of CO2 attributed to human sources, vs "natural" sources - not the percentage of warming attributed, which is not the same.
> 
> ........


% of the *extra* warming 951 to 2010 due to man made CO2 is reckoned at over 100% according to this. The 97% v the 3% – just how much global warming are humans causing? | Dana Nuccitelli
Sounds illogical but that's because without human input there would have been a natural cooling, so over 100% is possible. You can see it on the hockey stick graph - CO2 and temperatures were falling in the past
I presume the figure for *extra* CO2 in the atmosphere would also be well over 100% as we have deforested worldwide so non human CO2 production would be declining. The figures will be around somewhere.
It is obviously impossible to identify the separate sources in real terms, so these figures are calculated from research.
Two things appear to be certain - that there is an increase on anthropogenic CO2, producing an increase in global temperatures, which is happening now.


----------



## rafezetter (14 Aug 2021)

Terry - Somerset said:


> There are several ways to change behaviours to achieve reduced consumption of fossil fuels. If you think all is OK so why bother - don't waste time reading the rest of this post.
> 
> Legislation limiting consumption - eg: gas central heating boilers, EV and ICE banned from 2030. This can work if alternative technologies allow a fairly smooth transition. Measures need to be easily enforcable. Will not change all behaviours.
> 
> ...



Tax carbon consumption - I like that idea a lot, (but then I'm a low purchase person) each item comes with it a "carbon rating / amount" whatever and just like tax you get an allowance, over that and you have to pay, so all those idiots onthier 3rd phone in 3 years, or designer shoes, or basically every "luxury" item INCLUDING holidays, gets taxed. Yes some companies will have to hike prices in order to stay in business and others will fold, but thats the point right? A HEAVY Reduction of wastful consumerism, make it last longer not built in obsolescence, fix instead of buying new - basically a reset of consumerism to about 50 - 100 years ago. - and a bonus is China will get cut off at the knees, losing a lot of thier stranglehold on the worlds manufacturing, and thus losing a lot of economic and therefore Govt power.

it's a win for everybody, except the greedy sprouts who got us here in the first place chasing profit at the cost of the planet.


----------



## rafezetter (14 Aug 2021)

danst96 said:


> I think you answered your own question. As for that "joke" it makes no sense since if the person went to heaven after refusing all other things, then he was saved?? The irony of the ignorant. Anyway im not here to preach, like i said before, i have my belief, you are entitled to your own and as much as we like to trash each other for believing something different it really isnt that bad.
> 
> You are 100% correct though it is mans stupidity and greed we are in this mess. The earth and resources was created to be used by man but not abused to the extent it has been.



But errmmmm.... don't christians beleive that all mans (meaning humans) actions are divined by God? .... err..... yeah - and this is where it all falls apart.

"the folly of man" - pretty much sums up all that's wrong with your point. - see also "Gods divine plan" - and cross reference that with my previous point about "God loves all his children" - unless (to restate myself) you are saying that his Divine Plan was to poison us all along....

We don't know if he was "saved" or not, it wasn't the point of the joke as you well know - frankly if I was God and I knew that person had willfully ignored the help of the other people (having been divined by God) I'd be disinclined to grant entry to heaven. We also know St Peter is just the mouthpiece of God, (no I don't mean the Metatron) and the joke doesn't work if we get into the nitty gritty of where that person is standing when he gets judged for his (or her) stupidity, also lets not get tied up in theological semantics.


----------



## Rorschach (14 Aug 2021)

woodieallen said:


> Interesting statement. Do you have any evidence to back up that statement ? I don't have a view either way but when someone makes a black and white statement like that, I'm always interested in the provenance.



Most have mentioned it here, I was talking about forum members, though quite possibly true worldwide as well, most people do have children.


----------



## Jacob (14 Aug 2021)

rafezetter said:


> Tax carbon consumption - I like that idea a lot, (but then I'm a low purchase person) each item comes with it a "carbon rating / amount" whatever and just like tax you get an allowance, over that and you have to pay, so all those idiots onthier 3rd phone in 3 years, or designer shoes, or basically every "luxury" item INCLUDING holidays, gets taxed. Yes some companies will have to hike prices in order to stay in business and others will fold, but thats the point right? A HEAVY Reduction of wastful consumerism, make it last longer not built in obsolescence, fix instead of buying new - basically a reset of consumerism to about 50 - 100 years ago. - and a bonus is China will get cut off at the knees, losing a lot of thier stranglehold on the worlds manufacturing, and thus losing a lot of economic and therefore Govt power.
> 
> it's a win for everybody, except the greedy sprouts who got us here in the first place chasing profit at the cost of the planet.


Yes I think you've got the idea! To some extent at least. 
It's glaringly obvious what needs to be done i.e. to reduce fossil fuel use to zero and to expand carbon capture by reforestation and any other means. The problem is in mitigating the outcomes in terms of peoples' livelihoods and lifestyles and mitigating the effects of climate change itself, which is already with us and will take many years to slow and reverse.
Can't blame the Chinese they don't have a stranglehold - nobody is obliged to buy anything from them and they don't have any monopolies. Except the Chinese are well ahead in sustainable energy technology and the rest of the world may end up having to buy Chinese. The future is looking definitely Chinese.


----------



## Suffolk Brian (14 Aug 2021)

Trainee neophyte said:


> So their wasn't a Roman warm period? Are you sure?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



history is always written by the winners.


----------



## Jacob (14 Aug 2021)

Trainee neophyte said:


> ....
> 
> Another point - consensus is irrelevant: it takes just one proof to demolish a hypothesis,


97% (or some such figure) of the science community have been desperately looking at the hypotheses and have not been able to demolish them. 
This isn't a "cult" or a "consensus" it's just a fact. 
The "cults" are to be found in what you call the "alternative science", which is a contradiction in terms - there is no "alternative" to science except ignorance and nonsense.


----------



## Rorschach (14 Aug 2021)

Suffolk Brian said:


> history is always written by the winners.



I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say the evidence for the Roman warm period didn't come from the Romans themselves


----------



## Jacob (14 Aug 2021)

Trainee neophyte said:


> So their wasn't a Roman warm period? Are you sure?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


The Wikipedia and New Scientist are better links than the Mail or the loony site in your earlier posts
Science is built on scepticism and doubt and endlessly scrutinised. Wikipedia and other sources go to great lengths to verify their content.
Those who "cheat, lie and change their facts ..... but they smugly claim to have the sole repository of all knowledge" are to be found in religion, politics, cults, and "alternative" science; non-science, or "nonsense" for short.


> That being said, I quite agree that I should have paid more attention and put up the New Scientist link instead - can't argue with New Scientist, now, can you.


Exactly. 
The various changes over the holocene are all known about and incorporated into the overall picture. You haven't found anomalies which have been ignored by the science.


----------



## Jacob (14 Aug 2021)

Rorschach said:


> I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say the evidence for the Roman warm period didn't come from the Romans themselves


I don't know and neither do you. But either way it makes no difference to the overall picture.
In fact land clearance itself does increase temperatures so the Romans may well have contributed, by farming sheep and goats. Forests absorb massive amounts of solar energy, grassland does not.








What Really Turned the Sahara Desert From a Green Oasis Into a Wasteland?


10,000 years ago, this iconic desert was unrecognizable. A new hypothesis suggests that humans may have tipped the balance




www.smithsonianmag.com













Climate change: July world's hottest month ever recorded - US agency


US scientists say July's land and ocean temperature was 0.93C (1.68F) above the 20th Century average.



www.bbc.co.uk


----------



## hairy (14 Aug 2021)

Jacob said:


> That site is complete drivel from the very first paragraph:



" *Our Earth is warming.* Earth's average temperature has risen by 1.5°F over the past century, and is projected to rise another 0.5 to 8.6°F over the next hundred years"

From your post 30 in this thread as below. Discussing how this planet may have changed in the last few years is far too short a time scale to be relevant IMHO.


Why not read some of the information coming out, find some answers instead of trying to work it all out for yourself?

*  Climate Change: Basic Information | Climate Change | US EPA  *





19january2017snapshot.epa.gov


----------



## hairy (14 Aug 2021)




----------



## hairy (14 Aug 2021)

Anecdotally, my neighbours Grandad reckoned all the black covering the tidal rocks near here only became black around WW2 because of all the oil from sunk ships. Still above water.

I have tried to search for ports which have had to be modified due to all this sea level rising but all that comes up is future dire predictions. I would have thought there would already have had to be massive and widespread modification going on?


----------



## Jacob (14 Aug 2021)

hairy said:


> Anecdotally, my neighbours Grandad reckoned all the black covering the tidal rocks near here only became black around WW2 because of all the oil from sunk ships. Still above water.
> 
> I have tried to search for ports which have had to be modified due to all this sea level rising but all that comes up is future dire predictions. I would have thought there would already have had to be massive and widespread modification going on?


Since 1993 global sea level rise has been 6 to 8 inches according to Nasa How long have sea levels been rising? How does recent sea level rise compare to that over the previous centuries? – NASA Sea Level Change Portal.
That's nothing for most tidal ports compared to rise and fall of tides which is much greater - up to 40ft and more in some places.
But the picture is very different for low lying areas which are much more vulnerable
Look at Holland. Low lying places are the first to react obviously. They are spending millions in anticipation of sea level rise and the much bigger problem of increased rainfall bringing more water down the Rhine etc. When will the Netherlands disappear?
Or look at Wales ‘This is a wake-up call’: the villagers who could be Britain’s first climate refugees
n.b. blackened rocks - they were a big feature after the Torry Canyon and other oil spills. No doubt WW2 had similar effect!


----------



## MikeJhn (14 Aug 2021)

Jacob said:


> Those who "cheat, lie and change their facts ..... but they smugly claim to have the sole repository of all knowledge" are to be found in religion, politics, cults, and "alternative" science; non-science, or "nonsense". *And on UK Workshops with over 19,000 posts.*


Corrected that for you.


----------



## Selwyn (14 Aug 2021)

This is a pretty sensible interview and kind of reflects my thinking on it all:









‘Climate change is real – but it’s not the apocalypse’


Roger Pielke Jr on what the IPCC report actually tells us about the climate.




www.spiked-online.com





The hysterics on here would do well to read it


----------



## Droogs (14 Aug 2021)

hairy said:


> " *Our Earth is warming.* Earth's average temperature has risen by 1.5°F over the past century, and is projected to rise another 0.5 to 8.6°F over the next hundred years"
> 
> From your post 30 in this thread as below. Discussing how this planet may have changed in the last few years is far too short a time scale to be relevant IMHO.
> 
> ...




You are aware that the US EPA's website was taken off line at the start of Trumps term and the original NOAA and EPA information was removed and replaced by information supplied by various Fossil Fuel companies and their paid researchers at the behest of the then new head of the EPA who was in fact the ex CEO of an oil company. The damage done to its abilities and reputation are only now starting to be reversed


----------



## RobinBHM (14 Aug 2021)

Trainee neophyte said:


> That being said, I quite agree that I should have paid more attention and put up the New Scientist link instead - can't argue with New Scientist, now, can you



you are an unpleasant troll.

your first link claimed a warmer period in Roman times proves climate change is untrue.

thenew scientist link also shows a warmer period in Roman times but does NOT make the claim that climate change is untrue.


What is your motivation for your dishonest posts?


----------



## RobinBHM (14 Aug 2021)

Selwyn said:


> This is a pretty sensible interview and kind of reflects my thinking on it all:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Thank you for proving my point: Fossil fuel interests fund websites that conveniently post articles that are climate change sceptic.

and here we have it:
” Funding. A joint investigation between DeSmog UK and The Guardian revealed that Spiked US Inc. received funding from the Charles Koch Foundation”

Charles Koch foundation = funded by fossil fuels


----------



## RobinBHM (14 Aug 2021)

Droogs said:


> You are aware that the US EPA's website was taken off line at the start of Trumps term and the original NOAA and EPA information was removed and replaced by information supplied by various Fossil Fuel companies and their paid researchers at the behest of the then new head of the EPA who was in fact the ex CEO of an oil company. The damage done to its abilities and reputation are only now starting to be reversed



Trump has created a new era:a post truth era


----------



## Jacob (14 Aug 2021)

MikeJhn said:


> Corrected that for you.


Yes it is a lot of posts but nowhere near the top! Hope you have read them all. 
I don't think I've cheated, lied and changed facts, or claim to have the sole repository of all knowledge. Made mistakes no doubt, got things wrong.
It's a finding out process for me - having to look things up and check out the facts, as with this thread - some very interesting stuff turning up.
PS just noticed - you are not doing too badly yourself with over 4k posts, though I can't recall any of them being very interesting or useful.


----------



## Jacob (14 Aug 2021)

RobinBHM said:


> Thank you for proving my point: Fossil fuel interests fund websites that conveniently post articles that are climate change sceptic.
> 
> and here we have it:
> ” Funding. A joint investigation between DeSmog UK and The Guardian revealed that Spiked US Inc. received funding from the Charles Koch Foundation”
> ...


I didn't know that but had my suspicions. There was something so very cautious in the article, no direct untruths just claims of over reaction and persuasion not to worry etc. Soft soap propaganda.


----------



## Droogs (14 Aug 2021)

@Jacob I give you my hearty congratulations mate, given the number of times you've had your UKW activities shall we say curtailed over the last 12 years, that is a truly impressive number of posts. Well done here's a round of


----------



## Jacob (14 Aug 2021)

RobinBHM said:


> you are an unpleasant troll.
> 
> your first link claimed a warmer period in Roman times proves climate change is untrue.
> 
> ...


Not dishonest just confused IMHO. CC is a complicated issue and not simply either/or, which is not good enough for many. It's also hypothetical, until the evidence rolls in, as it is doing.


----------



## Rorschach (14 Aug 2021)

Jacob said:


> I don't know and neither do you.




WOOOOOOOOOSHHH!


----------



## TominDales (14 Aug 2021)

Trainee neophyte said:


> If you are of the opinion that CO2 levels have risen because of human activity, you can proudly point to the fact that plants do much, much better with high levels of CO2. There has been a significant, measurable greening of the entire planet over the last 50 years, due to an increase in CO2 in the atmosphere. Below 180 ppm all photosynthesis stops, with predictably dire consequences for most life on the planet. Plants actually do best at about 1,200ppm. Well done you for keeping the planet alive.
> 
> According to the Lancet, half a million people die globally from excess heat, but 4.5 million from cold. The assumption is that global warming saves 166,000 lives per year, and rising. Given that we want to reduce CO2, who do we nominate to die?


Note that climate change will also cause extreme cold in places that arn't used to it such as Texas last year as the circulation of the jet stream around the pole weakens cold polar air will leak south more frequently. As global temperatures continue to rise, 5c would be the trajectory is nothing is done, then extremes of cold hot and violent storms will also take their toll, so its hard to do a deaths or lives balance with any predictability.


----------



## Selwyn (14 Aug 2021)

RobinBHM said:


> Thank you for proving my point: Fossil fuel interests fund websites that conveniently post articles that are climate change sceptic.
> 
> and here we have it:
> ” Funding. A joint investigation between DeSmog UK and The Guardian revealed that Spiked US Inc. received funding from the Charles Koch Foundation”
> ...



The guy isn't sceptic. He's saying it is happening however the media is getting hysterical about it and frightening people with scenario's that seem highly unlikely to evolve.


----------



## Selwyn (14 Aug 2021)

Jacob said:


> I didn't know that but had my suspicions. There was something so very cautious in the article, no direct untruths just claims of over reaction and persuasion not to worry etc. Soft soap propaganda.



Maybe he's just saying lets not throw the baby out with the bathwater?


----------



## Jacob (14 Aug 2021)

Selwyn said:


> The guy isn't sceptic. He's saying it is happening however the media is getting hysterical about it and frightening people with scenario's that seem highly unlikely to evolve.


Soft soap sceptic - and he has no reason to say it's highly unlikely to evolve.
The out and out nutter sceptics are easy to spot and largely discredited, so they need a softly softly approach.


----------



## Selwyn (14 Aug 2021)

Jacob said:


> Soft soap sceptic - and he has no reason to say it's highly unlikely to evolve.



I'd probably say he's not a hysteric who thinks the world is doomed. 

Your the man who is saying "we have more floods and storms and therefore that is a result of catastrophic climate change". He is pointing out that people who claim that are being misled and that is also definitely not what the ipcc are saying.


----------



## Phil Pascoe (14 Aug 2021)

Jacob said:


> n.b. blackened rocks - they were a big feature after the Torry Canyon and other oil spills. No doubt WW2 had similar effect!



They weren't, there was very little oil/tar on the rocks - it was in the sand. The rocks were lagged in new seaweed because the pollution had killed the limpets and other creatures that ate the seaweed.


----------



## Selwyn (14 Aug 2021)

TominDales said:


> Note that climate change will also cause extreme cold in places that arn't used to it such as Texas last year as the circulation of the jet stream around the pole weakens cold polar air will leak south more frequently. As global temperatures continue to rise, 5c would be the trajectory is nothing is done, then extremes of cold hot and violent storms will also take their toll, so its hard to do a deaths or lives balance with any predictability.



You need to also remember humans innovate all the time. We are moving around all the time


----------



## TominDales (14 Aug 2021)

Trainee neophyte said:


> Looking at ancient civilizations is always fun, but did you know that the Romans enjoyed a significant warm period which allowed them to feed their empire (using slaves to do the dirty work, obviously)?
> 
> Things cooled down, and the empire declined. A random link:
> 
> ...


I'd be cautious about these 'so called new studies' science encourages researchers to look for anomalies, its how it progresses, however until they have been properly verified best to see it as interesting but not proven. Most climate scientific opinion is that global temperatures over the past 2500 years varied by about 0.6C due to natural orbital variegation. As with most climate change the temperature was not evenly distributed, but the med being 2c hotter is an outlier on a huge amount of work in this area. I'd regard these studies a potentially dangerous as they distract from what is a real problem of global warming and they give credence to climate sceptics.


----------



## Jacob (14 Aug 2021)

Phil Pascoe said:


> They weren't, there was very little oil/tar on the rocks - it was in the sand. The rocks were lagged in new seaweed because the pollution had killed the limpets and other creatures that ate the seaweed.


I've seen tar or oil (black stuff) stuck to rocks in Cornwall, at about high tide mark. A very visible line but weathered in and no longer sticky. This was about 1970 and not long after Torrey Canyon.


----------



## Phil Pascoe (14 Aug 2021)

I must have lived somewhere else.

You might have seen oil on a high tide mark, but you wouldn't have seen "blackened rocks" - the stuff floats. You could probably find oil on high tide lines now - it's been there on occasion probably since WW2, certainly since the '50s when I was a child.


----------



## Jacob (14 Aug 2021)

Phil Pascoe said:


> I must have lived somewhere else.


At the time I was living in Cornwall and we spent a lot of time on beaches, between Looe and Fowey.


----------



## hog&amp;bodge (14 Aug 2021)

I was down Llandudno North Wales a week back, walking on the shore line was disgusting, it was 
all scummy & full of rubbish from one end to the other. but it did not put some people 
off they just waded past the muck and went for a swim. bet they blame the hotel food for having
a bad guts the next day..lol


----------



## Trainee neophyte (14 Aug 2021)

Jacob said:


> the figure for *extra* CO2 in the atmosphere would also be well over 100% as we have deforested worldwide so non human CO2 production would be declining. The figures will be around somewhere.


Rather than presuming, let's have a look.









Climate myths: Human CO<SUB>2</SUB> emissions are too tiny to matter


It's true that natural sources are huge, but they are balanced by natural sinks - human contributions are tipping this balance




www.newscientist.com





Obviously the article confirms we are all going to die, imminently, but it does have some numbers.

"
The consumption of terrestrial vegetation by animals and by microbes (rotting, in other words) emits about 220 gigatonnes of CO2 every year, while respiration by vegetation emits another 220 Gt. These huge amounts are balanced by the 440 Gt of carbon dioxide absorbed from the atmosphere each year as land plants photosynthesise.

Similarly, parts of the oceans release about 330 Gt of CO2 per year, depending on temperature and rates of photosynthesis by phytoplankton, but other parts usually soak up just as much – and are now soaking up slightly more.

*Ocean sinks*
Human emissions of CO2 are now estimated to be 26.4 Gt per year, up from 23.5 Gt in the 1990s, according to an Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report in February 2007 (pdf format). Disturbances to the land – through deforestation and agriculture, for instance – also contribute roughly 5.9 Gt per year.


RobinBHM said:


> you are an unpleasant troll.
> 
> your first link claimed a warmer period in Roman times proves climate change is untrue.
> 
> ...


Well hello to you, too. Always a pleasure to have a friendly chat.

I grabbed a random link off the internet to confirm that there was such a beast as "The Roman Warm Period". That's it. Any conclusions about the existence of God Climate Change were extraneous to a trivially small point. I even said it was a "random link", just in case you thought I had read it cover to cover and I endorsed every one of its heretical points. Broad brush strokes rather than detailed nitty gritty. Next time I offend you (and I guarantee there will be a next time, because you take offence so very easily), relax, take a deep breath, and work out what I was probably trying to say, as opposed the deeply offensive thing you believe I have said. 

At no point am I trying to troll, or get a rise or offend. Until someone gets unpleasant, that is - I will admit to occasionally losing the will to be nice, but that is my failing, and I try extremely hard not to take the bait.


----------



## Spectric (14 Aug 2021)

Jacob said:


> Science is built on scepticism and doubt and endlessly scrutinised.


Science is what we believe to know at a given time, there are a lot of theories especially when it comes to the universe and how it came about. 



hog&amp;bodge said:


> walking on the shore line was disgusting, it was
> all scummy & full of rubbish from one end to the other.



You don't need science to realise humans are not the cleanest of beings and many treat our planet as just a big dustbin. It is the amount of raw sewerage going into the rivers and oceans that is really not nice, but if you think there are 7.8 billion people on this planet and if you say they all only poo once a day and you average it out to 250 grams each then that is 1950000000000 grams, or 1.95 million tonnes of poo a day and is a lot of poo.


----------



## Trainee neophyte (14 Aug 2021)

TominDales said:


> I'd be cautious about these 'so called new studies' science encourages researchers to look for anomalies, its how it progresses, however until they have been properly verified best to see it as interesting but not proven. Most climate scientific opinion is that global temperatures over the past 2500 years varied by about 0.6C due to natural orbital variegation. As with most climate change the temperature was not evenly distributed, but the med being 2c hotter is an outlier on a huge amount of work in this area. I'd regard these studies a potentially dangerous as they distract from what is a real problem of global warming and they give credence to climate sceptics.



A picture paints a thousand words:







Hopefully that isn't too contentious


----------



## TominDales (14 Aug 2021)

Spectric said:


> We have all seen the news recently regarding the increasing threats from global warming, so what is going to change following the UN climate summit in Glasgow this November, maybe a list of promises to do something one day but I doubt very little else because in reality what can they do.


Boy you have sparked a debate.

I'm sure you are right that our government won't take difficult decisions but nevertheless I do think progress will be made as quite a lot of CO2 reductions can be made by stimulating industry at relatively little cost to the taxpayer.
That we need to reduce GHG emmisions I'm in no doubt, the consensus from throusands of differnt independant scientific studies going back decades is very clear. Also it will take many years to reduce CO2 emmisiois to reverse climate change, we will have to adapt to climte chage in the short term. To do nothing is untenable, without seriouse interventioin the planet will warm uncontolably to the point where food production at scale would be threatened.

The is scope for some optimism.
A lot a progress has already been made, LED lighting uses 10% of the power of incandecent lighting (which used to account for 32% of global electricity usage) and has enabled countreis like the UK to grow output whilst reducing CO2 emisiosns. Wind, solar and nuclear power are enableing the UK to completly decarbonise the grid. This will enalbe two of the biggest sources of CO2 to be takled relatvely beighnly, grid power and transportation as it will enable zero carbon EVs.
I think this will be relatively painless to the public as the cost of EVs will fall to match ICE, and with running costs will be lower cost overall. An issue with EVs, is that whilst most journies as less than 20 miles, people will need to buy expensive long range cars and vans in rural commuiites and for taking holidays etc.

The big challenges will be decarbonising space heating, domestic and commercial.
I've been surprised how expesive ground source heat pumps still are. We are looking at installing as system raound 3 local schools, two churches and an old peoples home. The cost of laying the pipes aournd the sports field will mean the scheme costs £400k for an energy saving on £1k per year vs existing gas. I've no doubt that innovation will come eventually into this supply chain to take costs down, as it has done so with off-shore wind, where dramatic increases in productivity have slashed costs of installation. Goverment subsidy was needed to kick start that industry, maybe that is required to get heat pumps cost competitive. 

Whilst we need to reduce our use of energy and waste, the cost of air travel and other modern luxuries will need to rise somewhat, I dont think there is a need for all-out national hairshirtism. A mixture of energy price rises and new techology should be sufficient to catlaise the chages needed.

We have to recognise that today, energy is too cheap. Its historically very low which encourages consuption and waste, it probably should be double what we currently pay, a carbon tax would make sense. I'd prefere to manage household poverty in the UK by reducing the cost of houseing rather than keeping energy prices low. A policy to build new homes and provide enough private and public houseing to lower the cost of the averge house and rent by 50 % would do a lot to alievate in work povity. It the cost of houseing not energy that has impoverished the current generarion.

I do think there is a case for the UK leading by example. We are the fith or sixth biggest economy and have enought intelectual, human and natural resouces (wind, sunshine etc) to mae the transition. The the country that led the indusreal revoluton we would be highly influential in leading the net zero revoluton. Although China's consumptoin is massive, they have adopted, solar, wind and EVs to a greater extend than any other country. Furthermore they are very vulnerable to climate change, to desertificati, flooding, and food supply instablilyt.
This summer of extreme weather, the recent IPCC reports and positive initiatives form the EU, and USA all bode well for a constructive COPT26, even if the UK governments response is lackluster at first, I can see good reasons for the UK being amougst the leaders.


----------



## Spectric (14 Aug 2021)

TominDales said:


> We have to recognise that today, energy is too cheap. Its historically very low which encourages consuption and waste, it probably should be double what we currently pay, a carbon tax would make sense. I'd prefere to manage household poverty in the UK by reducing the cost of houseing rather than keeping energy prices low.


I think we are now very energy wasteful, both by being careless and by technology itself. You think how many items still consume standby power when not in use, TV's, BT boxes, Freesat boxes and others which across a population end up as quiet a lot of watts. We also leave lights on and do not really think enough about the energy we use. Rather than a blanket increase in cost it would be better staged, so if a family of four living in a three bed house used what is deemed a sensable amount of energy then you pay a base rate. As their consumption exceeds this amount then the cost rises non linearly so it gets more expensive for each excess Kwh so they pay for their excess. Think back to the fifties or sixties and see what electrical items would have been in the average household, the number of sockets was the giveaway and now we want electric tin openers, dishwashers, automated garage doors etc etc at the same time the population has also exploded so hence the massive demand.

Also although global temperatures have fluctuated over the centuries you cannot ignore the fact that 7.8 billion people and all their associated lifestyles have not had a major impact, just the fact we have consumed so much fossil fuels must have resulted in change.


----------



## selectortone (14 Aug 2021)

Here's another cheery thought - the permafrost in Siberia and northern Canada appears to be thawing at unprecedented rates over recent years. The permafrost has been a sink for CO2 and methane for millenia. As it thaws, these gases are being released at unprecedented rates, and this process can only accelerate exponentially as more gas is released. 

Not only that but long-dormant micro-organisms are being rejuvenated, which feed on the biomass, decomposing it, with further gas release. 

And something that might be equally concerning , given how vulnerable humans have been to a novel virus, who knows what ancient viruses might be be lurking in that biomass and might be released too.

You can Google this, there's lots of info out there. I got all this from my daughter who studied this stuff at university and has an MSc in ecological studies. Her opinion? We're farked.


----------



## Jacob (14 Aug 2021)

Trainee neophyte said:


> A picture paints a thousand words:


It depends who painted the picture. This one looks a bit dodgy - I smell sceptics


> Hopefully that isn't too contentious


No it just looks like the usual comic-book pseudo science.
Not sure exactly what the message is but I'm quite sure that the 97% of scientists behind CC will have a clearer view.
Do you really believe that these little gangs of sceptics know so much more than the scientists, or that the sceptics have spotted salient features which the science missed? It's not a science-fiction kids story you know !

PS come to think - I don't really understand why there is such an hysterical sceptic fringe. Yes it's all very disturbing but it can't be wished away.
I blame the media which has been largely in denial from the start, but catching up.
I also blame the science - not for overstating the issue, quite the opposite; they have been too cautious with the warnings and should have shouted out louder and stronger 50 or more years ago.
Ludicrous really - I was learning about this stuff at school 60 years ago, it's hardly new, except that it is happening now, sooner than forecast and no longer hypothetical.
The main culprits are of course the oil and coal profiteers, who have resisted the science just as they did with tobacco and asbestos, resulting in millions of avoidable deaths.


----------



## Jacob (14 Aug 2021)

Mystery solved! They've all been reading Viz! global warming Archives - Viz
It's only a comic you know, like the Daily Mail but funnier!


----------



## Terry - Somerset (14 Aug 2021)

Looking at climate change as a piece of simple risk management:

do nothing risks rapid (decadal?) forced changes to land use, agriculture, environment, sea level rise. It is an intially low cost solution - requires little or no effort or money
responding to the threat of climate change requires immediate changes to behaviours and legislation. It needs to re-allocation of resources and is immediately expensive. 
All very obvious - so what. The answer is in "what happens if we get it wrong":

no action consigns future generations to likely extreme hardship, possibly conflict
unnecessary action means that future benefits are limited by the savings made in fossil fuel consumption and environmental (air quality etc) improvements
Most of us on a personal basis take precautionary action in our normal activities - we:

insure our houses against relatively unlikely future damage
buy and use cycle helmets when we ride a bike
save for a pension even though we may not live that long
some of us pray in the belief that an almighty will spare us eternal damnation
The proposition that generally we behave and invest now to de-risk a possibly catastrophic future is fairly well embedded. So why not with climate change?


----------



## Selwyn (14 Aug 2021)

Terry - Somerset said:


> The proposition that generally we behave and invest now to de-risk a possibly catastrophic future is fairly well embedded. So why not with climate change?



It depends to whom it is affordable. Do you care more about peoples lives in the hypothetical future or peoples lives now?


----------



## Jacob (14 Aug 2021)

Selwyn said:


> It depends to whom it is affordable. Do you care more about peoples lives in the hypothetical future or peoples lives now?


Yes soddem. Live fast die young!


----------



## Jacob (14 Aug 2021)

Trainee neophyte said:


> A picture paints a thousand words:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Doesn't take long to track down. 
TNs graph is from here Global Temperature Trends From 2500 B.C. to 2040 A.D. a well known climate sceptic site produced by a pair of amateurs with no qualifications

Comment from elsewhere:

_"Unsurprisingly, Cliff Harris is NOT a credible Climatologist. His only educational qualification for ANYTHING is that he studied insurance law (somewhere) and now runs a website that has no credibility whatsoever.
Not only that, but he runs Harris-Mann Climatology, a website alongside another guy named Randy Mann, who is a “News Personality” (according to his Facebook page) and whose knowledge of meteorology/climatology stems only from to being a weatherman for a small-town, local news station that he worked at since he was 15. Hardly a justification for a self-proclaimed mastery in the subject.
You know what great research they’ve published? A quick google search has shown me their awe-inspiring research that has lead to the publication of a book called the “Weather and Bible Prophecy” back in 2015. Here’s the description for it:
“ Climatologist Cliff Harris presents a new book on the scientific and spiritual approach on how the WEATHER played a MAJOR ROLE in the BIBLE.
Some topics include:
• How God is using the weather to get our attention.
• When are the major climate and cultural cycles colliding?
• What are the futures prophecies based on the Bible?
• How did the weather influence major events in the Bible?
• How the weather could play a role in the "End Times."
• What will the "New Jerusalem" be like?”
So I guess they’re religious scholars as well, too, huh? What’s next? They gonna re-invent the wheel? These guys are absolute jabronies, so please stop using idiots as sources for an argument for a very serious topic."_

And another-

_"So I just googled for "global temperature history" and this page, with this chart, was in the first page of results: Global Temperature Trends From 2500 B.C. to 2040 A.D. On that page, they wrote a lot about their rationale: "We, Climatologist Cliff Harris and Meteorologist Randy Mann, believe in rather frequent climate changes in our global weather patterns." Also interesting to note that the cite claims: "Climatologist Cliff Harris has been often rated as one of the top ten climatologists in the world for nearly 4 decades." ...except, Cliff Harris doesn't seem to have a degree in climatology, or to have published any papers. So they are not making me any less suspicious of their claims. Maybe he's rated one of the top climatologists by, like, his dentist. idk.
They do cite sources for their graph, so that's nice of them:
• "Climate and the Affairs of Men" by Dr. Iben Browing.
• "Climate...The Key to Understanding Business Cycles...The Raymond H. Wheeler Papers. By Michael Zahorchak
• Weather Science Foundation Papers in Crystal Lake, Illinois.
I'll be honest, I am not going to look into those... but given that they're books and not, you know, actual scientific papers that present raw data, it seems like at best their graph is compiled from indirect and imprecise claims in books by even more "climatologists" without credentials who likely are pushing their own agenda. Maybe that's why there's no scale on the graph, they don't even have real numbers to work from!
If you'd like a real graph covering roughly this same time period, you can go right to the scientists who study it and look at charts like this that compare various different, legitimate, methods of determining historical temperatures: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c1/2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png
The fact that those models agree very well with each other, and all dramatically disagree with the "longrangeweather.com" "model" give us pretty strong evidence that the scientists are doing actual science, and Mr Harris is doing something else. They've presented sloppy info and I'd say outright lies dressed up as real science: ie, pseudoscience. It really makes me mad to see this kinda thing; it makes it harder for your average person to discern what is and isn't real science.

Finally, I should say that the idea that the Earth goes through huge climate swings is not in itself wrong - nature definitely has caused larger changes throughout history than humans have (so far). But if you look at other real charts https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/ca/EPICA_temperature_plot.svg you can see that those swings take place over hundreds of thousands of years and are fairly predictable. What nature can do in 100,000 years, we've done in 100, and that's what's scary."_

Possibly too much information for our Viz comic readers 

*The conclusions are (in case you have missed them):
1 "What nature can do in 100,000 years, we've done in 100, and that's what's scary."*
_*2 "These guys are absolute jabronies, so please stop using idiots as sources for an argument for a very serious topic."*_

PS EPICA is European Project for Ice Coring in Antarctica - Wikipedia
For JABRONI read ‘Jabroni’ is now in the dictionary, and it’s all thanks to The Rock


----------



## RobinBHM (14 Aug 2021)

Jacob said:


> Not dishonest just confused IMHO. CC is a complicated issue and not simply either/or, which is not good enough for many. It's also hypothetical, until the evidence rolls in, as it is doing.


It’s deliberate.

it’s one logical fallacy after another


----------



## RobinBHM (14 Aug 2021)

Jacob said:


> I didn't know that but had my suspicions. There was something so very cautious in the article, no direct untruths just claims of over reaction and persuasion not to worry etc. Soft soap propaganda.


Soft soap propaganda is a great expression,

it’s how these conspiracy theories work…take some real data to make it plausible, then mislead by attributing the data incorrectly to something else.

So you get:

Roman period warm, compare with this period, also warm = can’t be no climate change it’s all natural gov.


----------



## TominDales (14 Aug 2021)

Trainee neophyte said:


> A picture paints a thousand words:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


It looks spurious. This NOAA publication from 2013 is the generally accepted picture for global temperature variation over the past 10,000 years and based on the best data available.

It was generally believed the globe was slowly heading into a cooler period until the later 20th century when temperatures have spiked to the highest levels in the past 10,000 years. The highest temperature until recently was roughly 7000 years ago at about 0.4c above the mid 20c average (could by as high as 0.6 within the estimate).






What’s the hottest Earth has been “lately”? | NOAA Climate.gov


Natural variability can explain much of Earth's average temperature variation since the end of the last ice age, but over the past century, global average temperature has risen from near the coldest to the warmest levels in the past 11,300 years.



www.climate.gov











The roman warm period seems to have been a localised European phenomenon and probably not a global phenomenon looking at this series the purple line would indicate the globe was warmer than average for the past 2000 years by about 0.5 c until the late 20century. 
The rise of 0.8c in 2013 was troubling because the predictions were for this to continue to rise. As of 2021 the average is ca 1c. The IPCC are now calling to limit the rise to 1.5c, that seems sensible give the current state of knowledge.


----------



## Trainee neophyte (15 Aug 2021)

Jacob said:


> Doesn't take long to track down.
> TNs graph is from here Global Temperature Trends From 2500 B.C. to 2040 A.D. a well known climate sceptic site produced by a pair of amateurs with no qualifications
> 
> Comment from elsewhere:
> ...


Your gleeful outing of an unbeliever is engertainingly pythonesque:



And who could forget this:



You all appear to be members of some weird death cult. "We are all going to die, but who can come up with the most appalling, cataclysmic, catastrophic world - ending scenario?"


TominDales said:


> The cost of laying the pipes aournd the sports field will mean the scheme costs £400k


I would be intrigued to learn what the carbon saving will be for that scheme - that's an awfully big hole, dug by diesel powered machinery, I presume. And then you have the manufacturing of the system itself- a great deal of petrochemicals seem to go into making these modern heating systems. If the financial payback will take 400 years, I certainly hope the carbon saving will be astonishing, so you can offset some of the system costs by spending less on flood prevention or similar. Imagine if it takes 400 years of green electricity running the system to cover the carbon burned installing it - that would be embarrassing. Especially as the chances of getting "green" electricity aren't all that good.

As I am so obviously wrong about everything, I should probably bow out gracefully and leave you all to your end - is - nigh catastrophe cult. Have fun. Perhaps (if the planet hasn't burned to a crisp by then) we can come back in 2030 and see who was right. My £1 is on it being cooler than now. We could have a sweepstake if you like. But don't forget; predictions are difficult, especially about the future.


----------



## Hallelujahal (15 Aug 2021)

‘leave you all to your end - is - nigh catastrophe cult’
Couldn’t agree more…Scientism is the new world religion, their devotees are the evangelical missionaries, priests and preachers of this high control movement. Where to doubt or question is to be labelled a heretic and condemned to eternal damnation.
My rather simplistic approach is to look at how pathetic these prophets of doom have been even during my lifetime. I can remember being scared as a child by the new ice age that was about to hit planet earth…wrong.
I can remember being assured that everyone should get vaccinated against swine flu because if we don’t then everyone’s going to die. Funnily enough when more people started dying as a result of the vaccine the whole thing magically disappeared…including the flippin vaccine…I could go on and on. I am sick of religious zealots trying to convince me of one thing now and the polar opposite next and having the temerity to exert control over me in the name of ‘science’ or any other false god you care to mention. My rant is over, but I doubt that will make a spit of difference to the characters who want to pull all our strings!


----------



## Jacob (15 Aug 2021)

Trainee neophyte said:


> .........
> As I am so obviously wrong about everything,


Yes 


> I should probably bow out gracefully and leave you all to your end - is - nigh catastrophe cult......


No you should make more effort to understand what is going on around you and get your head out of Viz/Daily Mail or whatever your source for all that nonsense.
I don't see the point of choosing to stay in the dark.


----------



## Hallelujahal (15 Aug 2021)

Jacob said:


> Yes No you should make more effort to understand what is going on around you and get your head out of Viz/Daily Mail or whatever your source for all that nonsense.
> I don't see the point of choosing to stay in the dark.


This is supercilious nonsense, you know nothing about the op but simply assume that your knowledge is right and that those with different opinions are not only wrong but ignorant and or stupid. To which I say get off your high horse and recognise that many of us who have a different opinion to you are often experienced and highly educated…my own DPhil notwithstanding!


----------



## Jacob (15 Aug 2021)

Hallelujahal said:


> ........
> My rather simplistic approach is to look at how pathetic these prophets of doom have been even during my lifetime. I can remember being scared as a child by the new ice age that was about to hit planet earth…wrong.


It was a hypothesis in the 70s but not a "forecast". It is explained here Global cooling - Wikipedia
One idea was that it would cancel out global warming with cooler air and water emanating from the melting poles and creating the "albedo" effect whereby snow and ice in lower latitudes would reflect solar heat back . Unfortunately it hasn't happened.


> I can remember being assured that everyone should get vaccinated against swine flu because if we don’t then everyone’s going to die. Funnily enough when more people started dying as a result of the vaccine the whole thing magically disappeared…including the flippin vaccine


The vaccine worked and was discontinued when no longer needed. 2009 swine flu pandemic vaccine - Wikipedia There was a hysterical anti vaxx movement just like todays. There were side effects but this was offset by the success of the vaccine.


> I could go on and on. I am sick of religious zealots......


Religious zealots are telling you to ignore the science


----------



## Jacob (15 Aug 2021)

Hallelujahal said:


> This is supercilious nonsense, you know nothing about the op but simply assume that your knowledge is right and that those with different opinions are not only wrong but ignorant and or stupid. To which I say get off your high horse and recognise that many of us who have a different opinion to you are often experienced and highly educated…my own DPhil notwithstanding!


It's not about opinions it's about observable facts. You can choose opinions you can't choose facts.
It's OK to be a sceptic, to ask questions and have doubts but it's not easy to see why they are so hysterical and angry.


----------



## planesleuth (15 Aug 2021)

omg.....zzzzzzz..... it's the Jacob show again! Bony mouse fingers on form again eh Jacob?


----------



## Rorschach (15 Aug 2021)

Jacob said:


> It's not about opinions it's about observable facts. You can choose opinions you can't choose facts.



Except everyone here is also choosing their facts, you do it all the time, as does Robin, as do I and every other member. We all see facts laid before us, we then have to grade those facts according to their veracity and many other factors, based on that grading we then form our opinion. Those opinions are of course clouded by bias. Unfortunately we only find out if our grading is correct after it is too late so some us end up being right, some of us end up being wrong but most of us end up being somewhere in the middle. 

This of course totally ignores the even more complex subject of how long are facts, facts? Evidence, research going on all the time, facts are revised, ignored, debunked. What is right today can be wrong tomorrow, the Covid debates are a great example there, the "accepted" facts now are totally different to the facts a year or more ago.

This is what makes the debate fun though, I love it when I'm right, I don't really like it when I'm wrong. Luckily for me I am more often than not proved right in the long term, but by the time that happens nobody cares anymore


----------



## Jacob (15 Aug 2021)

Rorschach said:


> ....... Unfortunately we only find out if our grading is correct after it is too late so some us end up being right, some of us end up being wrong ......


So how do you feel about being wrong about climate change?
Or are you choosing not believe what is happening all around you *now*, widely reported, forecast from a long way back, backed up by masses of research by intelligent people?
Are you saying that these things are not happening, won't happen, have another cause?
Do you think Eunice Newton Foote - Wikipedia and John Tyndall were wrong about the greenhouse effect and can you point to flaws in the research?
Do you really think you know more about the subject than the many thousands of highly educated experts in the field who have been researching it for years?
Is this fake news? This decade broke all kinds of climate records—and not in a good way This is from Jan last year, records have been broken since then.


----------



## Hallelujahal (15 Aug 2021)

Funny how Wikipedia has become the go to source for all the ‘fact-mongers’


----------



## Jacob (15 Aug 2021)

Hallelujahal said:


> Funny how Wikipedia has become the go to source for all the ‘fact-mongers’


Better than just plucking them from out of the air.
We really need some serious fact-mongering and yes Wikipedia is very handy if you want to know something.
No use to people who would rather keep their heads under the blankets, or deal with things by huffing and puffing!


----------



## Selwyn (15 Aug 2021)

Jacob said:


> Yes soddem. Live fast die young!



I'm asking if you are showing the same concern for people today as people tomorrow.


----------



## Jacob (15 Aug 2021)

Selwyn said:


> I'm asking if you are showing the same concern for people today as people tomorrow.


Not sure what you mean. Climate change is affecting people now and anything we do which might change it will also benefit people in the future. There are short term selfish things one could do such as stocking up with guns and tins of beans, but they wouldn't do much for anybody for very long!


----------



## Selwyn (15 Aug 2021)

Jacob said:


> Better than just plucking them from out of the air.
> We really need some serious fact-mongering and yes Wikipedia is very handy if you want to know something.
> No use to people who would rather keep their heads under the blankets, or deal with things by huffing and puffing!




With climate change stuff none of the forecasts can be argued as facts. So we have to go with the evidence so far. Your evidence thus far has been a fire in Greece, cold in Texas, flood in London etc etc all automatically lead to climate change and the doomesday scenario but a lot of the time these events have other actions that make them significant.


The IPCC don't even predict doomsday scenarios like you are doing they just present them as one of just one of a range of scenarios. As the guy in the interview posted said. You are claiming the IPCC is one voice purporting climate chaos and they are not.


----------



## Selwyn (15 Aug 2021)

Jacob said:


> Not sure what you mean. Climate change is affecting people now and anything we do which might change it will also benefit people in the future. There are short term selfish things one could do such as stocking up with guns and tins of beans, but they wouldn't do much for anybody for very long!



Lots of things are affecting people now. Don't make out there was no war, famine, pestilence. immigration/ emigration etc etc before we invented the climate change concept.


----------



## Jacob (15 Aug 2021)

Selwyn said:


> With climate change stuff none of the forecasts can be argued as facts. So we have to go with the evidence so far. Your evidence thus far has been a fire in Greece, cold in Texas, flood in London etc etc all automatically lead to climate change and the doomesday scenario but a lot of the time these events have other actions that make them significant.
> 
> 
> The IPCC don't even predict doomsday scenarios like you are doing they just present them as one of just one of a range of scenarios. As the guy in the interview posted said. You are claiming the IPCC is one voice purporting climate chaos and they are not.











Climate change


Global warming and changes to weather patterns could have drastic consequences for future generations - here's everything you need to know about it.




www.sciencefocus.com


----------



## Selwyn (15 Aug 2021)

Jacob said:


> Climate change
> 
> 
> Global warming and changes to weather patterns could have drastic consequences for future generations - here's everything you need to know about it.
> ...



Ok in Derbyshire where you live, what do you think is going to be the biggest problem for you?


----------



## Jacob (15 Aug 2021)

Selwyn said:


> Lots of things are affecting people now. Don't make out there was no war, famine, pestilence. immigration/ emigration etc etc before we invented the climate change concept.


One thing at a time! We are talking about climate change , which isn't an invented concept - it is happening.
Yes there are all sorts of other things going on too. Climate change also has a bearing on all the things in your list.


----------



## Jacob (15 Aug 2021)

Selwyn said:


> Ok in Derbyshire where you live, what do you think is going to be the biggest problem for you?


Not sea level rise obviously! Problem for us will be much the same as for most of the world - the breakdown of the economy and society, even if the direct effects have not touched us locally.


----------



## Selwyn (15 Aug 2021)

Jacob said:


> Not sea level rise obviously! Problem for us will be much the same as for most of the world - the breakdown of the economy and society, even if the direct effects have not touched us locally.




Why do you think we will be unable to innovate and deal with it?


----------



## Selwyn (15 Aug 2021)

Jacob said:


> One thing at a time! We are talking about climate change , which isn't an invented concept - it is happening.
> Yes there are all sorts of other things going on too. Climate change also has a bearing on all the things in your list.



The issue I have is now the catch all for everything. Its a bit like covid.


----------



## Jacob (15 Aug 2021)

Selwyn said:


> Why do you think we will be unable to innovate and deal with it?


The biggest obstacle is the sheer denialism which we see coming from all directions - not just on UKW! 

In spite of that we are innovating and dealing with it - sustainable energy is growing apace etc. but things have been held back alarmingly; at the top end politically, by the media and by popular opinion.


----------



## Jacob (15 Aug 2021)

Selwyn said:


> The issue I have is now the catch all for everything. Its a bit like covid.


Non of these things happen in isolation, they all interact in various ways, good, bad and indifferent.


----------



## jcassidy (15 Aug 2021)

I see crazies and trolls are at it again. They must have gotten bored claiming noone is dying from covid and it's all a government conspiracy to keep the populace down. 

Same names, same arguments, same drivel.

I expect next month there'll be another 'alternate science' topic de jour, maybe gravity or relativity or what day of the week it is.


----------



## Selwyn (15 Aug 2021)

jcassidy said:


> I see crazies and trolls are at it again. They must have gotten bored claiming noone is dying from covid and it's all a government conspiracy to keep the populace down.
> 
> Same names, same arguments, same drivel.
> 
> I expect next month there'll be another 'alternate science' topic de jour, maybe gravity or relativity or what day of the week it is.



That's interesting. Who has claimed covid is to keep the populace down? The disease that you have a 99.8% chance of surviving that loads and loads of people have tested positive despite all the lockdowns. And you think we're crazy!?

Have they let people have a meal outside in Ireland yet?!


----------



## Hallelujahal (15 Aug 2021)

‘Wikipedia is very handy if you want to know something’
My God! Wikipedia is now become a sacred text!!!!  lmao


----------



## Jacob (15 Aug 2021)

Hallelujahal said:


> ‘Wikipedia is very handy if you want to know something’
> My God! Wikipedia is now become a sacred text!!!!  lmao


Handy. H A N D Y. 
"Sacred" is spelled differently and means something else. If you often have a spelling problem Wikipedia could probably help!


----------



## Droogs (15 Aug 2021)

Selwyn said:


> Ok in Derbyshire where you live, what do you think is going to be the biggest problem for you?


Well his main problem will be one of choice, with his journey for his beach holiday a hell of a lot shorter than it is now he'll have a massive pool of EVs to consider as he will only need one with a shorter range


----------



## Jacob (15 Aug 2021)

Droogs said:


> Well his main problem will be one of choice, with his journey for his beach holiday a hell of a lot shorter than it is now he'll have a massive pool of EVs to consider as he will only need one with a shorter range


And downhill all the way!


----------



## hairy (15 Aug 2021)

If "they" said;

Stick at one or two kids
Use less wherever possible, from as close to you as possible
Fix it rather than buy new where possible
Pollute less
Grow your own if you can

How many people would argue with that?

The outcome from doing that may mean big industry doesn't get quite what it hoped, it may mean no EVs, supermarkets may sell less junk.

"Them" saying you must and will do xyz will creat a negative personal reaction even before the individual starts looking at what the facts might be. Picking your scientists backing up your viewpoint, with graphs showing, for instance, a massive increase in CO2 with the start point of that graph chosen to illustrate your point most dramatically but which diminishes to nothing over a much longer time line becomes much less convincing as soon as you find another, perhaps more accredited scientist saying the opposite, at least until they are discredited. 

No fear created then, no new EV/heat pump/turbine purchased then.

It may be factual that CO2 has risen since the Industrial Revolution, which since the UK was at the forefront of that means we must beg forgiveness more fervently than any other country, but the increase since then is surely irrelevant as soon as you look further back as I tried to point out with the massive graph I posted previously? The rate of increase may take us back to a level seen a very long time ago if nothing changed over the next few centuries but is nothing changing?

Global Warming was renamed. The climate is changing, why is that bad? The blatent use of fear with Covid behaviours shows more plainly what is being done with Climate Change and that approach will not help "their" cause, whatever that actually is. Even if you have bought an EV, moved into a new, insulated, heat pumped, city centre tiny house and have been double jabbed and boostered there will be something else coming soon to argue about. The Emperor's new clothes.

If you don't turn the MSM on you wouldn't even know you're supposed to be worried


----------



## RobinBHM (15 Aug 2021)

Selwyn said:


> The guy isn't sceptic. He's saying it is happening however the media is getting hysterical about it and frightening people with scenario's that seem highly unlikely to evolve.


Ah the good old “the media is getting hysterical” claim

that’s the same garbage unsubstantiated claim made about Covid.


----------



## Rorschach (15 Aug 2021)

RobinBHM said:


> Ah the good old “the media is getting hysterical” claim



Yeah the MSM never do that.


----------



## Hallelujahal (15 Aug 2021)

Rorschach said:


> Yeah the MSM never do that.


Lol


----------



## RobinBHM (15 Aug 2021)

hairy said:


> If you don't turn the MSM on you wouldn't even know you're supposed to be worried



the good old “media is spreading fear” argument.

it’s a lazy argument, using emotive terms that can’t be measured.

using words like “fear” and “worried” conveniently ignore nuance.


your argument conveniently classes “concern” with “fear”


----------



## RobinBHM (15 Aug 2021)

Rorschach said:


> Yeah the MSM never do that.


only in your mad world

Ive never met anybody in my life “in fear” from media headlines.

it’s a lazy, childish argument…..used by conspiracy theorists.


----------



## RobinBHM (15 Aug 2021)

Hallelujahal said:


> Lol


Media make headlines to sell their product.

that’s not the same as hysterical…..that’s a lazy argument.


----------



## RobinBHM (15 Aug 2021)

jcassidy said:


> I see crazies and trolls are at it again. They must have gotten bored claiming noone is dying from covid and it's all a government conspiracy to keep the populace down.
> 
> Same names, same arguments, same drivel.
> 
> I expect next month there'll be another 'alternate science' topic de jour, maybe gravity or relativity or what day of the week it is.


Interestingly I see something like 75% of Covid conspiracies originate from just 12 people…..most of them linked to the far right. Almost certainly Trump,supporters


----------



## Rorschach (15 Aug 2021)

RobinBHM said:


> Ive never met anybody in my life “in fear” from media headlines.



Seriously? Never met someone made afraid by a media story/headline? I am honestly really quite shocked at that, I meet them all the time, family friends, even just people chatting in the supermarket. People this weekend genuinely worried about the Taliban, as if there is even the slightest chance that their simple lives are going to be affected by that.


----------



## Rorschach (15 Aug 2021)

RobinBHM said:


> Media make headlines to sell their product.



Oh well that's alright then, it's just to sell headlines, we shouldn't take them seriously.


----------



## Jacob (15 Aug 2021)

hairy said:


> ......
> 
> Global Warming was renamed.


Because "changing" includes places with regional cooling due to changing weather patterns, but the overall drift is for warming


> The climate is changing, why is that bad? .......


Because for many places it is changing for the worst, particularly where already close to a limit in terms of temperature, sea level, etc etc


----------



## Jacob (15 Aug 2021)

Rorschach said:


> Seriously? Never met someone made afraid by a media story/headline?.....


The most common fear generating story in the MSM is anti immigrant propaganda. Sun and Mail speak of little else. It tipped the brexit vote.


----------



## TominDales (15 Aug 2021)

Trainee neophyte said:


> > TominDales said:
> > The cost of laying the pipes around the sports field will mean the scheme costs £400k
> 
> 
> I would be intrigued to learn what the carbon saving will be for that scheme - that's an awfully big hole, dug by diesel powered machinery, I presume. And then you have the manufacturing of the system itself- a great deal of petrochemicals seem to go into making these modern heating systems. If the financial payback will take 400 years, I certainly hope the carbon saving will be astonishing, so you can offset some of the system costs by spending less on flood prevention or similar. Imagine if it takes 400 years of green electricity running the system to cover the carbon burned installing it - that would be embarrassing. Especially as the chances of getting "green" electricity aren't all that good


You raise a important point. 
There is embedded CO2 in all these new schemes. The best way to compare like with like is a full lifecycle analysis (LCA) of the co2 from cradle to grave. Most 'green' or alterative energy systems have a bad CO2 beggining, a bad end, but a good period in the middle when they generate low carbon energy. In the early days of PV it was estiamated in the 1980s that it took 5 to 10 years to get a carbon payback but with modern cells its less than 1 yr. GS heat pumps take about 12 months to payback the embedded CO2. Accoring to the engineer, the pipes will last aproximatley 100 years undergrund, the pump will need replaing after about 20 to 25 years. Most LCA studies are based on 20 year lifetimes. As time goes by the diggers will be electric and the making of the system will be low carbon electric so its should drop to zero. This graphe from the survayer shows the differnt energy systems over time interstingly electic heat is prdicited to drop to zero over the timeframe as the grid goes neutral. I'm not that keen on biomass, although zero carbon, the biomass needs to be sutainably sourced and that is hard to audit. The other thing to be careful of is adulterated LCAs, early on less scrupulus suppliers - some oil majors in particular chose analysis that was favourble to their argument, more recently standards are being proposed to get a more uniform basis to LCAs but its still early days and a bit of a wild west/greenwash remains.

I don't agree that we are doomed or that we have to cancel our lifestyle to adapt. 
I've worked in the chemical/pharma industry for 35 years and over that time new environmental information has appeared and responsible companies (and countries through environmental legislation) have had to adapt to it. ICI made (and its successor still makes) 1m tonnes of Chlorine per year in the UK, chlorine has its good and bad points from an environmental perspective. Chlorine in drinking water has saved millions of lives and enables safe potable water globally, however making chlorine released mercury into the river Mersey, and eventually this pollution was shown to be harmful (in Japan Minamata), ion-exchange systems had to be installed to reduce the mercy emissions and now the plants have been replaced with ones that don't emit mercury. Over the same period of time we phased out lead in petrol and various insecticides and herbicides as well as the removal of CFCs. as I've said in past posts the removal of CFCs was lead by conservative politicians based on good science. These changes can be done in a cost effective way if implemented early and allowing for innovation to drive the change. In ICI the phase out of CFCs lead to thousands of redundancies, so it was not pain free, but the company adapted and new jobs were created and people like me moved on into new fields etc. I therefore subscribe to a view that climate change needs to be addressed now, but can be done in a pragmatic and practical way provided politicians show leadership.


----------



## TominDales (15 Aug 2021)

Hallelujahal said:


> ‘leave you all to your end - is - nigh catastrophe cult’
> Couldn’t agree more…Scientism is the new world religion, their devotees are the evangelical missionaries, priests and preachers of this high control movement. Where to doubt or question is to be labelled a heretic and condemned to eternal damnation.
> My rather simplistic approach is to look at how pathetic these prophets of doom have been even during my lifetime. I can remember being scared as a child by the new ice age that was about to hit planet earth…wrong.


I agree with you in the sense that Its important to distinguish proper validated scientific evidence that has stood the test of scrutiny and time in making these decisions. Its unfortunate that we live in an age where a myriad of social media opinions cloud some important issues. But modern society and technology at global scale can do great harm if not understood and regulated. I've worked in the industry and we see responsible care as important to our reputation as well as to preserving the planet.

As I've mentioned elsewhere I've worked in the chemical/pharma industry for 35 years and we have had to take drastic decisions on promoting or phasing our technologies and chemicals over that time based on good evidence. That is very different from assuming its all doom. We had to phase out lead from petrol as it was demonstrably causing harm. Similarly CFCs had to be phased out, that cost my company thousands of jobs and resulted in many of us changing field or career path. Similarly the phase out of DDT and many pesticides and herbicides. Right back in the 1950s ICI closed and bulldozed its b-naphylamine plant (a very good fabric dye) within 2 years of operation, when it noticed how many employees were dying of bladder cancer. It had to do something similar with one its early b-blockers. It had to rip out all its chlorine cells and replace them to end mercury pollution in the Mersey.
I've mentioned this before, but the abolition of CFCs was lead by Mrs Thatcher and R Reagan, not politicians known for being socialist ideologues, but when presented with the evidence of harm and predictions of global crop failure, they acted on it. It cost me and my colleagues loss of immediate career prospects and thousands of redundancies. For the UK public, initially the cost of refrigerants went up by a few £s per fridge/car. But we adapted to the change as we must. I see the current challenge with global warming as a similar collective problem, only on a much bigger scale. There is sufficient evidence now to show the need to change, so we have to get on with it and figure out practical and fair ways to do it. It will cost me and my colleagues some loss of career prospects (although Iv'e only a few more years to go), but we have to accept it as a necessary part of living in an industrial/technological age. Even after climate change, data will emerge of yet more problems caused by our industrial society, so we will have to continue to adjust, its a normal responsible way of living.
We can point to societies that didn't adjust and destroyed their environment to the point where there societies dies out - Christmas island being one. Where I live, the North York moors were much more heavily populated in ancient times, until ancient man deforested it and it became uninhabitable and is now home to a national park and a few sheep.


----------



## Rorschach (15 Aug 2021)

Jacob said:


> The most common fear generating story in the MSM is anti immigrant propaganda. Sun and Mail speak of little else. It tipped the brexit vote.



Impossible according to Robin.


----------



## Selwyn (15 Aug 2021)

RobinBHM said:


> the good old “media is spreading fear” argument.
> 
> it’s a lazy argument, using emotive terms that can’t be measured.
> 
> ...



They are spreading fear though. If it bleeds it leads, we know that


----------



## Selwyn (15 Aug 2021)

TominDales said:


> I agree with you in the sense that Its important to distinguish proper validated scientific evidence that has stood the test of scrutiny and time in making these decisions. Its unfortunate that we live in an age where a myriad of social media opinions cloud some important issues. But modern society and technology at global scale can do great harm if not understood and regulated. I've worked in the industry and we see responsible care as important to our reputation as well as to preserving the planet.
> 
> As I've mentioned elsewhere I've worked in the chemical/pharma industry for 35 years and we have had to take drastic decisions on promoting or phasing our technologies and chemicals over that time based on good evidence. That is very different from assuming its all doom. We had to phase out lead from petrol as it was demonstrably causing harm. Similarly CFCs had to be phased out, that cost my company thousands of jobs and resulted in many of us changing field or career path. Similarly the phase out of DDT and many pesticides and herbicides. Right back in the 1950s ICI closed and bulldozed its b-naphylamine plant (a very good fabric dye) within 2 years of operation, when it noticed how many employees were dying of bladder cancer. It had to do something similar with one its early b-blockers. It had to rip out all its chlorine cells and replace them to end mercury pollution in the Mersey.
> I've mentioned this before, but the abolition of CFCs was lead by Mrs Thatcher and R Reagan, not politicians known for being socialist ideologues, but when presented with the evidence of harm and predictions of global crop failure, they acted on it. It cost me and my colleagues loss of immediate career prospects and thousands of redundancies. For the UK public, initially the cost of refrigerants went up by a few £s per fridge/car. But we adapted to the change as we must. I see the current challenge with global warming as a similar collective problem, only on a much bigger scale. There is sufficient evidence now to show the need to change, so we have to get on with it and figure out practical and fair ways to do it. It will cost me and my colleagues some loss of career prospects (although Iv'e only a few more years to go), but we have to accept it as a necessary part of living in an industrial/technological age. Even after climate change, data will emerge of yet more problems caused by our industrial society, so we will have to continue to adjust, its a normal responsible way of living.
> We can point to societies that didn't adjust and destroyed their environment to the point where there societies dies out - Christmas island being one. Where I live, the North York moors were much more heavily populated in ancient times, until ancient man deforested it and it became uninhabitable and is now home to a national park and a few sheep.



The North York moors didn't become uninhabitable. People just chose to move elsewhere for various reasons. Don't have this bucolic idea it was full of afforestation, with little villages of weavers and millers living peacefully before some nasty landlord chopped trees down


----------



## Selwyn (15 Aug 2021)

Jacob said:


> The most common fear generating story in the MSM is anti immigrant propaganda. Sun and Mail speak of little else. It tipped the brexit vote.



We have an immigration policy which we have voted in the current govt collectively to enforce. Now like the policy or not, that is fair enough but it does have a remit from the populace.

We also have a legal system of immigration and asylum which most people want to see enforced rather than people being exploited by channel gangs and people in the backs of fridge lorries.


----------



## TominDales (15 Aug 2021)

Selwyn said:


> The North York moors didn't become uninhabitable. People just chose to move elsewhere for various reasons. Don't have this bucolic idea it was full of afforestation, with little villages of weavers and millers living peacefully before some nasty landlord chopped trees down


Its something many locals commented on when we first moved up here and rented a place in Swainby. In the bronze age it was quite densely populated compared to later periods- with over 3000 odd burial mounds identified, but since deforestation the environment now supports moss and heather is very attractive and good for sheep farming. It maybe that they chose to move elsewhere, but the local folklore is that they deforested and without the cover the land became weak.

Here is a wiki clip.
*Bronze Age[edit]*
Around 2000 BC, the early Bronze Age Beaker People inhabited the Moors. During a 1,400 year period, these people inhabited all areas of the Moors and finally destroyed much of the original forest. The climate was relatively warmer and drier at this time so it was possible to live on the high moors throughout the year. When a piece of land was exhausted of nutrients, these people moved on, leaving behind land that was incapable of supporting anything but a heathland vegetation. There are about 3,000 Bronze Age burial mounds on the moors.

I should add that we put an offer on a house in Chop Gate and one in Nether Silton but got outbid on both before finding a very happy house in Ripon where we have been for 15 years. The Moors a certainly popular, but probably driven more from retirees and tourism these days.


----------



## hairy (15 Aug 2021)

No fear in the MSM then. Check.



The current requirement for my life to not mean the death of "your" kids means I must buy an EV and have a heat pump.

OK

But then what?

For some people the world in their lifetime gets hotter. For some people it gets colder.

The Sahara is encroaching further south, pushing people towards the river Niger, less land, more hunger and tension. But because I drive a diesel?

When big dirty shockingly bad 4x4s were taxed out of being much of a choice in the UK what happened? Did they get recycled at huge cost and waste? No, sold to Africa. NIMBY.

Yesterday it rained, some people died. Today, it rained a bit less, some people died. If I drive an EV, no-one will die. All lovely.

If more Artic ice melts the currents in the Atlantic may shift and make Scotland have a climate like Spain. Alternatively, it may make it too cold to be inhabitable. Get the likes of Ferguson to model both and they will both be a certainty within 12 months unless we paint our houses blue. 

It doesn't matter any more what the self important gathering in Glasgow comes out with, it's all scripted nonsense pushing an agenda to get your money.


----------



## TRITON (15 Aug 2021)

Ireland was once 80% woodland.
They chopped it all down and probably burnt most of it.


----------



## Selwyn (15 Aug 2021)

TRITON said:


> Ireland was once 80% woodland.
> They chopped it all down and probably burnt most of it.



But that was a long time before we invented climate change


----------



## Jacob (15 Aug 2021)

TRITON said:


> Ireland was once 80% woodland.
> They chopped it all down and probably burnt most of it.


Copy pasted from a site:

*De-forestation*
It is easy to assume that de-forestation is a result of excessive demand for timber but in fact the opposite is more often the case.
Forest is cleared by those who do not value it and this has been happening for thousands of years. The main agent of de-forestation is and always has been farming, not forestry.

The well-publicised activity of timber extractors in tropical areas, often reckless or illegal, is distinct from those who merely wish to clear woodland by cutting and burning. Given political and economic stability then an extractor will become a conserver - for the sake of continuous supplies.

Where timber is valued it is conserved and supplies only run down in difficult times, e.g. ship building during the Napoleonic Wars led to reduction in timber supplies in spite of long-term planning and conservation measures undertaken by the Navy in earlier years.
Forest management and conservation are long established practices - see 'The History of the Countryside' by Oliver Rackham.
William Cobbett, in 'Rural Rides', comments often on the extent and variety of woodland in England in the early 19th century. Demand for timber was very high at this time and the abundance of woodland was due largely to traditional conservation practices.
19th century visitors to Ireland comment on the absence of trees and the bare landscape. This was due to English exploitation of the Irish forests since even before the sudden demand caused by the Great Fire of London when much rebuilding was with Irish timber. English owners of Irish land were not interested to forestry except as a short term cash source. It was often sold cheaply and there was little local demand. In earlier centuries Ireland had been known for its ancient forests but sheep, cattle and corn were more profitable and the old forests were cover for not only wolves but also the dispossessed Irish.

_Tis cause enough for grieving,
Our shelter felled around us...
What shall we do for timber?
The last of the woods is down...
There's no holly nor hazel nor ash there,
The pasture's rock and stone,
The crown of the forest has withered,
And the last of the game is gone._

'Lament for the Woodlands' (Anon) from 'Lords and Commons' (Cuala Press, Dublin 1938), Frank O'Connor


----------



## Selwyn (15 Aug 2021)

Jacob said:


> Copy pasted from a site:
> 
> *De-forestation*
> It is easy to assume that de-forestation is a result of excessive demand for timber but in fact the opposite is more often the case.
> ...



I tell you what, try living without farming! Criticise it all you want. But if feeds you and a lot of others


----------



## Rorschach (15 Aug 2021)

Selwyn said:


> I tell you what, try living without farming! Criticise it all you want. But if feeds you and a lot of others



We just need to import our food like we import our fuel, no carbon emissions, everyone wins.


----------



## Jacob (15 Aug 2021)

Selwyn said:


> I tell you what, try living without farming! Criticise it all you want. But if feeds you and a lot of others


The problem is animal farming, which uses 20 times the land area of the equivalent vegetable food production.
S America is being rapidly deforested for cattle farming and animal fodder, following word-wide trends.


----------



## D_W (15 Aug 2021)

RobinBHM said:


> as opposed to having the economy run by capitalists, who run the world and tell us what we can and cannot do.
> 
> How do you think a farmer would get on if he said to Tesco "Im going to have to put my prices up"



compare your existence to the soviets, WWII germany or venezuela (or north korea, or belarus (I list belarus because they claim to be a democratic socialist state, but it's not like they actually operate like one). 

They would probably all have the ability to control what their citizens are doing.


----------



## Selwyn (15 Aug 2021)

Jacob said:


> The problem is animal farming, which uses 20 times the land area of the equivalent vegetable food production.
> S America is being rapidly deforested for cattle farming and animal fodder, following word-wide trends.



Well it just depends. Some animal farming is perfect for the climate, but some is not. Animals really help soil fertility.

The vast majority of people don't want to eat nuts and scrabble around for enough nutrients from plants. They want some meat too


----------



## murdoch (15 Aug 2021)

Jacob said:


> The problem is animal farming, which uses 20 times the land area of the equivalent vegetable food production.
> S America is being rapidly deforested for cattle farming and animal fodder, following word-wide trends.


I grew up and worked on my dads farm. It’s still going and has pig, broiler chickens, free range layers and arable. Broiler chickens and pigs take up very little space for huge amounts of food. But the big thing is that without the animal manure the crops yield is reduced massively. I’m sorry Jacob but you may know about other areas in life, but when it comes to farming you clearly have no idea. I grant that sheep farming and cattle take up more land, but the land used for these animals is completely unsuitable for crops. This is why cereals and veg are mainly grown south and sheep further up north.


----------



## Jacob (15 Aug 2021)

murdoch said:


> I grew up and worked on my dads farm. It’s still going and has pig, broiler chickens, free range layers and arable. Broiler chickens and pigs take up very little space for huge amounts of food. But the big thing is that without the animal manure the crops yield is reduced massively. I’m sorry Jacob but you may know about other areas in life, but when it comes to farming you clearly have no idea. I grant that sheep farming and cattle take up more land, but the land used for these animals is completely unsuitable for crops. This is why cereals and veg are mainly grown south and sheep further up north.


I've worked on farms too.
Pigs and chickens need plant food. That's what takes up the space. The rule of thumb is that meat needs 10 to 20 times the area of land for the equivalent amount of vegetable food for human consumption, even if they are kept in small spaces or battery farms.
Thing about climate change is that a lot of things will have to be looked at and veggy diet is one of them. 
Sheep take up non arable land some of the time but this has de-forested the highlands of Britain and increased atmospheric CO2. Also involves drainage which reduces peat - which is one of the densest ways of sequestering carbon. 
Not good news for farming I'm afraid and I will miss the lamb chops - it's not good news for any of us!
The alarming thing about climate change is how little people seem to know about it and how little preparation there has been.
Don't blame me I'm just passing the message!


----------



## John Brown (15 Aug 2021)

murdoch said:


> I grew up and worked on my dads farm. It’s still going and has pig, broiler chickens, free range layers and arable. Broiler chickens and pigs take up very little space for huge amounts of food. But the big thing is that without the animal manure the crops yield is reduced massively. I’m sorry Jacob but you may know about other areas in life, but when it comes to farming you clearly have no idea. I grant that sheep farming and cattle take up more land, but the land used for these animals is completely unsuitable for crops. This is why cereals and veg are mainly grown south and sheep further up north.


I'll agree that sheep and goats can graze land that is unsuitable for crops, but cattle? Really? You surprise me.


----------



## murdoch (15 Aug 2021)

Good reply Jacob, I’ll look into what you say


----------



## murdoch (15 Aug 2021)

John Brown said:


> I'll agree that sheep and goats can graze land that is unsuitable for crops, but cattle? Really? You surprise me.


I should have left out cattle, I don’t really know much about diary and beef


----------



## Jacob (15 Aug 2021)

murdoch said:


> Good reply, I’ll look into what you say


I suppose that one of the biggest surprises for many would be that encouraging peat bogs is better for human wellbeing than grazing sheep. The world turned upside down!








Resources







www.iucn.org


----------



## John Brown (15 Aug 2021)

I don't really know much about anything, but I have seen sheep and goats grazing steep, hard to cultivate landscapes. My neighbour has a herd of Dexter cattle, and the fields they graze could easily be cultivated.
Full disclosure: I do have two sheep.


----------



## D_W (16 Aug 2021)

John Brown said:


> I'll agree that sheep and goats can graze land that is unsuitable for crops, but cattle? Really? You surprise me.



cattle graze marginal land here and have for probably centuries. Our marginal land is probably different than your marginal land (dryland more so than highlands).


----------



## Terry - Somerset (16 Aug 2021)

Is the issue the efficient use of land for food production, or which is more environmentally sound - using land for biomass/crops or animal rearing.

Efficient use of land is more likely through crop production for food than the same area used for animals - animals are not 100% efficient in converting feed to meat. 

This may only be an issue due to the growth in populations - were there only 25% of the people, it would not matter that meat production required 4 times the land. 

Environmentally the answer is less certain. Solar energy forces the growth of biomass - grass, trees, crops etc. Biomass created is "consumed" in one of three ways:

eaten as an edible crop by humans
eaten by animals which are then eaten by humans
simply rots - trees and plants grow, die and then regrow
The only variable is the length of the cycle - trees may absorb solar energy for centuries before eventually dying, rotting and releasing chemicals back into the atmosphere. The other extreme cycle is the time for a crop to grow to maturity followed by immediate consumption.

Adding water use (if this is actually a constraint) or the type of gases given off by decay (some gaes are more "greenhouse" than others) may have an environmental impact.

In summary (as a committed carnivore) - without a very clear explanation I am currently unconvinced of the benefit to climate change of reducing meat consumption


----------



## TRITON (16 Aug 2021)

Selwyn said:


> Well it just depends. Some animal farming is perfect for the climate, but some is not. Animals really help soil fertility.
> 
> The vast majority of people don't want to eat nuts and scrabble around for enough nutrients from plants. They want some meat too


I could do vegetarianism, if fish was an option, which is something Ive never understood about vegetarians eating fish. Poor old fish, even vegetarians don't even support them 

But each to their own. We mustn't judge particle board users either.


----------



## Rorschach (16 Aug 2021)

Without meat farming:

No eggs, no milk, no leather, no wool, no gelatin, no suet, no organic fertiliser, no bonemeal, no cheese, no butter, no yoghurt and countless other products that are by products or produced alongside the meat.

Mmmm I can't wait to live on a diet of boiled cabbage and potatoes.


----------



## TRITON (16 Aug 2021)

Rorschach said:


> Without meat farming:
> 
> No eggs, no milk, no leather, no wool, no gelatin, no suet, no organic fertiliser, no bonemeal, no cheese, no butter, no yoghurt and countless other products that are by products or produced alongside the meat.
> 
> Mmmm I can't wait to live on a diet of boiled cabbage and potatoes.


It's a horrible experience. Once went camping with 2 vegetarians and two vegans. stewed turnips was one of the concoctions. Utterly revolting, and it looked it too. I will never eat turnips again, long as I live.
My Haggis,neeps and tatties is always Haggis and tatties, new neeps  I wouldn't spoil Haggis with turnips, no matter how traditional. You know how hard it is to catch the damn things.


----------



## Jacob (16 Aug 2021)

TRITON said:


> ..
> 
> The country wouldnt survive it if the population suddenly turned vegetarian, as we simply dont have enough arable land, ......


No it's the other way around. Arable farming is much more efficient and requires much less land to produce an equivalent amount of food, not least because arable farming is also required in order to produce animal feed in vast quantities.
This is another of the simple facts of life facing us, which may be a surprise to many people.
I'm not looking forward to vegetarianism either!


> So little awareness of the actual logistics needed.
> eg
> How would this produce be distributed and by what means would it be transported ?.
> How would this transportation and distribution be paid for, the operators, the drivers.
> ...


I agree, and all these questions should be asked, but logistically a vegetarian population is much easier to feed and needs less land. For a start we wouldn't be having to feed all those animals which in many parts of the world takes up the largest proportion of arable acreage.
Here's another link outlining the dismal facts. Is the Livestock Industry Destroying the Planet? google your own you will find many saying the same sort of thing
Here's a link to war time rationing. These things were rationed because they were highly demanding of resources, then as now. Rationing in World War Two Apparently it amounted to a very healthy diet and nobody suffered from it except from boredom!


----------



## Keith Cocker (16 Aug 2021)

Hallelujahal said:


> My rant is over, but I doubt that will make a spit of difference to the characters who want to pull all our strings!



It really puzzles me that people can think that “they” are doing “all this” so that they can “pull all our strings”. It must be paranoia.


----------



## Jacob (16 Aug 2021)

Keith Cocker said:


> It really puzzles me that people can think that “they” are doing “all this” so that they can “pull all our strings”. It must be paranoia.


Yep. They also accuse "them" of being "woke". I guess the non-woke would rather be nodding off at the back without having to be disturbed by inconvenient ideas!


----------



## deema (16 Aug 2021)

I don’t know what I don’t know. So, I don’t know how the earth survived when the coal and oil was living matter, the white cliffs of dover; calcium carbonate was shell fish. That’s a lot of carbon / CO2 that’s been locked up….but it was once free. Life survived / thrived when it was free so why does it make any difference if it’s free again? Equally where has all the carbon come from to replace that locked up to supported life before we started releasing it by using fossil fuels.
There was more oxygen in the atmosphere that supported super sized bugs when the dinosaurs were around…..where did it go, was it locked up with the carbon?


----------



## Jacob (16 Aug 2021)

deema said:


> I don’t know what I don’t know. So, I don’t know how the earth survived when the coal and oil was living matter, the white cliffs of dover; calcium carbonate was shell fish. That’s a lot of carbon / CO2 that’s been locked up….but it was once free. Life survived / thrived when it was free so why does it make any difference if it’s free again? Equally where has all the carbon come from to replace that locked up to supported life before we started releasing it by using fossil fuels.
> There was more oxygen in the atmosphere that supported super sized bugs when the dinosaurs were around…..where did it go, was it locked up with the carbon?


Life as a whole is not under threat (touch wood!) but the way we live (and a lot of other species) is going to be disrupted. It's the speed of change which matters, perhaps not leaving us time to adapt.
Other question answered here Carboniferous Period and Prehistoric Facts


----------



## Jacob (16 Aug 2021)

Terry - Somerset said:


> ....
> Efficient use of land is more likely through crop production for food than the same area used for animals - animals are not 100% efficient in converting feed to meat.


the rule of thumb figure often quoted is 10%. Arable produces ten times the food per acre compared to livestock. But there are many variables and other inputs.
More detail here: https://storage.googleapis.com/plan...922-Greenpeace-report-Farming-for-Failure.pdf


----------



## TRITON (16 Aug 2021)

Jacob said:


> Here's another link outlining the dismal facts. Is the Livestock Industry Destroying the Planet?


So appropriate to place it in the 'Lots of hot air' thread. Thats exactly what it was. 
Talking about clearing land in the rainforest for meat production, not that we use meat from South America, although thanks to brexit we're looking further afield, and those South American farmers, hoping to supply this large opening market would go about clearing even more land than they currently do.
Or lets talk about New Zealand, or Botswana, but in the end will these countries be following suit ?,nope and I doubt Botswana could afford it, leaving us to do everything, make every change, probably to the detriment of all other aspects of life in the uk, and it wont change one iota global wise.


----------



## Rorschach (16 Aug 2021)

TRITON said:


> So appropriate to place it in the 'Lots of hot air' thread. Thats exactly what it was.
> Talking about clearing land in the rainforest for meat production, not that we use meat from South America, although thanks to brexit we're looking further afield, and those South American farmers, hoping to supply this large opening market would go about clearing even more land than they currently do.
> Or lets talk about New Zealand, or Botswana, but in the end will these countries be following suit ?,nope and I doubt Botswana could afford it, leaving us to do everything, make every change, probably to the detriment of all other aspects of life in the uk, and it wont change one iota global wise.



Only rich countries can afford the luxury of purposely impoverishing themselves on the basis it gives them a warm fuzzy feeling inside.


----------



## Jacob (16 Aug 2021)

Rorschach said:


> Only rich countries can afford the luxury of purposely impoverishing themselves on the basis it gives them a warm fuzzy feeling inside.


Silly remark, unusual for you!  
It's not about a warm fuzzy feeling it's about climate change and how to deal with it.
Correct to say it is problematic - but that's how it is with problems - don't need to be told that, we need solutions.


----------



## Droogs (16 Aug 2021)

deema said:


> I don’t know what I don’t know. So, I don’t know how the earth survived when the coal and oil was living matter, the white cliffs of dover; calcium carbonate was shell fish. That’s a lot of carbon / CO2 that’s been locked up….but it was once free. Life survived / thrived when it was free so why does it make any difference if it’s free again? Equally where has all the carbon come from to replace that locked up to supported life before we started releasing it by using fossil fuels.
> There was more oxygen in the atmosphere that supported super sized bugs when the dinosaurs were around…..where did it go, was it locked up with the carbon?




The biological epoch in which the white cliff of Dover and the Oil fields of the middle east are millions of years ago and the one in which the palm fronds of 4 star and unleaded were waving in the breeze under a slightly brighter sun was during a time when there was no animal life as such, yes bacteria and other things like that but now cows or dinosaurs or even insects really. That was all still to come but as an aside the atmosphere was around 30 bar thicker and had just under the ignition point of oxygen saturation in the air with a hell of a lot of water in the air at around 99.9% humidity all the time.


----------



## TominDales (16 Aug 2021)

Terry - Somerset said:


> Is the issue the efficient use of land for food production, or which is more environmentally sound - using land for biomass/crops or animal rearing.
> 
> Efficient use of land is more likely through crop production for food than the same area used for animals - animals are not 100% efficient in converting feed to meat.
> 
> ...


From what I've read on this topic (its not my expertise, but relevant to my work as we are trying to reduce manufacturing emissions of CO2 to get to net zero), animal production - especially the intensive type seen in the US and now spreading to south america and Australia etc gives of relatively high amounts of methane which is a very severe green house gas about 80 times co2. So reducing meat consumption would be a quick way to buy time for CO2 reduction to click in. Methane is also lost to the atmosphere from fracking and oil and gas production, again those fugitive emissions can be quite eastly reduced. So an effort to reduce methane can buy valuable time.
We don't have to become vegetations, but just go back to the kind of meat eating levels of 30 years ago.


----------



## jcassidy (16 Aug 2021)

So my position is fairly simple; climate change is real, 90% of the world simply doesn't give a pineapple about it.

Climate change is real, only rich Western countries are worried about it, we are unlikely to be able to stop it, so you'd better start getting ready. 

I know (because I work for one) regulators are very concerned about the impact on financial stability when vast tracts of housing can't be insured as they are near the sea or in newly defined flood areas. The impact on banks (all those mortgages! !!) is not to be underestimated. 

On top of that you can add the cost of adverse weather events. Insurance companies may start excluding storm damage or "once in [x] years events. 

Add to that an uncertain amount of economic activity that will be impacted, be that industrial zones that will become unusable, lost harvests or reduced agricultural productivity, unusable transport systems, urban areas that need flood defences, etc. etc.

Is already difficult or impossible to insure a sea side house against erosion or flood damage. I can't remember the criteria, something like within so many hundred meters distance and less than 6 metres above high tide mark. Something like that. 

Just my 2c.


----------



## Selwyn (16 Aug 2021)

jcassidy said:


> So my position is fairly simple; climate change is real, 90% of the world simply doesn't give a pineapple about it.
> 
> Climate change is real, only rich Western countries are worried about it, we are unlikely to be able to stop it, so you'd better start getting ready.
> 
> ...



A newly defined flood area is basically a floodplain that was there before the houses anyway. A lot of this is to do wit water management rather than excess rainfall


----------



## TominDales (16 Aug 2021)

jcassidy said:


> So my position is fairly simple; climate change is real, 90% of the world simply doesn't give a pineapple about it.
> 
> Climate change is real, only rich Western countries are worried about it, we are unlikely to be able to stop it, so you'd better start getting ready.
> 
> I know (because I work for one) regulators are very concerned about the impact on financial stability when vast tracts of housing can't be insured as they are near the sea or in newly defined flood areas. The impact on banks (all those mortgages! !!) is not to be underestimated.


You raise a good point. We are already paying an flood surcharge.

The UK government has known about the effects of climate change for a very long time, the earth summit in Rio provided a thorough global analysis. Yet in the UK we continued to allow development on flood plains etc and have been slow to adapt and we are currently paying the price through an insurance surcharge on all households.
When the floods and coastal floods of a few years ago put flood insurance beyond the means for most effected, the government stepped in and an agreement was made by the insurance industry to continue to insure at risk homes, in return for a flood insurance surcharge on the rest of the population, even so its still expensive cover for those affected, but there is a national scheme to help spread the pain. 
If we do nothing we can expect more of the same, as coastal regions and those displaced from flood plains will need compensating and the most likely outcome will be a general insurance surcharge to pay for the compensation. The more we plan and prepare the better we can avoid some of these issues by not building in coastal or at risk areas. We can plant upland vegetation that reduces flood run-off etc. The more we prepare the lower the longer term costs.
In an earlier post someone compared our situation to biblical times. The story of Joseph of the coat fame is quite apt. As chief minister in Egypt he prepared for drought during the times of plenty and neighbouring countries supposedly didn't. Its during the relative good times before the climate radically changes that we need to prepare, whilst we have time to adapt.


----------



## planesleuth (16 Aug 2021)

Droogs said:


> The biological epoch in which the white cliff of Dover and the Oil fields of the middle east are millions of years ago and the one in which the palm fronds of 4 star and unleaded were waving in the breeze under a slightly brighter sun was during a time when there was no animal life as such, yes bacteria and other things like that but now cows or dinosaurs or even insects really. That was all still to come but as an aside the atmosphere was around 30 bar thicker and had just under the ignition point of oxygen saturation in the air with a hell of a lot of water in the air at around 99.9% humidity all the time.



What a load of tosh!


----------



## Droogs (16 Aug 2021)

@planesleuth try being a little less ignorant about how this planet evolved and works




__





The Age of Oxygen






forces.si.edu


----------



## Jacob (16 Aug 2021)

Selwyn said:


> ..... A lot of this is to do wit water management rather than excess rainfall


Wishful thinking. Half true in some cases where water management is abandoned as no longer possible.


----------



## planesleuth (16 Aug 2021)

Try being accurate in your summation of the planet's 'evolution'.


----------



## Selwyn (16 Aug 2021)

Jacob said:


> Wishful thinking. Half true in some cases where water management is abandoned as no longer possible.



Which of the latest floods in the UK have been "acts of god" with no explanation beyond climate change? Very often up and down stream things haven't been managed very well, and very often these are natural floodplains anyway


----------



## Jacob (16 Aug 2021)

Selwyn said:


> Which of the latest floods in the UK have been "acts of god" with no explanation beyond climate change? Very often up and down stream things haven't been managed very well, and very often these are natural floodplains anyway


Climate change pushes things beyond their expected range so you could argue that ALL of the out-of-the-ordinary or record breaking floods are amplified by, and hence a result of, climate change. They all happen in places already vulnerable of course.
River management ends up being revised accordingly - improved dredging may make things worse down stream in some places, in others may help. Deliberate flooding/re-wilding becomes a tactic as in Ennerdale Wild Ennerdale – Shaping the Landscape Naturally which arguably could be the answer to recent record breaking (climate change caused) floods in places like Cockermouth. The flood in Cockermouth, 19th-20th November 2009 | Visit Cumbria n.b. this off the top of my head - google for details.
The big problem comes where rising sea levels meet increased run-off due to higher intensity rainfall.


----------



## AlanY (16 Aug 2021)

Jacob said:


> The problem is animal farming, which uses 20 times the land area of the equivalent vegetable food production.
> S America is being rapidly deforested for cattle farming and animal fodder, following word-wide trends.


I don't see animal farming as a 'problem'. I see it as ribeye steak on the barbie, washed down by wine imported (via container ship) from Australia. The greenies would deny me these things and I see that as a 'problem'. COP26 is a joke, given the three biggest polluters don't give a toss about the environment or about climate change (if they did, they would stop building coal-fired power stations and move to cars with small efficient petrol engines. But aircon is nice and you just cannot beat the sound of a throaty V8 engine so, sod the climate).


----------



## Jameshow (16 Aug 2021)

AlanY said:


> I don't see animal farming as a 'problem'. I see it as ribeye steak on the barbie, washed down by wine imported (via container ship) from Australia. The greenies would deny me these things and I see that as a 'problem'. COP26 is a joke, given the three biggest polluters don't give a toss about the environment or about climate change (if they did, they would stop building coal-fired power stations and move to cars with small efficient petrol engines. But aircon is nice and you just cannot beat the sound of a throaty V8 engine so, sod the climate).



Don't forget the cheap tat from China via Amazon and the foreign holidays - all of which makes the electric vehicles the middle classes buy look rather like fig leaves..... 

Cheers James


----------



## Spectric (16 Aug 2021)

jcassidy said:


> I know (because I work for one) regulators are very concerned about the impact on financial stability when vast tracts of housing can't be insured as they are near the sea or in newly defined flood areas. The impact on banks (all those mortgages! !!) is not to be underestimated.


I can remember that during the last big floods we had up here apart from the emergency services & RNLI we had the enviroment agency and I believe some partner company who were marking up maps to redefine the flood zones and this info was for local councils, highways and you guessed it the insurance companies. After this there were some people with huge excess on their insurance premiums.

They talk of these sea level rises and yet not only are they doing nothing about the climate change issue they are also not planing about what to do when it happens. They must realise London is a high risk, thames barrier is basicaly obsolete and when the levels rise it will just flow in from the Essex coast so unless they build huge dykes then they should be looking at where to site the new capital, perhaps Birmingham to be more central.


----------



## TRITON (16 Aug 2021)

I think you should increase your scope about oil and remember it is not just a case of oil = petrol, oil = diesel, a great number of products are made from it and its unlikely we'll be able to replace them all with interwoven strands of plant matter.


----------



## Rorschach (16 Aug 2021)

Fuels, plastics, medicines, preservatives, fertilisers, solvents, cleaning products, cosmetics........ the list goes on.


----------



## Spectric (16 Aug 2021)

Without petrochemicals an awful lot of products will no longer be produced. One of the first to come out the process is Asphalt and bitumen so are we just going to use concrete instead. At the other end you have Lpg, ie propane and butane so thats a lot of forklifts without fuel not to mention the leisure industry, but not an issue for the road gangs as they will not have any tarmac to lay anyway. Then in the middle you have paraffin and jet fuels, end of the aviation industry but what about the military, can you forsee an electric F15 or B2! Perhaps they all go and get replaced by drones so thats solved. You also have a lot of other things like plastic , polypropylene think rope and food packaging. Polyester is insulation, fabrics but also a key ingredient to plastic pollution and don't forget PTFE so thats another load, but luckily we will be able to import from other countries who will still be selling ICE vehicles for some time and keeping their refineries going unlike here in the UK.


----------



## TominDales (16 Aug 2021)

TRITON said:


> I think you should increase your scope about oil and remember it is not just a case of oil = petrol, oil = diesel, a great number of products are made from it and its unlikely we'll be able to replace them all with interwoven strands of plant matter.


Hey guys there is no need to be extreme, on this or on changes to our diet and behaviour etc. Plastics account for about 3% of global of emissions. Petrol, diesel, fuel oil and heating oil and gas are the big emitters from refineries. The chemical industry is looking at sustainable plastics and finding ways to recycle and re-use plastic, it will take some time but is not the biggest concern right now. Transportation and heating are the big emitters. As I've said before, we do need to adopt to net Zero but it can be done without abandoning everything we desire, there is no need for a hair shirt. We can make the changes needed if we act now, use technology wisely and innovate to make the changes affordable. Main stream climatologist and the IPCC reports are not calling for such extreme behaviour.


----------



## fixit45 (17 Aug 2021)

Well I am caring for my dying wife and I am 76 with heart problems. So I don't give a toss, I am just trying to make the most of what there is.


----------



## Spectric (17 Aug 2021)

Look back to 9 / 11 when all aircraft were grounded, I remember reading that the high altitude air droped by 3° C during this period.

In extreme situations or circumstances then extreme measures need to be taken to bring things back to acceptable or to ensure survival, I doubt that people who resorted to cannibalism did it for any other reason than they were in a dire situation. This is probably not helping our current climate issues or the will to act more swiftly because although we can see what might be coming we are still not at that point where we just resort to drastic action which will be to late.


----------



## hairy (17 Aug 2021)

Using what we have more efficiently should be the top of everyone's agenda.
Labelling it Climate Change and pointing out fire/flood/quake/less icecap etc etc, using fear to stoke anxiety (but not in the MSM as previously pointed out of course), dubious modelling obviously skewed by those with vested interests, all removes credibility and hinders the investment people should have in our future.


It does seem that grass breaking down in a ruminent stomach emits the same gases in the same quantity as if it were rotting at the end of the season in the field. It's not the animal, it's what would happen anyway, the animal is an emitter not a producer. A cow chomping 6" of grass down to 1" which leaves a live plant with the soil structure intact while manuring it in the process has to be better than a hybrid maize crop with the heads harvested, the rest ripped out with lots of pesticides and artificial fertiliser required to repeat? You won't have any biome in the soil with modern arable farming.

Bioavailability of what humans need is much greater from meat than veg. We've been eating meat for a long time, to change to not doing that and instead eating more processed food will create how many problems? A vegan friend of mine had a detached thigh muscle which refused to heal over almost a year. They had spent a long time in India and loved how people lived there, couldn't see an issue with how their diet may compromise their health. Their GP suggested maybe eating meat for a short while at least could help. It did, fixed.

A while ago I looked up if I was getting enough calcium and it seems I wasn't. The levels required are in themselves puzzling, and where do countries that don't do milk products after breastmilk get theirs from anyway? But I would have to eat kilos of kale every day according to the UK guidelines I read.


----------



## hairy (17 Aug 2021)

Every sensible person in the world today agrees that EVs will save the planet from Climate Change.

Taking a leaf from the highly successful and rigidly adhered to tactic with Covid vaccination of targeting the most vulnerable, I do not think it is right to put the heaviest demands on the few, who often are nowhere near where help is needed. Inefficiencies abound.

Why should Jonathon from Tunbridge Wells be required to put so many miles on his personal EV to ensure glaciers remain frozen?

It's just not fair.

So, I suggest that after a worldwide triage of deciding who and where is/are the most vulnerable, followed by the longest and most in depth series of modelling constructs ever seen of the earth's climate, so probably all done whilst queueing for a salted mochachino with skimmed almond milk, I think airdrops of EVs should be undertaken forthwith.

How can anyone in all seriousness help the Sudanese subsistence farmer when he continues to use a pair of polluting oxen to draw his plow to feed his family? A couple of Teslas deposited right where needed will increase rainfall, yields and happiness by just the right amount according to Us.

Polar bears on a tiny piece of ice not even big enough for her and her kids? A few more Teslas, with a sprinkling of Leafs all on a container ship confiscated from one of those shocking companies who dare to export anything whatsoever. Instant ice sheet, happy bears.

Recent fires in Sicily? A couple of dozen Prius's should do the trick, less heat, a little more rain, less unburnt undergrowth all by itself as if by magic.

I don't know why the likes of Gates, Musk and Bezos don't just get on and do it. Waiting for the few remaining doubters to agree is so tedious.


----------



## TominDales (17 Aug 2021)

hairy said:


> Using what we have more efficiently should be the top of everyone's agenda.
> 
> It does seem that grass breaking down in a ruminent stomach emits the same gases in the same quantity as if it were rotting at the end of the season in the field. It's not the animal, it's what would happen anyway,
> 
> Bioavailability of what humans need is much greater from meat than veg. We've been eating meat for a long time, to change to not doing that and instead eating more processed food will create how many problems?


I agree with your essential first point that we all need to be efficient with resources. Also we can achieve net zero by making reasonable adjustments to our lifestyle and encourage innovation and the uptake of new technology such as EVs etc. There is no need to mass hairshirtism. 

However as a chemist I feel the need to point out a couple of misconceptions about the carbon cycle
Methane gas is a by-product of anaerobic digestion processes. In the absence of air bugs make methane. In the presence of air they make predominately CO2. Both processes are natural, but they vary in extent in different systems. And in natural systems a lot of carbon is locked up undecomposed.

As such most vegetable matter left to rot/decompose will form a carbon rich matter that is on the whole good for the soil and the environment, it what created peat, forest floors and in the past coal seams etc. Some of the matter is digested by organism that use the carbon for energy and building their own bodies eg fungi etc. This give off CO2, but over a long time period, much longer than intensive farming timescales. Some methane is given off, especially in wetlands and tropical wetlands give of more. The amazon gives off both CO2 and methane.
However intensive livestock farming gives off much more methane (and CO2), so the drive is to reduce our reliance on intensive cattle farming. If we can moderate our diets (I mean moderate) we can prevent more of the amazon being turned into farmland and reduce methane emissions that accompany livestock - cattle farming. This does not mean abandoning meant eating, just going back to more sustainable levels of a few years ago.

The population of China and South East Asia has historically been much higher than in the west and this was partly because they have largely vegetarian diets that could be sustained in India, China and south Asia. As China adopts a more western diet its demand for meat has increased
. There is nothing wrong with a balanced vegetarian diet, its healthy and billions of people live like that in Asia as they have for millennia. At the same time, we don't have to ban all meant. Just some restraint is what is required.


----------



## TRITON (17 Aug 2021)

hairy said:


> Every sensible person in the world today agrees that EVs will save the planet from Climate Change.


I think I broke the formula. 
I'm a cyclist who has went from a 'manual' bicycle to an electric bicycle, so in effect where I wasn't using any electricity, I am now. 
It's also a larger carbon footprint when constructing an electric over a manual.

I'm my defence, I'm expelling far less co2


----------



## hairy (17 Aug 2021)

It's odd that the discussion generally is meat vs veg (an), without considering grass fed vs intensive livestock as perhaps more suitable. Obviously Greenpeace won't consider that because they have a screaming nutter agenda to follow. If they became all sensible it just wouldn't be the same. (Did you see the secret recording last year of the BBC in talks with them, getting tips on how to induce widespread fear based on no facts whatsoever? Allegedly on YT for about 30 seconds.) ))

We have a high rainfall here, and you can smell when you dig that a lot of the rotten material is decaying without oxygen. Landfill also produces methane too of course. I hadn't thought about rotting grass under several years worth of dead material still maybe being in air. Here it probably isn't. Too much peat too, which refuses to allow anything to grow apart from a very few unhelpful things.

Fish and offal were not rationed. Fitness during times of rationing may be more to do with cooking from whole basic ingredients rather than anyone becoming a veggie. My Gran was distraught in the early 2000's when the butcher she had used I think since the 50's at least refused to sell her a whole pigs head  It's a wine bar now, run by vegans.


----------



## TominDales (17 Aug 2021)

hairy said:


> It's odd that the discussion generally is meat vs veg (an), without considering grass fed vs intensive livestock as perhaps more suitable. Obviously Greenpeace won't consider that because they have a screaming nutter agenda to follow. If they became all sensible it just wouldn't be the same. (Did you see the secret recording last year of the BBC in talks with them, getting tips on how to induce widespread fear based on no facts whatsoever? Allegedly on YT for about 30 seconds.) ))
> 
> We have a high rainfall here, and you can smell when you dig that a lot of the rotten material is decaying without oxygen. Landfill also produces methane too of course. I hadn't thought about rotting grass under several years worth of dead material still maybe being in air. Here it probably isn't. Too much peat too, which refuses to allow anything to grow apart from a very few unhelpful things.
> 
> Fish and offal were not rationed. Fitness during times of rationing may be more to do with cooking from whole basic ingredients rather than anyone becoming a veggie. My Gran was distraught in the early 2000's when the butcher she had used I think since the 50's at least refused to sell her a whole pigs head  It's a wine bar now, run by vegans.


Personally I see nothing wrong with grass fed livestock. It's the intensive industrial scale American farms that I have issue with, they are a huge burden on the environment and produce unrealistically cheap meet which encourages higher consumption. In most US states meat is cheaper than salad. The feed is effectively subsidise by the US farm system.
I'm sure if we eased off the intensive farming, probably through regulation and beef became more of a premium food, we pay farmers a better living would learn to cook it well and saver it. Apparently chicken has a low CO2 burden.
My mum used to cook sheep's head, boiled in large saucepans and smelt terrible. I think it was mainly for dog food, not sure what bits we ate. We also ate mutton in those days, even lamb was allowed to grow to a reasonable age. Nowadays you hardly hear of mutton. I guess sheep's head is also banned.


----------



## TRITON (18 Aug 2021)

hairy said:


> It's odd that the discussion generally is meat vs veg (an), without considering grass fed vs intensive livestock as perhaps more suitable. Obviously Greenpeace won't consider that because they have a screaming nutter agenda to follow. If they became all sensible it just wouldn't be the same. (Did you see the secret recording last year of the BBC in talks with them, getting tips on how to induce widespread fear based on no facts whatsoever? Allegedly on YT for about 30 seconds.) ))
> 
> We have a high rainfall here, and you can smell when you dig that a lot of the rotten material is decaying without oxygen. Landfill also produces methane too of course. I hadn't thought about rotting grass under several years worth of dead material still maybe being in air. Here it probably isn't. Too much peat too, which refuses to allow anything to grow apart from a very few unhelpful things.
> 
> Fish and offal were not rationed. Fitness during times of rationing may be more to do with cooking from whole basic ingredients rather than anyone becoming a veggie. My Gran was distraught in the early 2000's when the butcher she had used I think since the 50's at least refused to sell her a whole pigs head  It's a wine bar now, run by vegans.


*Vegetarians and vegans fart too*. Probably produce more nasty climate gas than cows.


----------



## Jacob (18 Aug 2021)

hairy said:


> ........ Obviously Greenpeace won't consider that because they have a screaming nutter agenda to follow........


Unfortunately they are not screaming nutters. It's wake up time - the "non woke" have lost their culture war - dismissing everything they don't understand as nonsense just doesn't work!

Greenpeace is just another agency alerting us to the ecological and climate change disaster which people have known about for a very long time. People are now having to take notice and ask a few questions.

Greenpeace chooses to be confrontational, which annoys a lot of people but that's the whole idea - to get publicity for some urgent issues.








#About Us - Greenpeace International


We want to live on a healthy, peaceful planet. A planet where forests flourish, oceans are full of life and where once-threatened animals safely roam.




www.greenpeace.org


----------



## Trainee neophyte (18 Aug 2021)

A book by the founder of greenpeace:









Fake Invisible Catastrophes and Threats of Doom


Fake Invisible Catastrophes and Threats of Doom book. Read 72 reviews from the world's largest community for readers.



www.goodreads.com





I've not read it, but it sounds interesting.


----------



## Jacob (18 Aug 2021)

Trainee neophyte said:


> A book by the founder of greenpeace:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


You mentioned him before. I'm afraid he is another "outlier", non scientist, with a dubious reputation:
"According to Greenpeace, Moore is "a paid spokesman for the nuclear industry, the logging industry, and genetic engineering industry" who "exploits long-gone ties with Greenpeace to sell himself as a speaker and pro-corporate spokesperson".

Instead of scrabbling around for debunking evidence why don't you just start having a closer look at the facts? It wouldn't commit you to anything but you'd know more about what you are talking about. I don't see the point of choosing to be ignorant.









Patrick Moore (consultant) - Wikipedia







en.wikipedia.org


----------



## Rorschach (18 Aug 2021)

Trainee neophyte said:


> A book by the founder of greenpeace:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Too late, Jacob already dismissed Patrick Moore as being just an astronomer in the pocket of big carbon, and dead.

EDIT: He is on the ball this morning. I mean of course PM is a crank, he says something that Jacob disagrees with and anyone who disagrees with Jacob or the prevailing narrative is a crank. Oh one day wouldn't it be wonderful if JC came out as a CC sceptic, I think Jacob would jump off a bridge, though he wouldn't die, the sea level would have risen loads by then so the fall is only 6 inches.


----------



## Trainee neophyte (18 Aug 2021)




----------



## Jacob (18 Aug 2021)

Rorschach said:


> Too late, Jacob already dismissed Patrick Moore as being just an astronomer in the pocket of big carbon, and dead.
> 
> EDIT: He is on the ball this morning. I mean of course PM is a crank, he says something that Jacob disagrees with and anyone who disagrees with Jacob or the prevailing narrative is a crank. Oh one day wouldn't it be wonderful if JC came out as a CC sceptic, I think Jacob would jump off a bridge, though he wouldn't die, the sea level would have risen loads by then so the fall is only 6 inches.





Trainee neophyte said:


>



It's not about belief it's about facts. I don't see the point of choosing to be ignorant.
Perhaps you could explain? Do you choose not to know about other things too?


----------



## Rorschach (18 Aug 2021)

The old "facts" again, you are as bad as Robin, you accept the facts that support your previous viewpoint and dismiss those that contradict. We all do it, but it is particularly disingenuous to believe that only you can be right, again, just like Robin. Ironic since you both disagree on lots of things.


----------



## Jacob (18 Aug 2021)

Rorschach said:


> The old "facts" again, you are as bad as Robin, you accept the facts that support your previous viewpoint and dismiss those that contradict.


No it's the other way around - I try to have viewpoints which fit the facts


> We all do it,


no we don't. You are the ones choosing facts to fit your viewpoints. Desperately searching for facts in fact! 


> but it is particularly disingenuous to believe that only you can be right,


What a very silly thing to say! Not only me, it's me and 97% of the highly informed scientific community world wide. Hardly a minority opinion.
What is most alarming is that what has been forecast is now happening, but sooner than expected. Probably due to the science being over cautious when faced with rabid ignorance and suspicion/superstition encountered everywhere, even on woodwork forums! Every forecast/comment made over the last 50 years or so has met with derision, sarcasm and opposition. The science probably backs off unconsciously; it's not easy to assert anything against continual opposition, and action has been delayed by the sceptics, and the fossil fuel industry of course.


----------



## Rorschach (18 Aug 2021)

See, you are doing it right now. How do you expect anyone to take you seriously?


----------



## Noel (18 Aug 2021)

Anybody want to get a shout in before closing time?


----------



## selectortone (18 Aug 2021)

TominDales said:


> Personally I see nothing wrong with grass fed livestock.


Swathes of Amazon rainforest are being cleared for beef production. The Amazon rainforest is often referred to as 'the lungs of the planet'. It is part of the weather system that generates the Gulf Stream which is a major factor in the annual weather patterns we see in the UK.

I think it's right we should be concerned about the effect beef production in that area might have. Plenty of tasty alternatives to beef burgers nowadays (e.g. 'Beyond Meat' burgers are delicious)









Revealed: rampant deforestation of Amazon driven by global greed for meat


Investigation exposes how Brazil’s huge beef sector continues to threaten health of world’s largest rainforest




www.theguardian.com


----------



## Terry - Somerset (18 Aug 2021)

Increasingly I come to the conclusion there is no answer to this debate without a radical rethink from both sides of the argument.

Those subscribing to climate change prognstications (as do I generally) need to get a consensus on controlling population growth. Every additional person on the planet creates more stress on the environment. The proposition that populations are now forecast to fall (as they already are in a few countries) is a triumph of self delusion and complacency over reality.

We regard animal populations as threatened when populations fall to a few thousand. 8bn growing to (say) 11bn will further degrade the environment, constrain personal freedoms, with war and disease as likely outcomes.

The alternative proposition - it's untrue, there is nothing can be done, the climate has always varied, leads ultimately to similar outcomes - possibly different timescales and order.

The third option is the complacent applying equally to boths sides. Control greenhouse gases, get to zero carbon, all will be sweetness and light. The alternative - do little or nothing, it's happened before and the human race survived, we can simply adapt and mitigate.

Unfortunately Option 3 closely followed by Option 2 are the easiest to implement right now - why do today what can easily be put off until tomorrow.


----------



## NormanB (18 Aug 2021)

TRITON said:


> I think I broke the formula.
> I'm a cyclist who has went from a 'manual' bicycle to an electric bicycle, so in effect where I wasn't using any electricity, I am now.
> It's also a larger carbon footprint when constructing an electric over a manual.
> 
> I'm my defence, I'm expelling far less co2


And methane.


----------



## Jacob (18 Aug 2021)

So we get there in the end - the sceptics seek the facts to match their opinions, the seekers after truth and light adjust their opinions to match the facts! Obvious really. Don't know why it took so long.


----------



## whereistheceilidh (18 Aug 2021)

Rorschach said:


> See, you are doing it right now. How do you expect anyone to take you seriously?


well just for the count Rorschach, I do. I find the 'facts ' that you put forward poorly researched and generally unsupported by science.


----------



## Jacob (18 Aug 2021)

Terry - Somerset said:


> Increasingly I come to the conclusion there is no answer to this debate without a radical rethink from both sides of the argument.
> 
> Those subscribing to climate change prognstications (as do I generally) need to get a consensus on controlling population growth. Every additional person on the planet creates more stress on the environment. The proposition that populations are now forecast to fall (as they already are in a few countries) is a triumph of self delusion and complacency over reality.
> 
> ...


Population not the problem Most of the world live a low carbon life - it's the excess consumption of relatively few which is the bigger issue. 
In any case increased population is the species survival mechanism kicking in - it increases likelihood of survivors when/if the S hits the fan. Good for the species, bad for most of us individually. 
Evolution looks after the genotype, we are just throw away items - in fact better for the species if we just drop dead as soon as our offspring becomes self sufficient.


----------



## Rorschach (18 Aug 2021)

whereistheceilidh said:


> well just for the count Rorschach, I do. I find the 'facts ' that you put forward poorly researched and generally unsupported by science.



Like I said, we all do it. There is evidence for everything I post because it is mostly things stated by others. Again it depends on which "science" you follow, there isn't a consensus, at least not a real on, there is usually a fabricated one.


----------



## Rorschach (18 Aug 2021)

Jacob said:


> So we get there in the end - the sceptics seek the facts to match their opinions, the seekers after truth and light adjust their opinions to match the facts! Obvious really. Don't know why it took so long.



Ummmm, I have never yet seen you adjust your opinion when given facts, you just dismiss the facts.


----------



## Trainee neophyte (18 Aug 2021)

Polar bears: endangered, close to extinct; losing their habitat; prime evidence that the world is rapidly coming to an end.

On the other hand, polar bear numbers are increasing, and are actually higher than they have been since the 1960s. Sea ice melting later or earlier makes no difference to their ability to feed; the number of starving polar bears has not increased (starvation is the most likely cause of death for a top predator, although mostly caused by injury or illness, not lack of food), and there is no indication of stress to the populations - quite the reverse.

Which narrative is correct? There are two groups of polar bear experts, and both groups appear to study polar bears, count polar bears and publish papers on polar bears. One group says they will be extinct in (insert panicky number of years here), and the other group want to remove polar bears from the endangered animals list. 

Can anyone tell me which scientist is right? I don't have time to go north and count my own polar bears, so I would be grateful if you could let me know why more polar bears means less polar bears imminently, or the reverse.


----------



## whereistheceilidh (18 Aug 2021)

Rorschach said:


> Like I said, we all do it. There is evidence for everything I post because it is mostly things stated by others. Again it depends on which "science" you follow, there isn't a consensus, at least not a real on, there is usually a fabricated one.


There are usually fairly precise requirements for scientific reporting of research. This tends to point to a general direction for what is 'fact'. Tracking back through evidence gives a fair indication as to what research has been competently aquired ...and that which is not. Seems to operate in woodworking themes as well as climate change. .....but there are no so blind who will not see.....


----------



## Jacob (18 Aug 2021)

Trainee neophyte said:


> Polar bears: endangered, close to extinct; losing their habitat; prime evidence that the world is rapidly coming to an end.
> 
> On the other hand, polar bear numbers are increasing, and are actually higher than they have been since the 1960s. Sea ice melting later or earlier makes no difference to their ability to feed; the number of starving polar bears has not increased (starvation is the most likely cause of death for a top predator, although mostly caused by injury or illness, not lack of food), and there is no indication of stress to the populations - quite the reverse.
> 
> ...


Can you give us the relevant links?
Often there is a clue in the sceptical anti-science material in that they kick off on scepticism as top of their agenda, saying it's all a load of rubbish before they even get to the arguments/science. It's a giveaway sign, along with attempts at sarcasm, as per your own post; indications of not being on solid ground.


----------



## Trainee neophyte (18 Aug 2021)

polarbearscience also known as Susan J Crockford who is a 30 expert in the area of ...polar bears. She also doesn't have much truck with things like "tipping points" because, in relation to polar bears, they would appear to be silly. 

I will leave you to come up with all the anti - Susan Crockford "science", because a large number of people spend quite a lot of their time trying to refute her studies. It's fun - two groups of scientists having at it in the press, putting the boot in, because the science is settled and everyone agrees. Just remember that Ms Crockford produces published, peer reviewed papers. She also gets her tenure revoked, removed from university etc, because she doesn't toe the party line. It's a very good example of the pressure scientists are under to produce pro warming science - if you go against the narrative, you get cancelled.

Obviously, all anti - warming science is a) wrong, and b)compromised, oil - industry funded propaganda; all pro - warming science is a) correct, b) sensible and c) obvious to any right - thinking individual.


----------



## D_W (18 Aug 2021)

selectortone said:


> Swathes of Amazon rainforest are being cleared for beef production. The Amazon rainforest is often referred to as 'the lungs of the planet'. It is part of the weather system that generates the Gulf Stream which is a major factor in the annual weather patterns we see in the UK.
> 
> I think it's right we should be concerned about the effect beef production in that area might have. Plenty of tasty alternatives to beef burgers nowadays (e.g. 'Beyond Meat' burgers are delicious)
> 
> ...



As soon as the beyond beef stuff is cheaper than beef, it will take off. At this point, it's $8 a pound here, double the price of ground beef and almost double the price of the lower-cost organic beef (the latter varies wildly depending on what the seller thinks they can get - from $5 to as much as beyond meat). 

Nobody on here posting from the US could say much to south america about land use for agriculture ,though. It's pretty much subsidized everywhere here in the states to the point that we have to burn half of the corn crop in cars, and we have to mandate the use of it to get people to do that in the first place. that probably won't last forever, though, as it relies on irrigated ground, and the irrigation is coming from aquifers that won't replenish fast enough to keep it up.


----------



## Jacob (18 Aug 2021)

Trainee neophyte said:


> polarbearscience also known as Susan J Crockford who is a 30 expert in the area of ...polar bears. She also doesn't have much truck with things like "tipping points" because, in relation to polar bears, they would appear to be silly.


She shows her hand straightaway - the mark of the committed sceptic "denialist" in her rant; "_Outlandish ‘tipping point’ rhetoric is about to be regurgitated once again during the promotion of the latest IPCC report, due today. Tipping points are those theoretical climate thresholds that, when breeched, cause widespread catastrophe; they are mathematical model outputs that depend on many assumptions that may not be plausible or even possible."_


> I will leave you to come up with all the anti - Susan Crockford "science",


I think you should do that yourself - you are the one needing to get back to reality


> ............
> 
> Obviously, all anti - warming science is a) wrong, and b)compromised, oil - industry funded propaganda; all pro - warming science is a) correct, b) sensible and c) obvious to any right - thinking individual.


Er - there isn't really any anti warming "science" as such, other than various anomalies, which are not ignored by the science anyway. All the research is for the climate change hypothesis and now we are getting the evidence - much as forecast but sooner than expected.

PS had a quick google Polar bear status and population a very variable picture it seems - that's what you get with real science. She may even be right about polar bear numbers though she only makes a wild guess, but she is certainly not right about climate change.
PPS what mystifies me is that denialists such as yourself are so anxious to avoid knowing what is going on in the world. It can't only be oil and coal industry propaganda, though that does go far and deep!
Another little reminder here 'Get out now': Monstrous Dixie Fire moves closer to small California town; Caldor Fire threatens more communities it doesn't make it into the news so much recently, as it has become the new normal.


----------



## selectortone (18 Aug 2021)

D_W said:


> As soon as the beyond beef stuff is cheaper than beef, it will take off.


I agree, although sales here are pretty decent already. And one of our smaller supermarket chains, the Co-op, has made the commitment to pricing meat alternative items the same as the equivalent meat product.

I've been a carnivore for 70-odd years. There's no one likes a full English breakfast or a nice juicy steak more than me. But I'm also an animal lover (however hypocritical vegans might find that). I tried stuff like Quorn when it first came out and was not impressed. The newer stuff like Beyond Meat is much better and if it reduces intensive animal farming and maybe saves some trees along the way, that's fine by me. We can all make a contribution, no matter how small.


----------



## Trainee neophyte (18 Aug 2021)

Jacob said:


> She shows her hand straightaway


Someone says something you don't agree with, therefore they must be wrong. Not even worth considering, it's so wrong. Saves a great deal of heartache and thinking, I suppose.

I think I shall play the same card: _you're_ wrong. 
Problem solved - I'm off to bed. G'night.


----------



## John Brown (18 Aug 2021)

Trainee neophyte said:


> Polar bears: endangered, close to extinct; losing their habitat; prime evidence that the world is rapidly coming to an end.
> 
> On the other hand, polar bear numbers are increasing, and are actually higher than they have been since the 1960s. Sea ice melting later or earlier makes no difference to their ability to feed; the number of starving polar bears has not increased (starvation is the most likely cause of death for a top predator, although mostly caused by injury or illness, not lack of food), and there is no indication of stress to the populations - quite the reverse.
> 
> ...


Who said anything about polar bears? Unless I've missed something (which is very likely), you've brought polar bears into the "discussion", just in order to demolish your own argument.
For what it's worth, I haven't seen any polar bears round here in years.


----------



## chaoticbob (19 Aug 2021)

Jacob said:


> Er - there isn't really any anti warming "science" as such, other than various anomalies, which are not ignored by the science anyway.



I think that's a good point. I spent my working life as an academic scientist and in my experience scientists are pretty voracious when an anomaly appears - wow, I want a chunk of that. I might be made a Professor...

The world of academic science really isn't some sort of stitch-up trying to preserve accepted theories. In my experience at least. It's a bear pit of people looking for original ground breaking ideas.

If climate change denying scientists could come up with coherent and persuasive arguments they would surely be feted by the scientific community, but their arguments are thin and unsupported by verified observations. I was a peer reviewer for the Institute of Physics, and although I know nowt about polar bears I would have certainly have sent Susan Crockford's article back had she submitted it for publication. Not because I didn't agree, but because it lacks scientific rigour. I would also have corrected her spelling of 'breach'.

There is an interesting (to me) article in Physics in Perspective about how scientists accept theories. It's about Einstein's theory of relativity, but I think that there is content relevant to this debate. The author talks about the pressures experienced by scientists from various angles. It's about 30 pages, so a long read - I doubt that many people would have the stomach for that and even fewer with the iron-clad guts needed for a detailed critical reading of IPCC6.

So it becomes a matter of faith. Who do you trust and why?
Bob


----------



## planesleuth (19 Aug 2021)

Climate change sceptics may be in the pay of oil companies etc. but climate change scientists, including Greenpeace, are directed by those that provide their funding. None can truly be universally believed. Jacob thinks population is not the problem (lmao), he and many others pick their 'facts' from wikipedia. None is correct. All is correct. In the South West, we call the holiday swarmers little ants. So does the Earth. Soon we will all be swotted and crushed and in the x billion years until the suns extinction, maybe another 'intelligent' species will arise to be a darn sight more intelligent than us!


----------



## Jacob (19 Aug 2021)

planesleuth said:


> Climate change sceptics may be in the pay of oil companies etc. but climate change scientists, including Greenpeace, are directed by those that provide their funding. None can truly be universally believed. Jacob thinks population is not the problem (lmao), he and many others pick their 'facts' from wikipedia. None is correct. All is correct. In the South West, we call the holiday swarmers little ants. So does the Earth. Soon we will all be swotted and crushed and in the x billion years until the suns extinction, maybe another 'intelligent' species will arise to be a darn sight more intelligent than us!


Saying population is the problem is a bit like looking down on the Titanic as it sinks and saying "I see what the problem here is - too many people in the water". True in a way, but not helpful.


----------



## Rorschach (19 Aug 2021)

Jacob said:


> Saying population is the problem is a bit like looking down on the Titanic as it sinks and saying "I see what the problem here is - too many people in the water". True in a way, but not helpful.



That analogy makes no sense.


----------



## Jacob (19 Aug 2021)

Trainee neophyte said:


> Someone says something you don't agree with, therefore they must be wrong.......


No it's the way she says it. A rant and a guess. Compare and contrast it with the measured and thoughtful content of the other link.
CC scepticism, like anti vax, brings out the ranters and science goes out of the window.


----------



## Jacob (19 Aug 2021)

Rorschach said:


> That analogy makes no sense.


Not to you maybe. Try thinking about it?


----------



## Rorschach (19 Aug 2021)

Jacob said:


> Not to you maybe. Try thinking about it?



Explain it to me. In your analogy you are implying Titanic sank because it had too many people on board?

Please note it is incorrect to say "the Titanic". Common mistake but worth correcting.


----------



## Jacob (19 Aug 2021)

chaoticbob said:


> ...
> 
> So it becomes a matter of faith. Who do you trust and why?
> Bob


A bit like a jigsaw puzzle without the lid - the picture takes shape slowly. You might even have it upside down and may take some time to identify. 
If you try to guess it from a few pieces you might be right but can very easily be wrong


----------



## Jacob (19 Aug 2021)

Rorschach said:


> Explain it to me. In your analogy you are implying Titanic sank because it had too many people on board?
> 
> Please note it is incorrect to say "the Titanic". Common mistake but worth correcting.


Think on!


----------



## Rorschach (19 Aug 2021)

Jacob said:


> Think on!



I am trying to imagine it in Corbyns voice but it isn't helping, I just keep nodding off.


----------



## Jacob (19 Aug 2021)

Rorschach said:


> I am trying to imagine it in Corbyns voice but it isn't helping, I just keep nodding off.


Well yes. A lot of people will take more notice of an old etonian with a loud posh voice barking nonsense.
You need to try and wake up!


----------



## Phil Pascoe (19 Aug 2021)




----------



## Jacob (19 Aug 2021)

Phil Pascoe said:


>



Yes the 97% is rhetorical and unmeasured but doesn't alter the fact that the vast majority of the scientific world do support the climate change hypothesis. Not a matter of choice, faith, guesswork, ulterior motives, cunning plots, but because, like a jig saw, they recognise that the parts fit the bigger picture.


----------



## Rorschach (19 Aug 2021)

Nothing to do with the fact that if you come out against man made climate change or even just the severity of the effects then your funding will be cut and you will be ridiculed by the establishment? Course not.


----------



## hairy (19 Aug 2021)

I moved to a quiet little corner where I could actually afford a couple of acres to grow my own food and firewood which, with some with more land nearby who have sheep and cows, we could actually do. Especially as many of those still cut peat.
The road to me was gritted three times the winter before last, once last year, 4x4 needed. The cheapest EV will not get me to the food shops and back in winter. Shoe shop, goodness me no.
I may be a bit further away from things than most but land cost pushed me here.
The green lobby will still say in the near future I must buy an EV and increase my electric bill with adding a heat pump. A neighbour was just given a heat pump by the govt, maybe we can get that too even if we don't want it or need it.

It seems that the only way for the human population to be supported in the future is for everyone to live so closely together that transport is only by foot. Food is bought to you "grown" whereever and however is cheapest. When I was a kid I read Judge Dredd, Megacity 1 where real meat was illegal.


----------



## Jacob (19 Aug 2021)

Rorschach said:


> Nothing to do with the fact that if you come out against man made climate change or even just the severity of the effects then your funding will be cut and you will be ridiculed by the establishment? Course not.


Very silly argument. No change there!
Why would anybody fund the scientists of the world to falsify the science? Don't you think somebody would whistle blow or do you think they are all corrupt and in it together?
Cue - very silly answer coming shortly!


----------



## Jacob (19 Aug 2021)

hairy said:


> I moved to a quiet little corner where I could actually afford a couple of acres to grow my own food and firewood which, with some with more land nearby who have sheep and cows, we could actually do. Especially as many of those still cut peat.
> The road to me was gritted three times the winter before last, once last year, 4x4 needed. The cheapest EV will not get me to the food shops and back in winter. Shoe shop, goodness me no.
> I may be a bit further away from things than most but land cost pushed me here.
> The green lobby will still say in the near future I must buy an EV and increase my electric bill with adding a heat pump. A neighbour was just given a heat pump by the govt, maybe we can get that too even if we don't want it or need it.
> ...


Communities in the past were much more self sufficient by having a diversity of crafts and trades close together. They didn't need 4x4s, EVs or heat pumps.


----------



## Phil Pascoe (19 Aug 2021)

Jacob said:


> Very silly argument. No change there!
> Why would anybody fund the scientists of the world to falsify the science? Don't you think somebody would whistle blow or do you think they are all corrupt and in it together?
> Cue - very silly answer coming shortly!


If you actually watched that video you might find how much of the "science" came about.


----------



## Jacob (19 Aug 2021)

Phil Pascoe said:


> If you actually watched that video you might find how much of the "science" came about.


I think I've got a pretty good idea about how the science came about and don't really want to spend 16 minutes listening to a few nutters. 
If you think it matters can you summarise in a few words what they are saying?


----------



## hairy (19 Aug 2021)

chaoticbob said:


> I think that's a good point. I spent my working life as an academic scientist and in my experience scientists are pretty voracious when an anomaly appears - wow, I want a chunk of that. I might be made a Professor...
> 
> The world of academic science really isn't some sort of stitch-up trying to preserve accepted theories. In my experience at least. It's a bear pit of people looking for original ground breaking ideas.
> 
> ...



If you go looking there are a number of scientists coming out to say there is minimal real research today because free thinking doesn't get funding. Industry will offer research into a tiny fraction of a tiny thing they are interested in, your interest and motives can't come into it. Some elder statesmen have wondered why, regarding covid in the instance I was most recently reading about, their pupils who know they know better still toe the official line despite it being nonsense. The head of the US tree in this respect supposedly has a very wide control on what gets paid for, therefore actually done and therefore said. If your funding, career, home, pension, community standing all depend on the source of that funding you will not be putting your head above the parapet if you disagree.

Any science saying we must literally throw away all our bad (in their opinion, other opinions are available) stuff and buy all new, equally dense with the earths precious resources, Things, is not believeable or sensible. This is true, I am awake.

If a fact isn't trustworthy then is it science?


----------



## hairy (19 Aug 2021)

Jacob said:


> Communities in the past were much more self sufficient by having a diversity of crafts and trades close together. They didn't need 4x4s, EVs or heat pumps.


But this community will, I'm sure, soon be told you can't burn anything or own a 4x4 to get to Tescos, the GP, the sports centre etc so no more community even if in many ways it is growing into a more self sufficient one.


----------



## Jacob (19 Aug 2021)

hairy said:


> If you go looking there are a number of scientists coming out to say there is minimal real research today because free thinking doesn't get funding. ......


"Free thinking" and "talking nonsense" are not the same thing.
Absolute opposite of the truth. Anybody coming up with a half convincing new idea is very likely to get funding if it looks a good bet. Masses of research produces nothing much but most of what we know derives from researching the improbable, whether or not funded.


----------



## John Brown (19 Aug 2021)

hairy said:


> I moved to a quiet little corner where I could actually afford a couple of acres to grow my own food and firewood which, with some with more land nearby who have sheep and cows, we could actually do. Especially as many of those still cut peat.
> The road to me was gritted three times the winter before last, once last year, 4x4 needed. The cheapest EV will not get me to the food shops and back in winter. Shoe shop, goodness me no.
> I may be a bit further away from things than most but land cost pushed me here.
> The green lobby will still say in the near future I must buy an EV and increase my electric bill with adding a heat pump. A neighbour was just given a heat pump by the govt, maybe we can get that too even if we don't want it or need it.
> ...


I believe a lot of EVs have AWD, which, while probably not as good as FWD, should help on slippery roads.


----------



## hairy (19 Aug 2021)

John Brown said:


> I believe a lot of EVs have AWD, which, while probably not as good as FWD, should help on slippery roads.


And cost how much? And the battery will last how long? And can tow my trailer with how many kgs on it?


----------



## John Brown (19 Aug 2021)

hairy said:


> And cost how much? And the battery will last how long? And can tow my trailer with how many kgs on it?


I was specifically addressing your icy roads/4x4 concern. You obviously have access to the internet, so I politely suggest you can look up the answers to your other questions yourself.


----------



## Spectric (19 Aug 2021)

On the subject of meat and flesh eaters, yes it is not good for the planet but at the same time why be so wastefull with the comodity. Cannot apply to all these types of adverts but in the case of donkeys you can, we all see the adverts to adopt this or that but with donkeys why don't they just put them in the food chain and feed the nations suffering food poverty rather than people in the west adopting one, meat is meat so don't waste.


----------



## John Brown (19 Aug 2021)

Spectric said:


> On the subject of meat and flesh eaters, yes it is not good for the planet but at the same time why be so wastefull with the comodity. Cannot apply to all these types of adverts but in the case of donkeys you can, we all see the adverts to adopt this or that but with donkeys why don't they just put them in the food chain and feed the nations suffering food poverty rather than people in the west adopting one, meat is meat so don't waste.


Why stop at donkeys? There are almost a million pet birds(budgies etc.) in the UK, way more than there are rescued donkeys. We could train them to fly to the hungry nations and save money on shipping.


----------



## Spectric (19 Aug 2021)

Whilst having a sort out through a pile of stuff that we have just ignored for too long I came across some interesting books, one pile are a load of books covering ferromagnetics and switch mode power supplies from the days I was involved in their design which need to go and the other was a copy of Al Gores an inconvenient truth which I had forgotten I even had. It dates from 2006, thats fifteen years ago and back then the USA was the top polluter at 30% but now it is China which produces more than the rest of the worlds developed nations combined. 

It covers the destruction of the Amazon for logging and farming, the consequences of sea level rises, the issues with the perma frost, flooding and so many more topics we are still talking about but are still not addressing, so how bad in another fifteen years and how many still think we will all come together and actually do something?


----------



## Spectric (19 Aug 2021)

John Brown said:


> Why stop at donkeys?


Donkeys are in the same line as horses, cows and sheep so if they all get eaten then why not donkeys!


----------



## Rorschach (19 Aug 2021)

Spectric said:


> Donkeys are in the same line as horses, cows and sheep so if they all get eaten then why not donkeys!



They do, just not here.


----------



## John Brown (19 Aug 2021)

Spectric said:


> Donkeys are in the same line as horses, cows and sheep so if they all get eaten then why not donkeys!


Budgerigars are in the same line as chickens, turkeys, ducks etc. 
I'm not arguing with donkeys, just proposing budgies. Even hungry people need a bit of variety in their diet.


----------



## TominDales (19 Aug 2021)

hairy said:


> I moved to a quiet little corner where I could actually afford a couple of acres to grow my own food and firewood which, with some with more land nearby who have sheep and cows, we could actually do. Especially as many of those still cut peat.
> The road to me was gritted three times the winter before last, once last year, 4x4 needed. The cheapest EV will not get me to the food shops and back in winter. Shoe shop, goodness me no.
> I may be a bit further away from things than most but land cost pushed me here.
> The green lobby will still say in the near future I must buy an EV and increase my electric bill with adding a heat pump. A neighbour was just given a heat pump by the govt, maybe we can get that too even if we don't want it or need it.
> ...


I don't see it so starkly. We don't need to treat everyone with one draconian solution.

The vast majority of the car owning population live in cities where EVs make sense and soon will be the most cost effective form of travel. For those like you and others who live remotely other solutions are acceptable such as keeping ICE for a while. Eventually affordable long range low emissions vehicles will become available, maybe hydrogen or a solid state battery.
The fastest way to reduce CO2 is to EV the cities where the effect will be great and the cost lowest. Sweeping up the rest of transport can come later.

The Scottish government has a track record of subsidising travel to remote places such as the islands, so they may come up with a scheme.
I agree with your eelier comment that the best thing for us all to do is conserve resources sensibly. The only way to get climate change addressed is for sensible policies that the public can adopt quickly. Extreme measures proposed by the green lobby will get ignored. I suspect they put them forward to try to get the issue front of mind - but nevertheless cause unnecessary angst and probably give the anti-politicians scope to sound reasonable.
I've been surprised at the cost of heat pumps and at that rate they will need to be subsidised or they will remain out of reach for ordinary people.


----------



## Terry - Somerset (19 Aug 2021)

I struggle to think of an instance when the world has come together to jointly solve an international crisis. Climate change is no different. The following is a generalisation, but no less relevant for that. 

The most recent example is covid - genuinely global with the capacity to affect every nation (and person) on the planet. Countries initially responded individually - lockdowns (Europe), denial (US, Brazil), shut borders completely (Oz, NZ), autocratic crisis management (China).

Then a vaccine is developed. Developed wealthy countries get the first supplies. Poorer nations are left to struggle - definitely second class citizens in the vaccine race. 

In the context of climate change it is naive to assume that the community of nations will somehow see and act upon the mutual benefit of responding collectively and constructively.

Richer nations who consume more can afford to adapt and understand the benefits of so doing. Poorer nations cannot afford to adapt, fortunately they create low levels of greenhouse gas. 

Wealthier nations will have tensions over how costs of adaptation and transition are funded. It will no doubt follow the approach taken for other societal stresses from a genuine "we are all in this together" through to "it's up to everyone to make their own arrangements".

Assuming climate change response will herald a new age of collaborative endeavour to solve a global problem is IMHO sadly misplaced. Whilst supporting cooperative efforts, we should prepare our own response if/when this proves ineffectual.


----------



## TominDales (19 Aug 2021)

Rorschach said:


> Nothing to do with the fact that if you come out against man made climate change or even just the severity of the effects then your funding will be cut and you will be ridiculed by the establishment? Course not.


That is simply not the case. 
As Chaoticbob said earlier, science loves scientist who prove anomalies. If a scientist came up with persuasive evidence against climate change they would be lauded, especially if that gave the oil industry and governments a cheap way out from climate change. I've tried as has my company. 
I've worked for the chemical industry for 35 years and we have spent billions in this area, researching ways to make cheap hydrogen and ameliorate climate change. Climate change has been known for over 100 years. Shell published serous articles about it in the 1960s. So far nothing has emerged to questions the central IPCC model. If someone came up with a way out they would get the nobel prize.

The so called scientist that get defunded are those that through poor science or unscrupulous means are getting there institutions a bad press by publicising poor work. Every case I've examined the guys were peddling untruths or were self deluded. Science is quite conservative it tends to fund those with a reputation and it questions anomalous work, but that is its virtue as its these mechanisms that filter out rubbish. That does not mean that contrary work, based on good evidence wont get through, but it gets tested on its way through. And its the way to make your career in science. Unfortunalty there are people tempted by the fame to take short cuts and publish rubbish.


----------



## Spectric (19 Aug 2021)

Since when has a budgerigar been classed as poultry, not much meat either so I suppose it would be a healthy option.


----------



## TominDales (19 Aug 2021)

hairy said:


> If you go looking there are a number of scientists coming out to say there is minimal real research today because free thinking doesn't get funding. Industry will offer research into a tiny fraction of a tiny thing they are interested in, your interest and motives can't come into it. Some elder statesmen have wondered why, regarding covid in the instance I was most recently reading about, their pupils who know they know better still toe the official line despite it being nonsense. The head of the US tree in this respect supposedly has a very wide control on what gets paid for, therefore actually done and therefore said. If your funding, career, home, pension, community standing all depend on the source of that funding you will not be putting your head above the parapet if you disagree.
> 
> Any science saying we must literally throw away all our bad (in their opinion, other opinions are available) stuff and buy all new, equally dense with the earths precious resources, Things, is not believeable or sensible. This is true, I am awake.
> 
> If a fact isn't trustworthy then is it science?


That really is not my experience.
There has never been more funded science than today. Just look at the blistering pace of understanding about fundamental issue of space, dark matter, origin of the universe, observation of gravitons, understanding of the basis of genetic disease as well as infectious ones, Earth science etc. virtually every scientific field is expanding exponentially. 
In the UK most academic science is still funded to the Haldane principle - that is scientists decide on what to research, this is a fundamental safeguard against politically driven science and is protected by the powerful science community in the UK. Only a fraction of work is directed at industrial or societal problems, almost to a fault as other countries are more focussed on translating research into innovation/commercialisation.

All the science led companies I've worked for have encouraged their researchers to think bold, big and ambitious, even though there is a financial imperative to find incremental solutions, most breakthroughs have come from thinking outside the box. however science is expensive and the UK faces completion from emerging economies, China, Korea, etc so makes relatively less headway than in the past. But that underestimates the global advances.

There are lots of cases of anomalous science that defied its community becoming mainstream quickly. A new eye receptor, revolutionary medicines, the ozone hole etc. Just look how things have progressed with these examples.

500 years ago Galileo was made to recant the Copernican system by the inquisition. It took 30 or more years before his theories became accepted.
Only 150 years ago Ignaz Semmelweis was drummed into an asylum, and beaten into an early death by the medical procession having proved that hand washing prevented infection and child bed fervour, he challenged the accepted norm that gentlemen doctors could have dirty hands.
However when Einstein published work in 1915 contradicting Newtons theory of gravity, it was British scientists, Arthur Eddington and Frank Dyson who despite WW1 went on an expedition in 1919 to get the data that proved a German scientists general theory was correct.

Moderns science has learnt from the past dogmatism about experiential science and the example of Semmelweis is taught in university courses.
(later Sir) James Black was supported by ICI to experiment on what was considered the absolutely wrong thing to do for people with heart disease (slow the heart down), and he got the Nobel prize for discovering b blockers.
Similarly Sanko and Merck had to tread carefully using good evidence for statins because of a raging cholesterol controversy stoked by a UK scientist with a famous reputation pushing his outdated theories, but good clinical evidence prevailed within 3 to 5 years and clinical data they quickly licenced by the FDA.

Marshal and Warren's discovery in 1982 that Hpylori caused stomach cancer was disputed because the accepted view was that bacteria were killed in the acid stomach. They were proposing a heretical view of medicine against 75 years of studies that could not find bacterial in the stomach. Within 5 years an international group was formed to specifically study this new field and Nobel prizes followed in due course.

Russel Foster proposed a new light sensitive cell in the eye in the mid 1990s contradicting 150 years of accepted understanding of vision, furthermore he wasn't an eye specialist but a circadian neuroscientist. He was openly laughed at by some of the ophthalmic community when he first presented his results. But his evidence was tested and a whole new areas of eye science emerged quickly.
When good evidence is presented even to sceptical scientists, it gets evaluated and adopted. The problem with anti climate science is that it has not stood up to rigorous examination. This past examples show the tide turns after about 2 years and within 5 years old theories are universally discarded/updated. I have no doubt he same would happen with climate change as we would wish it away if we could.


----------



## Selwyn (19 Aug 2021)

Spectric said:


> On the subject of meat and flesh eaters, yes it is not good for the planet but at the same time why be so wastefull with the comodity. Cannot apply to all these types of adverts but in the case of donkeys you can, we all see the adverts to adopt this or that but with donkeys why don't they just put them in the food chain and feed the nations suffering food poverty rather than people in the west adopting one, meat is meat so don't waste.



What are we going to do with peoples pet dogs? Shoot them? After all they are a waste of planetary resources are are horses


----------



## Jacob (19 Aug 2021)

Selwyn said:


> What are we going to do with peoples pet dogs? Shoot them? After all they are a waste of planetary resources are are horses


No they'll go feral and be good for clearing corpses from the streets.


----------



## Spectric (19 Aug 2021)

I think people will accept donkey and horse but dog will take some convincing, but on the other hand I bet many people have already eaten dog without realising it, lots in chinese takeaways. Actually some countries have a problem with lots of stray dogs, so another source of food for countries with food poverty.


----------



## Rorschach (19 Aug 2021)

I'll try anything once. I am told the meat of carnivores though isn't generally pleasant to eat and has to be cooked carefully as it is prone to parasites. Eaten plenty of wild animals here and some eat badger and fox, hedgehog etc, not had those personally.


----------



## John Brown (19 Aug 2021)

No


TominDales said:


> That really is not my experience.
> There has never been more funded science than today. Just look at the blistering pace of understanding about fundamental issue of space, dark matter, origin of the universe, observation of gravitons, understanding of the basis of genetic disease as well as infectious ones, Earth science etc. virtually every scientific field is expanding exponentially.
> In the UK most academic science is still funded to the Haldane principle - that is scientists decide on what to research, this is a fundamental safeguard against politically driven science and is protected by the powerful science community in the UK. Only a fraction of work is directed at industrial or societal problems, almost to a fault as other countries are more focussed on translating research into innovation/commercialisation.
> 
> ...


Thanks, Tom, for your usual calm and rational post. Unfortunately, it won't make any difference to the sceptics, or the buzz you Jack, I'm all right crowd.

Must rush - .I've got a donkey and parrot casserole in the oven, and I can smell burning fur and feathers.


----------



## Chris152 (19 Aug 2021)

TominDales said:


> That really is not my experience.
> There has never been more funded science than today. Just look at the blistering pace of understanding about fundamental issue of space, dark matter, origin of the universe, observation of gravitons, understanding of the basis of genetic disease as well as infectious ones, Earth science etc. virtually every scientific field is expanding exponentially.
> In the UK most academic science is still funded to the Haldane principle - that is scientists decide on what to research, this is a fundamental safeguard against politically driven science and is protected by the powerful science community in the UK. Only a fraction of work is directed at industrial or societal problems, almost to a fault as other countries are more focussed on translating research into innovation/commercialisation.
> 
> ...


Your problem here, Tom, is that you seem to know what you're talking about; that counts for little on the interweb, where many are prepared to ignore knowledge if it doesn't fit their uninformed opinions/ desires/ wishes. To learn, there has to be the will to learn. Definitely admire your perseverance, though.


----------



## RobinBHM (19 Aug 2021)

Terry - Somerset said:


> I struggle to think of an instance when the world has come together to jointly solve an international crisis



covid: scientists have shared information and collaborated globally.

healthcare professionals have shared knowledge of treating Covid patients.


but we live in a world of capitalism and vested self interest….so collaboration naturally gives way to greed, political greed or monetary. It is also the reason there’s zero chance of any global reset spouted by conspiracists.


----------



## TominDales (19 Aug 2021)

Terry - Somerset said:


> I struggle to think of an instance when the world has come together to jointly solve an international crisis. Climate change is no different. The following is a generalisation, but no less relevant for that.
> 
> The most recent example is covid - genuinely global with the capacity to affect every nation (and person) on the planet. Countries initially responded individually - lockdowns (Europe), denial (US, Brazil), shut borders completely (Oz, NZ), autocratic crisis management (China).
> 
> ...


I'm not so pessimistic, there have been examples of global coming together in reasonable equity, although not so much recently.
The Montreal protocol is the best example where CFCs were phased out rapidly. The rich nations bore the early brunt of the phase out, and allowed developing nations much longer to do so. There was also generous funding provided from rich nations to enable developing countries to adapt. 

Gordon Browns debt relieve in 2007 at the G20 was a massive forgiveness of debt to developing nations. Both of these initiatives were pretty well aimed at a collective good.

Other institutions such as the Word bank, IMF, and GATT/ WTO had specific policies to enable developing nations to industrialise, although these were partly self-serving as they supported the post WW2 Bretton woods world order, but they did provide global stability for developing nations to thrive.

The problem with covid responses is due to the sheer suddenness of the crisis. Rich nations were taken by surprise and pretty well had to look after themselves first. The old maxim about parents and marriage is look after yourself so you can look after others is an analogy. Until the nations that can invent vaccines keep their populations safe its hard to justify policy to help others. As vaccine capacity expands and the immediate threat of death is removed I think we will see a generous role-out in quite a timely fashion. Even now, the bulk of the deaths is still in developed countries. Very few of the top death rates are developing countries, the UK, US, France Italy are near the top of the death rate list. In Sub-Saharan Africa, South Africa has about half the death rate of us. Even taking into consideration underreporting in developing nations, Europe, North and south America have been hardest hit. The virous will, in time, start to devastate Africa, but hopefully vaccines will be flowing by then. In previous crises the world has come together to tackle Ebola outbreaks etc. There is a lot of self interest in averting global crises for all.

With climate change there is time to reach some form or consensus/equitable solution. There are a lot of vested interests to address such as the gulf nations, the industrial nations emerging nations, low lying countries, so its complicated and will be a messy process but I do think we have the capacity to act together.
A thing to worry about is the old American /western order is crumbling. With a dominant China with its different agenda and a very disruptive Russia with an agenda of causing maximum chaos it may be a lot tougher than past crisis management. Putin has publicly relished climate change. But China is very vulnerable to climate change so may well act as a catalyst and positive force going forward.
So whilst its generally a difficult and pessimistic situation, I don't think history has been that bad a president and there is just about time for collective self interest to kick in.


----------



## RobinBHM (19 Aug 2021)

This argument China produces so much more carbon than any other country is a bit short sighted…..if China wasn’t the worlds factory, the stuff would be made elsewhere…….and the West generally have a higher per capita carbon rate.


----------



## TominDales (19 Aug 2021)

RobinBHM said:


> This argument China produces so much more carbon than any other country is a bit short sighted…..if China wasn’t the worlds factory, the stuff would be made elsewhere…….and the West generally have a higher per capita carbon rate.


Very true.
Past UK polices on energy taxation etc have encouraged the trend of energy intensive industries to go offshore. The ONS now tracks this imported CO2. Clear trend over 30 years of UK industrial production replaced by imports. 
Future policy could address both of these issues by stimulating low carbon on-shore manufacturing.





__





The decoupling of economic growth from carbon emissions: UK evidence - Office for National Statistics


How the UK’s economy has developed over time and the efforts it has made to reduce its carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions.



www.ons.gov.uk


----------



## RobinBHM (19 Aug 2021)

TominDales said:


> Clear trend over 30 years of UK industrial production replaced by imports


I also find the UK fracking debate interesting.

environmental protestors argue against any further fossil fuel production…..but the reality is the transition away from fossil fuels will take years and if we don’t frack, it means buying in from foreign regions with potentially lower environmental controls.

There are no simple answers


----------



## John Brown (19 Aug 2021)

Spectric said:


> I think people will accept donkey and horse but dog will take some convincing, but on the other hand I bet many people have already eaten dog without realising it, lots in chinese takeaways. Actually some countries have a problem with lots of stray dogs, so another source of food for countries with food poverty.


I'll bet the number of people who've eaten dog without knowing about it is vanishingly small. In the UK, at any rate.
Horse? Yes. Dog? I really doubt it.


----------



## Rorschach (20 Aug 2021)

John Brown said:


> I'll bet the number of people who've eaten dog without knowing about it is vanishingly small. In the UK, at any rate.
> Horse? Yes. Dog? I really doubt it.



The stories about dog in chinese restaurants are all a bit dodgy. For a start, getting dog meat and using it is not cheaper than buying processed chicken and inherently more difficult and dangerous for the business owner. There are probably restaurants that serve it to special guests at a high price, all sorts of illegal meat is sold this way, but they are not going to put in the average punters meal.


----------



## Blackswanwood (20 Aug 2021)

TominDales said:


> Future policy could address both of these issues by stimulating low carbon on-shore manufacturing.



I think this is exactly what is happening in the U.K. 

Another factor that is starting to play through is the cost of capital dropping for low carbon initiatives. Banks (and other investors) increasingly want to be seen to be supporting environmentally responsible businesses and projects.


----------



## John Brown (20 Aug 2021)

Rorschach said:


> The stories about dog in chinese restaurants are all a bit dodgy. For a start, getting dog meat and using it is not cheaper than buying processed chicken and inherently more difficult and dangerous for the business owner. There are probably restaurants that serve it to special guests at a high price, all sorts of illegal meat is sold this way, but they are not going to put in the average punters meal.


My thoughts exactly.

Have you looked at dog prices lately, Spectric? You could buy a few thousand chickens for the price of a small french bulldog.


----------



## hairy (21 Aug 2021)

This shows a large number of large machines that would require very large batteries if all ended up being EVs. I read a while back a container ship with a lithium battery would take two years to charge, and I think some UK army chap suggesting electric tanks were being considered said to power a Challenger the battery would weigh forty tons.


----------



## Terry - Somerset (21 Aug 2021)

Just ask Elon Musk to sort it out. 

In a few months a tank would emerge with a speed of 60mph, range of 200 miles and helicopters equipped with fast chargers for when the tank gets a bit low on leccy and the local power grid can only deliver 13amps to a couple of tanks at a time.


----------



## hairy (22 Aug 2021)

UK Energy Secretary. Kwasi Kwarteng, said yesterday (?) in talking about gas boilers and heat pumps 

"I don't think actually heat pumps are that much worse than boilers."

So current Govt policy is to make things worse?


----------



## Rorschach (22 Aug 2021)

hairy said:


> UK Energy Secretary. Kwasi Kwarteng, said yesterday (?) in talking about gas boilers and heat pumps
> 
> "I don't think actually heat pumps are that much worse than boilers."
> 
> So current Govt policy is to make things worse?



Heat pumps are great IF, you have a well insulated home, your climate is fairly stable and doesn't get too cold for too long, you can afford to keep it running 24/7, you are in a house (that ones pretty important) that has plenty of space between you and your neighbours, you have the extra room for all the stuff needed.

If however you live in a council flat, or a tiny council house, poorly insulated and on a low income you are pretty stuffed.


----------



## hairy (22 Aug 2021)

Rorschach said:


> Heat pumps are great IF, you have a well insulated home, your climate is fairly stable and doesn't get too cold for too long, you can afford to keep it running 24/7, you are in a house (that ones pretty important) that has plenty of space between you and your neighbours, you have the extra room for all the stuff needed.
> 
> If however you live in a council flat, or a tiny council house, poorly insulated and on a low income you are pretty stuffed.



Our last house was a 2018 new build just like that in SE UK, underfloor heating, nice big windows, lots of insulation. The water in the floor was only about 27degC, hot water tank lovely for long showers, weekly program heated it high enough to kill bugs. Quiet country road now not so quiet with it running. Not loud, but no longer silent.
But, it quite often decided the fan was iced up so shut everything down, or any other random reason every now and again. You didn't notice until the floor got cold. It then takes a day or more to heat it up again during which time you are cold.
The nice big windows would also let in a lot of heat despite triple glazing, so you would have to open them to let some out, or draw the curtains (the point of nice big windows was the view weirdly) to stop it coming in. If the windows were open a bit too long, you got cold because it took too long to heat up again.
If you had a Huf house with a closely controlled internal atmosphere then maybe it would be a good idea, but I like fresh air sometimes which this low temp form of heating seems to preclude?


----------



## Droogs (22 Aug 2021)

IT's fine. The MOD is seriously considering ditching us having MBTs anyway. It appears that the race between armour and anti-tank projectile has been lost by the tank. Some of the new man portable shoulder mounted systems are predicted to have a 70% penetration rate against chobham within the next decade.So no need to have a £4 1/2 million tank when we can have £200K bazookas.


----------



## TominDales (22 Aug 2021)

Rorschach said:


> Heat pumps are great IF, you have a well insulated home, your climate is fairly stable and doesn't get too cold for too long, you can afford to keep it running 24/7, you are in a house (that ones pretty important) that has plenty of space between you and your neighbours, you have the extra room for all the stuff needed.
> 
> If however you live in a council flat, or a tiny council house, poorly insulated and on a low income you are pretty stuffed.


Sadly you are entirely correct. We have known about energy poverty and climate change for years. The first rule of conservation is eliminate waste, stop using stuff, in this case energy. Why council houses aren't properly insulated and new houses build to be totally insulated is beyond me. Its a very fast payback, especially roof insulation. 
There will always be some properties that will be hard to adapt, but why we don't seriously tackle the rest is beyond me. If Kwasi wants to get some environmental cred that would be the thing to do. Even massive subsidies for insulation would pay back the country in terms of energy imports etc. Its not as if council house tenants can go mad partying with glass wool.

On the space issue, round us, they are putting in street/district heat pumps and the each property gets a branch connection, but as you observed the poorly insulated houses have seen their bills go up. Its only where the work has been done to a high standard that people claim a saving.


----------



## Spectric (22 Aug 2021)

Droogs said:


> Some of the new man portable shoulder mounted systems are predicted to have a 70% penetration rate against chobham within the next decade.


Yes but by then I think the current planes will have merged with drones to form a hybrid that without the need for a pilot will pull much higher G and maybe be a harder target to shoot at, and could even have some level of stealth and hunt down armoured vehicles. So what is the purpose of a tank these days, modern warfare is just becoming a computer game and anything like planes, tanks, ships or troops will just become objects in your game to take out from somewhere a long way from any action.


----------



## TominDales (22 Aug 2021)

hairy said:


> This shows a large number of large machines that would require very large batteries if all ended up being EVs. I read a while back a container ship with a lithium battery would take two years to charge, and I think some UK army chap suggesting electric tanks were being considered said to power a Challenger the battery would weigh forty tons.



Net zero means all of those machines become zero carbon by 2050, its an enormous change.
The UK media often underestimates the change by focusing on the electric grid, which ignores 80% of carbon consumption. There are ways to make sustainable fuels but they are about 50% more costly than fossil derived. It's going to take a lot of innovation to get to net zero, not many governments have fully appreciated the scale of this challenge


----------



## Rorschach (23 Aug 2021)

The ironic thing of course is that if we are going to see warmer winters here in the UK, spending a load of money on way to cut down heating emissions will be an absolute waste of time as we won't need as much heating anyway.


----------



## hairy (23 Aug 2021)

Above I mentioned our previous house had mucho insulation, underfloor heating and a heat pump and it was a bit rubbish to put it mildly. 
Before that we had a similarly sized several centuries old thatched house with oil fired central heating. The annual cost of oil was about the same as the electric bill for the new build "eco" house. The old one still had a leccy bill of course but the difference between the two houses was not much. The previous owner of the thatched cottage had removed some of the internal wall thickness to make the rooms a bit bigger which made it much cooler, mud and horse hair I think.
Our current house has 400mm insulation all round, electric radiators which 99.9% of the time don't get used, and a multi fuel fire which, until we can produce some of our own firewood, burns £450 of Columbian coal per year at the top of Scotland. Nice and controllable and comfy.


----------



## Terry - Somerset (23 Aug 2021)

"Net zero" means that greenhouse gas emissions produced equal those removed from the atmosphere. It is not "zero emissions" - it no doubt gives the government some wriggle room.

As noted above the best solution is not to use the energy in the first place. Using carbon capture and other technologies to enable greater consumption is patching up the broken rather than doing the job properly - hammering a nail into a broken table leg to stop it falling over rather than re-making the joint, to use a woodworking analogy.

The failure to mandate better building standards is evidence of the influence property developers have over government policy. The government should govern. We will live with the consequences for 50-100 years. Much better to include in the original build than retrofit.

We also seem to have a one size fits all approach - rather than recognise that different parts of the UK experience very different conditions - eg: snow cover and temperature in the highlands vs southern UK where snow is usually infrequent to non-existent. 

I don't understand why air source heat pumps cannot be used across most of the UK - they don't need extra land, work to high levels of efficiency to both warm and cool, and can be installed in the average house at a cost not dissimilar to the average gas CH system.

There are some who find any threat to a profligate lifestyle unacceptable - a 4L V8 is both a right and necessity, I want to be warm, have some fresh air, and simply turn the heating up.

I don't subscribe to a nanny state mandating personal choices and behaviours. A tax and regulatory framework which ensures those who choose to enjoy (selfish) freedoms pay for the pleasure is a better solution. The cheapest form of heating is a woolly jumper!


----------



## Jacob (23 Aug 2021)

Terry - Somerset said:


> ....
> 
> I don't subscribe to a nanny state mandating personal choices and behaviours. A tax and regulatory framework which ensures those who choose to enjoy (selfish) freedoms pay for the pleasure is a better solution. .......


What's the difference?
The nanny state protects people from the unscrupulous; should the owner of a ship be free to make a personal choice about the number of lifeboats?
Also protects people from their own weakness, poor judgement, whatever.
"Nanny state" is just a right wing cliche about reducing public spending and regulation, part of the imaginary "culture war".


----------



## John Brown (23 Aug 2021)

Terry - Somerset said:


> don't understand why air source heat pumps cannot be used across most of the UK - they don't need extra land, work to high levels of efficiency to both warm and cool, and can be installed in the average house at a cost not dissimilar to the average gas CH system.


As I understand things, they are a lot more expensive to buy and install, and they don't heat the CH water to a high enough temperature to work with existing natural gas fired radiator systems.
I don't really understand why they should be more expensive, and I know the govt. are planning to reintroduce some sort of grant, but the sceptic in my soul suspects that grants and scrappage schemes tend to benefit the suppliers and installers, rather than the homeowners.


----------



## TominDales (23 Aug 2021)

John Brown said:


> As I understand things, they are a lot more expensive to buy and install, and they don't heat the CH water to a high enough temperature to work with existing natural gas fired radiator systems.
> I don't really understand why they should be more expensive, and I know the govt. are planning to reintroduce some sort of grant, but the sceptic in my soul suspects that grants and scrappage schemes tend to benefit the suppliers and installers, rather than the homeowners.


I agree. I dont understand why they are currently so expensive. They are quite common and a lot cheaper in Germany.. That may be the thing, they are still an artisan specialist appliance in the UK and we need mass market innovation to crash the price.
Like you I'm sceptically of grants, except to get a new new markets going where the initial supply chain costs and market start up costs inhibit trade against incumbent technology.


----------



## Spectric (23 Aug 2021)

Terry - Somerset said:


> "Net zero" means that greenhouse gas emissions produced equal those removed from the atmosphere. It is not "zero emissions" - it no doubt gives the government some wriggle room.


That will not be much use in getting global warming under control, all that says is that we will only put into the atmosphere an amount that has been offset somewhere else so it will still rise under it's own momentum.



Terry - Somerset said:


> The failure to mandate better building standards is evidence of the influence property developers have over government policy. The government should govern. We will live with the consequences for 50-100 years. Much better to include in the original build than retrofit.


Property developers have most local councils in their pockets and have a blatant disregard for the enviroment, impact on peoples lives or the rat race they leave behind, for them it is only the money to maintain there desire for wealth.



Jacob said:


> The nanny state protects people from the unscrupulous;


It also protects them from themselves.



John Brown said:


> I know the govt. are planning to reintroduce some sort of grant,


How many of these government grants have ever really delivered, often a bribe to make householders do something they otherwise would not and in some cases have actually cost them a lot more to put things right. The real solution is to rein in the property developers, provide a new set of building regulations and make all new housing suitable for the future, ok they will get fewer properties onto a given area of land but they have had it to easy for too long.


----------



## Spectric (23 Aug 2021)

Heat pumps are one of those things that are much better in theory than often in practice. In essence they are trying to get you free heat, the system itself generates no heat by consuming a source of fuel like gas but does consume energy. Best way to think of them is like a refrigeration system working in reverse, which itself is based upon the principles of change of states of the refrigerant. So ideally they move any available heat from outside your house inside to warm water for circulation, my issue here is that when you need most heat it is at it's coldest outside so now they must rely more on the heat produced by the compressor so in my opinion this is not efficient.


----------



## Rorschach (23 Aug 2021)

Spectric said:


> Heat pumps are one of those things that are much better in theory than often in practice. In essence they are trying to get you free heat, the system itself generates no heat by consuming a source of fuel like gas but does consume energy. Best way to think of them is like a refrigeration system working in reverse, which itself is based upon the principles of change of states of the refrigerant. So ideally they move any available heat from outside your house inside to warm water for circulation, my issue here is that when you need most heat it is at it's coldest outside so now they must rely more on the heat produced by the compressor so in my opinion this is not efficient.



You sound like a real expert there.


----------



## Spectric (23 Aug 2021)

No expert in the ground source heat pumps for homes but have worked on industrial refrigeration systems and heating systems with a good background in physics so you get to know when claims look a bit stretched, I suspect they work better when you live in a milder climate and just want to take the chill out of the air.


----------



## Rorschach (23 Aug 2021)

Spectric said:


> No expert in the ground source heat pumps for homes but have worked on industrial refrigeration systems and heating systems with a good background in physics so you get to know when claims look a bit stretched, I suspect they work better when you live in a milder climate and just want to take the chill out of the air.



You really have very little idea what you are talking about.


----------



## hairy (23 Aug 2021)

The air source heat pump we had was of course the big box outside, plus inside was a cupboard about 900x900 floor to ceiling with about half being the hot water tank and half the control system. That was adjustable only via engineer laptop other than the simple bits, and I can quite appreciate that all being a lot of cash. Plus floor slab with pipework, manifolds etc during build performing better (but still a bit rubbish and not cheap to run) than the oversized radiators required for fitting in an older house. My current neighbours' pump apparently was not specified with a parts suitable for being closeish to the sea which would have been another £100 originally, but after five or so years the lot needs replacing at £16,000. In that case, and was evident with the plumber installing ours and the manufacturer engineer who also had to repeatedly come out, there may not be much expertise with these in the UK yet?


----------



## Spectric (23 Aug 2021)

Rorschach said:


> You really have very little idea what you are talking about.


What don't you understand, I tried to keep it simple as making things over complicated is not the best way to explain the basics.


----------



## Rorschach (23 Aug 2021)

Spectric said:


> What don't you understand, I tried to keep it simple as making things over complicated is not the best way to explain the basics.



Well if that was your goal you introduced a lot of confusion as well as stating things that are just plain wrong such as relying on the compressor for heating


----------



## Spectric (23 Aug 2021)

Rorschach said:


> Well if that was your goal you introduced a lot of confusion as well as stating things that are just plain wrong such as relying on the compressor for heating


Ok I assumed a very basic level of physics, obviously assumed wrong. Most people understand that when compressing a gas heat is produced, think back to when you pumped up your bike tyres and the bicycle pump got hot. The same with turbochargers and using an intercooler to reduce the charge temperature and the diesel engine relies on the heat produced through compression to initiate combustion. With heat pumps the liquid is turned to gas as it is warmed by the outside air, then compressed to increase the pressure which adds heat. These gases pass through a heat exchanger to transfer the heat into the water, in doing so they condense back to a cool liquid to repeat the cycle again.


----------



## Terry - Somerset (23 Aug 2021)

I have but a very limited understanding of real physics.

But I gather the typical aircon unit can either blow cold or hot air using the phenomenon of a heat exchanger and compression/decompression of the refrigerant gas. 

Most literature refers to an efficiency of 3-400% for modern units. I take this to mean that for every kw of energy used to compress and criculate gases, you get ~4kw out. Used directly for heating a 1kw bar fire produces 1kw of heat - hence the efficiency.

I also understand that efficiency falls at lower temperatures. I suspect manufacturers literature is somewhat optimistic they suggest cold weather performance effective down to -xxC. 

Therefore they may not be the right solution for north Cumberia and the Highlands - but for namby pamby southerners south of Brum they may be just the ticket!


----------



## Doug71 (23 Aug 2021)

Plenty of hot air coming off Roger Bisby telling us about heat pumps.


----------



## Spectric (23 Aug 2021)

I am sure that guy was a builder comparing tracksaws not long ago, probably started of selling double glazing!


----------



## Woody2Shoes (23 Aug 2021)

danst96 said:


> Its all in Gods hand. Those that can see it can see it for want of a better phrase. There is nothing us "highly intelligent" humans can do about it. We carry on thinking we can but when you really look into it, theres truly nothing we can do. Its a one way path and the end of it is not far away, what is in the book in Revelation is happening today.
> 
> Regardless of what you believe or dont believe, its becoming increasingly obvious nothing can be done about it as you say. Shoot me down those who will but I believe what I believe and wont change that for anything.



Personally, I don't believe in God (if I'm wrong, I'm told he is both supremely benevolent and omniscient, in which case he already knows about my mistake and forgives me for my silliness ). I don't think any of us can say with any certainty (I thought this was a woodworking forum, not a climate change experts forum, and even they don't know) whether or not it's too late to avert climate-geddon, but I do subscribe to the notion that when you're in a hole you should stop digging.

Anything any of us can do to reduce our individual and/or collective impact on the environment is very definitely worth doing (even if we're all doomed/damned).


----------



## Woody2Shoes (23 Aug 2021)

Spectric said:


> I am sure that guy was a builder comparing tracksaws not long ago, probably started of selling double glazing!


He's normally pretty sensible.

My 2d's-worth is that there's nuggets of truth in what he's saying:
- they are annoyingly noisy (I predict more neighbour disputes, similar to those between suburban [i.e. nearly all] Australians over pool-pump noise);
- they are least efficient, and likely to put heaviest loads on the electrity grid, when the air is coldest (whether or not they need to use energy to defrost themselves is another question);
- most installations will be in homes where there is insufficient insulation - "fabric first" is the (correct) mantra - and where good design in pushed out of the window by the desire to maximise profit (on the part of the installer) and/or minimise cost (on the part of the homeowner, who may genuinely not feel the need to take a long-term view).
- many homeowners will balk at the cost/disruption of installing proper insulation, ventilation and right-sizing radiators (to suit reduced flow/return temps).

I do wonder how many combi boilers spend their working hours in proper 'condensing' mode....

I foresee a cluster-flap, and don't get me started on 'blue hydrogen'......


----------



## Rorschach (23 Aug 2021)

The biggest issue I see with heat pumps for those on low incomes is that they need to run constantly in order to keep your hot water hot and your house warm. 
My gas boiler runs when I want hot water and when I don't it uses zero gas. My heating runs when it gets unbearably cold (under 16C usually), otherwise it is using zero gas. I can't afford to just set the thermostat and leave it running all the time and that's with cheap gas now, imagine doing that with expensive electricity for both my heat and hot water.


----------



## RobinBHM (24 Aug 2021)

Rorschach said:


> The biggest issue I see with heat pumps for those on low incomes is that they need to run constantly in order to keep your hot water hot and your house warm.
> My gas boiler runs when I want hot water and when I don't it uses zero gas. My heating runs when it gets unbearably cold (under 16C usually), otherwise it is using zero gas. I can't afford to just set the thermostat and leave it running all the time and that's with cheap gas now, imagine doing that with expensive electricity for both my heat and hot water.



air heat source pumps are only suitable for houses with high insulation levels - probably to current building regs standards or passiv haus.
So not suitable for majority of UK housing stock.

how we get over the problem of this countries houses having poor insulation’s levels, I really don’t know. The govt won’t or can’t sort out the fire risk cladding, it’s got chance getting every house well insulated.


----------



## John Brown (24 Aug 2021)

National Grid and SSE to use electricity transformers to heat homes


Exclusive: plan is to harness ‘waste heat’ and cut carbon emissions for households connected to district networks




www.theguardian.com




Saw this today.
I thought it was interesting, despite being in the commie Grauniad...


----------



## Jacob (24 Aug 2021)

John Brown said:


> National Grid and SSE to use electricity transformers to heat homes
> 
> 
> Exclusive: plan is to harness ‘waste heat’ and cut carbon emissions for households connected to district networks
> ...


2004: http://www.communityplanning.net/pub-film/pdf/CommunityHeating.pdf has been on the cards for a long time and a very good idea too, but isn't very fashionable. It's not high tech and whizzy enough and smacks of nanny state*. They'd rather look at high speed trains, EV replacements for Mercedes and BMWs, nuclear power, etc. Also the word "community" crops up a lot and that's a bit of a red rag for the nutters/libertarians. They think it has something to do with communism. Well it does actually but don't tell them, they'll just get over excited.
* see what I did there - dog whistling old etonians, "nanny" and "smacks" in the same sentence!


----------



## John Brown (24 Aug 2021)

Jacob said:


> 2004: http://www.communityplanning.net/pub-film/pdf/CommunityHeating.pdf has been on the cards for a long time and a very good idea too, but isn't very fashionable. It's not high tech and whizzy enough and smacks of nanny state*. They'd rather look at high speed trains, EV replacements for Mercedes and BMWs, nuclear power, etc. Also the word "community" crops up a lot and that's a bit of a red rag for the nutters/libertarians. They think it has something to do with communism. Well it does actually but don't tell them, they'll just get over excited.
> * see what I did there - dog whistling old etonians, "nanny" and "smacks" in the same sentence!


Yes, I know community heating is old h(e)at, but this is the first time I've seen it mentioned in regard to electrical transformer stations.


----------



## Jacob (24 Aug 2021)

John Brown said:


> Yes, I know community heating is old h(e)at, but this is the first time I've seen it mentioned in regard to electrical transformer stations.


It's a good idea. What about crematoria?


----------



## MorrisWoodman12 (24 Aug 2021)

I saw this recently just to add to the viability of electric vehicles and to inflame the argument:
Total fuel consumption of U.S. airlines is approximately 19 billion gallons annually.
Total fuel consumption for mining Ore for construction of electric car batteries is approximately 21 billion gallons annually.
The 21 billion gallons of fuel burned can only produce enough Ore to build 250,000 electric car batteries. 
The lifespan of an electric battery is 10 years and is not renewable. By 2050 these batteries will fill landfills with 50 million pounds of waste that does not break down. 
I wonder if people would still believe in electric power cars, vehicles or equipment if they knew how massive the carbon emissions footprint really was? 
So that you understand, more energy is used to mine for these batteries than they will ever produce.


----------



## John Brown (24 Aug 2021)

MorrisWoodman12 said:


> I saw this recently just to add to the viability of electric vehicles and to inflame the argument:
> Total fuel consumption of U.S. airlines is approximately 19 billion gallons annually.
> Total fuel consumption for mining Ore for construction of electric car batteries is approximately 21 billion gallons annually.
> The 21 billion gallons of fuel burned can only produce enough Ore to build 250,000 electric car batteries.
> ...


Just to be clear, Lithium cells don't really produce energy, they only store it.
Where did you recently see this, by the way, just out of curiosity?


----------



## John Brown (24 Aug 2021)

MorrisWoodman12 said:


> I saw this recently just to add to the viability of electric vehicles and to inflame the argument:
> Total fuel consumption of U.S. airlines is approximately 19 billion gallons annually.
> Total fuel consumption for mining Ore for construction of electric car batteries is approximately 21 billion gallons annually.
> The 21 billion gallons of fuel burned can only produce enough Ore to build 250,000 electric car batteries.
> ...











Electric car emissions myth 'busted'


Fears that electric cars could actually increase carbon emissions are a baseless, a study suggests.



www.bbc.co.uk


----------



## Blackswanwood (24 Aug 2021)

I see Maersk have today announced they are buying eight new container ships which will run on methanol as they move to decarbonise their operations. A small step given the size of their overall fleet but perhaps a sign of things to come.


----------



## whereistheceilidh (24 Aug 2021)

Blackswanwood said:


> I see Maersk have today announced they are buying eight new container ships which will run on methanol as they move to decarbonise their operations. A small step given the size of their overall fleet but perhaps a sign of things to come.


Not too sure how environmentally friendly that is ..... but it is certainly not that new...... a number of folk in the Highlands have been running on ethanol for years.....


----------



## Daniel2 (24 Aug 2021)

Jacob said:


> It's a good idea. What about crematoria?



To run the heating ?


----------



## Thingybob (24 Aug 2021)

Terry - Somerset said:


> There are several ways to change behaviours to achieve reduced consumption of fossil fuels. If you think all is OK so why bother - don't waste time reading the rest of this post.
> 
> Legislation limiting consumption - eg: gas central heating boilers, EV and ICE banned from 2030. This can work if alternative technologies allow a fairly smooth transition. Measures need to be easily enforcable. Will not change all behaviours.
> 
> ...


Like your thinking Terry , Ever thought of a future in politics we could do with people like you


----------



## Jacob (24 Aug 2021)

Daniel2 said:


> To run the heating ?


Well yes I wasn't thinking of the cooking.


----------



## Thingybob (24 Aug 2021)

Terry - Somerset said:


> Wars and rationing are not a good analogue for the climate change challenge.
> 
> WW2 was a case of an immediate and real threat. National full and immediate cooperation was the only realistic defence.
> 
> ...


The cause of the WW2 was warned about many years before 1939 but the world ignored it till it was thrust upon them as with global warming "that jumped up Austrian corporal is no threat " sounds familar


----------



## hairy (24 Aug 2021)

Some figures for different approaches


----------



## Noel (25 Aug 2021)

Noel said:


> Anybody want to get a shout in before closing time?




I was going to close this thread for the usual reasons then it went back to the topic in hand. But now back to party politics.
Why ruin an interesting (at times) thread?
11 posts deleted.


----------



## woodieallen (25 Aug 2021)

hairy said:


> Some figures for different approaches



Sorry...watched it. Too many assumptions to be credible.


----------



## Chippyjoe (25 Aug 2021)

Noel said:


> I was going to close this thread for the usual reasons then it went back to the topic in hand. But now back to party politics.
> Why ruin an interesting (at times) thread?
> 11 posts deleted.


"Why ruin an interesting thread"

Because as is usual with this forum, there are one or two BBB's who will not accept anyone else's opinion if it differs from theirs.


----------



## Thingybob (26 Aug 2021)

Just imagine if all you guys were to put forward ideas to generate power worked togeather building prototypes i think we could solve some of the problems we are going to face in the future it only takes a conserted effort when we are faced with a shortage of things personaly we soon think of ways to compensate just got to learn to share our ideas instead of greed taking over Just an idea


----------



## Cooper (26 Aug 2021)

Thingybob said:


> Just imagine if all you guys were to put forward ideas to generate power worked togeather building prototypes i think we could solve some of the problems we are going to face in the future it only takes a conserted effort when we are faced with a shortage of things personaly we soon think of ways to compensate just got to learn to share our ideas instead of greed taking over Just an idea


I completely agree. The news at the moment, about almost everything, is is either crying over spilled milk or shutting the stable door etc. This forum has such a range of talents and experience. I'm sure instead of the almost inevitable "change can't work", practical solutions to make the world a better and sustainable place should dominate the conversation. We need all of us, on the left, right and centre, to be actively doing what we can.
Martin


----------



## R1chard (26 Aug 2021)

As an installer we always recommend three things before looking at renewable technologies...
1. Insulate
2. Insulate
3. Insulate
Once you reduce your losses you can then look at an air source heat pump. The lower the losses the lower the temp of the water required to space heat and the lower the running cost.


----------



## Valhalla (26 Aug 2021)

Blackswanwood said:


> I see Maersk have today announced they are buying eight new container ships which will run on methanol as they move to decarbonise their operations. A small step given the size of their overall fleet but perhaps a sign of things to come.


If the shipping industry wants to get to net zero in a hurry - bring back the oar and a drum beat.......


----------



## Valhalla (26 Aug 2021)

Thingybob said:


> Just imagine if all you guys were to put forward ideas to generate power worked togeather building prototypes i think we could solve some of the problems we are going to face in the future it only takes a conserted effort when we are faced with a shortage of things personaly we soon think of ways to compensate just got to learn to share our ideas instead of greed taking over Just an idea


As is written: necessity is the mother of invention


----------



## RobinBHM (26 Aug 2021)

Cooper said:


> I completely agree. The news at the moment, about almost everything, is is either crying over spilled milk or shutting the stable door etc. This forum has such a range of talents and experience. I'm sure instead of the almost inevitable "change can't work", practical solutions to make the world a better and sustainable place should dominate the conversation. We need all of us, on the left, right and centre, to be actively doing what we can.
> Martin



are you sure….we can’t even sharpen a chisel


----------



## Thingybob (27 Aug 2021)

RobinBHM said:


> are you sure….we can’t even sharpen a chisel


Maybe but with a little practice im sure we can bloody well learn to Never say cant till you have tried and then try again


----------



## John Brown (27 Aug 2021)

Valhalla said:


> If the shipping industry wants to get to net zero in a hurry - bring back the oar and a drum beat.......


There was some talk a while back about building modern sailing ships for cargo. I haven't checked lately.
Curiously, the SS Great Britain was converted to sail


----------



## MickCheese (27 Aug 2021)

I am late to the party and have not read everything in this 28-page thread so forgive me if it has already been said but I have not seen it.

Surely we are overpopulated?

Why would we need this frenetic lifestyle if there were not so many people?

We are outliving our design spec by using our intelligence and technologies, keeping people alive way beyond what is natural, and using energy in the process.

With fewer people we would need less of everything and life would need less intensive methods to keep everyone in the style they have become accustomed to.

Just my two penneth worth!

Mick


----------



## John Brown (27 Aug 2021)

MickCheese said:


> I am late to the party and have not read everything in this 28-page thread so forgive me if it has already been said but I have not seen it.
> 
> Surely we are overpopulated?
> 
> ...


It has been said.
So why not have a cull?
Start by culling those individuals who have the biggest carbon footprint and/or the highest consumption of stuff.


I'm not sure how that would work, as those are often the same people who run things. I'm guessing the old and poor would be the first to go.


----------



## Rorschach (27 Aug 2021)

Very interesting bit from 41.00 in this vid


----------



## Jacob (27 Aug 2021)

John Brown said:


> It has been said.
> So why not have a cull?
> Start by culling those individuals who have the biggest carbon footprint and/or the highest consumption of stuff.


The cull is underway as we speak. It's happening naturally as climate change disrupts the way we live and pulls the carpet from under our feet. The less we intervene then the quicker it will happen. Nothing to worry about on that front at least!
Presumably there will be survivors but there is no guarantee. Those most dependent on high carbon technology have furthest to fall as they struggle to adapt to a very different world. Burbling on about "nucular" power won't help them much as their world shrinks and collapses. 
About as realistic a solution as colonising outer space.
PS come to think - colonising our deep ocean bottoms would be much more viable. Nearer for a start and technologically simpler - and with a food source to hand just outside the submersible!


----------



## John Brown (27 Aug 2021)

Rorschach said:


> Very interesting bit from 41.00 in this vid



I tried to watch it, but had to stop and retch when the interviewer said "nukleler".


----------



## Rorschach (27 Aug 2021)

John Brown said:


> I tried to watch it, but had to stop and retch when the interviewer said "nukleler".



Was that an attempt at a joke?


----------



## Thingybob (27 Aug 2021)

John Brown said:


> It has been said.
> So why not have a cull?
> Start by culling those individuals who have the biggest carbon footprint and/or the highest consumption of stuff.
> 
> ...


Soilient Green or what


----------



## Spectric (27 Aug 2021)

MickCheese said:


> We are outliving our design spec by using our intelligence and technologies, keeping people alive way beyond what is natural, and using energy in the process.
> 
> With fewer people we would need less of everything and life would need less intensive methods to keep everyone in the style they have become accustomed to.


You have got to the bottom of the issue, overpopulation but for one reason or another this cannot be solved so instead they are trying to work round it but know there is no solution for over population. Personally I would scrap all child benefits, you want kids then pay for them, you buy a car and no one pays towards your fuel cost do they. Then have children connected to your tax code, one has minor impact, two has a bigger impact and three or more puts you into a very high taxation class. This only solves the UK, we do not breed like rabbits as in some countries who are causing bigger issues.


----------



## Valhalla (27 Aug 2021)

Spectric said:


> You have got to the bottom of the issue, overpopulation but for one reason or another this cannot be solved


I think it will be solved - by nature - if humans keep proliferating. There will utlmately be a shortage of space, water, food, medicine and many other resources. Mankind will have stripped the planet of all of the goodness - all the carbon storing flora will be gone - oh - and I'm sure there will another virus or two to further control the population.

I agree with your assertion that over-population is a significant problem, and I think that it is women that fundamentally need to address this problem as it is they and they alone who bring new humans on to this planet. Women need to be educated when they are young children to seriously think about the effect of the numbers of children they might bring into the world. This obviously needs to be on a global scale and especially in societies where women typically have large numbers of children.

The days of "be fruitful and multiply" (Genesis 1:28) are over..... may be it should read - "be fruitful and keep the population to a sustainable level". We need to ensure those that are born are fit and strong and hopefully are able to work long into their later years so there might be less reliance on sheer numbers of people. 

In fact, it saddens me when you hear about women having multiple births of 4,5,6 or more children and think it's wonderful - given the numbers of starving people on the earth and the current state of the planet and where it may be heading.

It is the ever increasing population levels that are driving demand for more and more resources that are becoming scarcer and scarcer. It is the ever increasing population levels that are causing more and more pollution in our seas, the air that we breathe and the atmosphere that we rely on to keep our planet safe

Population and population control is a female issue - ultimately it is women that are the problem and it is women that are the solution.......

Answers on a postcard please......


----------



## Jacob (27 Aug 2021)

Valhalla said:


> ......
> I think it will be solved - by nature - if humans keep proliferating. ........


Yes but not in the way you think. Increased reproduction is natures _*solution*_ to the problem - it increases likelihood of survival of the _*species*_ when the going gets tough. It's a common strategy throughout the natural world. Good for the species, not good for most of the individual members thereof, but they all die in the end anyway.
This is why reproductive rates are greater in more deprived and unsettled communities. Rates are low to falling in the relatively unstressed and privileged parts.


----------



## Rorschach (27 Aug 2021)

People in deprived countries are not having children because they think it is only way for the human species to survive, that is nonsense.


----------



## Jacob (27 Aug 2021)

Rorschach said:


> People in deprived countries are not having children because they think it is only way for the human species to survive, that is nonsense.


Exactly. They are having more children than the better off - not from choice - it's a feature of poor, unstable, stressed etc etc communities. Always has been, always will.








Income and fertility - Wikipedia







en.wikipedia.org


----------



## John Brown (27 Aug 2021)

Valhalla said:


> I think it will be solved - by nature - if humans keep proliferating. There will utlmately be a shortage of space, water, food, medicine and many other resources. Mankind will have stripped the planet of all of the goodness - all the carbon storing flora will be gone - oh - and I'm sure there will another virus or two to further control the population.
> 
> I agree with your assertion that over-population is a significant problem, and I think that it is women that fundamentally need to address this problem as it is they and they alone who bring new humans on to this planet. Women need to be educated when they are young children to seriously think about the effect of the numbers of children they might bring into the world. This obviously needs to be on a global scale and especially in societies where women typically have large numbers of children.
> 
> ...


And yet...








Texas offers $10,000 reward for people who turn in women who want abortions | JOE.co.uk


Women in Texas who seek abortions after six weeks of pregnancy could be turned in by others for a $10,000 reward as new legislation is passed.




www.joe.co.uk


----------



## Jacob (27 Aug 2021)

John Brown said:


> And yet...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Arguably an example - stressed women having babies in spite of not wanting them - because of being stressed and not in control in the first place? The fathers similarly not making "responsible" decisions. Egged on by religious nutters.
But in general it's much simpler - those most able to escape from environmental or political breakdown are more likely to be young, fit and fertile. No coincidence that boat people may include babies, young children, expectant mothers, not a lot of doddery old age pensioners.


----------



## Rorschach (27 Aug 2021)

Jacob said:


> Exactly. They are having more children than the better off - not from choice - it's a feature of poor, unstable, stressed etc etc communities. Always has been, always will.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



You are confusing two different issues, being poor and overpopulation are not the same thing.


----------



## John Brown (27 Aug 2021)

I was addressing Valhalla's "women are responsible" assertion. Men have the power in most societies.


----------



## Jacob (27 Aug 2021)

Rorschach said:


> You are confusing two different issues, being poor and overpopulation are not the same thing.


Of course they aren't "the same" but they are closely related. Look at the graphs for the correlation between poverty and population growth.








Income and fertility - Wikipedia







en.wikipedia.org




_"...In a 1974 United Nations population conference in Bucharest, Karan Singh, a former minister of population in India, illustrated this trend by stating "Development is the best contraceptive."_


----------



## Rorschach (27 Aug 2021)

Jacob said:


> No coincidence that boat people may include babies, young children, expectant mothers, not a lot of doddery old age pensioners.



"Boat people" are men under 30 almost exclusively.


----------



## Rorschach (27 Aug 2021)

Jacob said:


> Of course they aren't "the same" but they are closely related. Look at the graphs for the correlation between poverty and population growth.



I am not denying that poor people have more children, I am saying your reason for them doing so is wrong, it isn't for survival of the species, we are humans, not animals, we can reason these things, no-one is having children because they think the human race is going to become extinct.


----------



## Jacob (27 Aug 2021)

Rorschach said:


> I am not denying that poor people have more children, I am saying your reason for them doing so is wrong, it isn't for survival of the species, we are humans, not animals, we can reason these things, no-one is having children because they think the human race is going to become extinct.


True. They don't _choose_ and I didn't say they did. They are driven by biological imperatives stronger than logic and common sense.


----------



## Jacob (27 Aug 2021)

Rorschach said:


> "Boat people" are men under 30 almost exclusively.


Not true. Majority yes but there are also whole families, couples and children.


----------



## John Brown (27 Aug 2021)

Humans are animals. Almost every "this is what distinguishes us from the animals" meme has been invalidated.
Ok, animals don't laugh when one of them farts. That's about it.


----------



## Rorschach (27 Aug 2021)

Jacob said:


> True. They don't _choose_ and I didn't say they did. They are driven by biological imperatives stronger than logic and common sense.



No, it's sensible and rational reasons they have children for the most part (some is beyond their control), along with the natural desire everyone has to have children. C'mon mate, even you are better than this, no need to insult poor people by saying they don't know any better, you sound like a 1900's eugenicist.


----------



## Rorschach (27 Aug 2021)

John Brown said:


> Humans are animals. Almost every "this is what distinguishes us from the animals" meme has been invalidated.
> Ok, animals don't laugh when one of them farts. That's about it.



Nonsense.


----------



## John Brown (27 Aug 2021)

Rorschach said:


> Nonsense.


Sorry, are you saying humans aren't animals? Or do you take some creationist viewpoint that humans are the chosen species, set above all the beasts of the earth and the fowls of the air?
We share something like 40% of our DNA with fruit flies..


----------



## Rorschach (27 Aug 2021)

John Brown said:


> Sorry, are you saying humans aren't animals? Or do you take some creationist viewpoint that humans are the chosen species, set above all the beasts of the earth and the fowls of the air?
> We share something like 40% of our DNA with fruit flies..



None of the religious nonsense, but there is no denying while we may still have some animal urges we are definitely a superior species in almost every regard and we are able to recognise, rationalise and overcome our base instincts.


----------



## John Brown (27 Aug 2021)

Rorschach said:


> None of the religious nonsense, but there is no denying while we may still have some animal urges we are definitely a superior species in almost every regard and we are able to recognise, rationalise and overcome our base instincts.


Agreed for the most part, but there is still a great deal we cannot understand, let alone control.


----------



## Jacob (27 Aug 2021)

Rorschach said:


> None of the religious nonsense, but there is no denying while we may still have some animal urges we are definitely a superior species in almost every regard and we are able to recognise, rationalise and overcome our base instincts.


Oh you must be from a different planet then. Welcome to our world!


----------



## Rorschach (27 Aug 2021)

Jacob said:


> Oh you must be from a different planet then. Welcome to our world!



C'mon don't sell yourself short, you definitely think you are superior to animals, in fact they way you act on here It seems you think you are superior to everything on this planet.


----------



## Jacob (27 Aug 2021)

Rorschach said:


> C'mon don't sell yourself short, you definitely think you are superior to animals, in fact they way you act on here It seems you think you are superior to everything on this planet.


Maybe a bit of a shock but we are 100% animals ourselves. 
As far as I know very few other animals are contributing to climate change in the way that we are, or many of the other of the acts of environmental destruction we have performed, so in that respect we are obviously very stupid and suicidal animals.


----------



## Rorschach (27 Aug 2021)

Only a superior animal could have such an effect


----------



## Jacob (27 Aug 2021)

Rorschach said:


> C'mon don't sell yourself short, you definitely think you are superior to animals, in fact they way you act on here It seems you think you are superior to everything on this planet.


I'm not the only one trying to explain to you that you are wrong about almost everything!


----------



## Rorschach (27 Aug 2021)

Jacob said:


> I'm not the only one trying to explain to you that you are wrong about almost everything!



True, but I am not the only one trying to you that you are wrong about almost everything.


----------



## Valhalla (27 Aug 2021)

John Brown said:


> And yet...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Abortionists, pro-lifers and the 'Bible Belt' - this is always going to be a battle ground. This underpins the necessity for education and It also raises the question of contraception. In an ideal society both men and women would take responsibility for contraception. The fact is that 'men don't get pregnant - women do' and I think that ultimately it is the absolute responsibility of a woman to ensure that they don't get pregnant, if that is what they want. I say this not because I think that men don't need to bother or that it's a sign of respect for women that men take contraception seriously, but because it's a hard fact that women are all too often 'left holding the baby'.

Then there is the psychological effect that an unwanted pregnancy could have.....but this is a whole other area......and one I'm not qualified to address


----------



## Terry - Somerset (27 Aug 2021)

My understanding is that higher birth rates in poorer countries is driven by:

the expectation that the elderly will be supported by their offspring in the absence of state pensions and benefits
high levels of child mortality due to famine, poverty, lack of health care etc which meant that many did not survive to adulthood
Only in recent decades where improved healthcare has benefitted even the very poor have very large families become the norm - children mostly grow and become reproductive adults.

In the now developed world (UK etc) population growth was very low for centuries until the industrial revolution. Improvements to food supplies, housing, heathcare, sewage systems etc etc made child mortality a relative rarity. Birth control became acceptable and affordable. 

It clearly takes a few generations for behavioural changes to reflect a new reality - hence much larger Victorian and Edwardian family sizes.


----------



## RobinBHM (27 Aug 2021)

.


Rorschach said:


> Only a superior animal could have such an effect


a simple virus managed to reduce carbon emissions back to 1950s levels.


----------



## RobinBHM (27 Aug 2021)

Terry - Somerset said:


> My understanding is that higher birth rates in poorer countries is driven by:
> 
> the expectation that the elderly will be supported by their offspring in the absence of state pensions and benefits
> high levels of child mortality due to famine, poverty, lack of health care etc which meant that many did not survive to adulthood
> ...



I would put it down to a lack of contraception.


----------



## John Brown (28 Aug 2021)

At the end of the day, it's largely irrelevant. 
Firstly, the countries with the highest birth rates are not necessarily the ones having the greatest per capita effect on the climate.
Secondly, and to my mind more crucially, it would not be possible to reduce the earth's population in the necessary time scale.


----------



## Jacob (28 Aug 2021)

Terry - Somerset said:


> My understanding is that higher birth rates in poorer countries is driven by:
> 
> the expectation that the elderly will be supported by their offspring in the absence of state pensions and benefits
> high levels of child mortality due to famine, poverty, lack of health care etc which meant that many did not survive to adulthood
> ...


There are lots of reasons but a basic survival mechanism when life is difficult or disrupted is increased birth rate, e.g. post war baby booms and very high rates in very poor countries:
"Niger is a developing country, which consistently ranks near the bottom in the United Nations' Human Development Index and has the highest birthrate in the world"
"...In a 1974 United Nations population conference in Bucharest, Karan Singh, a former minister of population in India, illustrated this trend by stating "Development is the best contraceptive."
There's a huge question mark about how many births are the result of deliberate choice. It seems that the choice to not have them is more likely in the developed world and stability of life styles is a big component - fewer partners, more control and planning etc.
Loads of interesting comments, stats and graphs on line - Fertility Rate
"Since the burden of child-birth and mostly also of the upbringing of children is borne by women, it is not surprising that fertility rates tend to be high where women have a lower social status and few opportunities outside the household. It is only when greater importance is given to the interests of women that this changes."


----------



## Rorschach (28 Aug 2021)

RobinBHM said:


> .
> 
> a simple virus managed to reduce carbon emissions back to 1950s levels.



The virus had zero effect on carbon emissions.


----------



## Blackswanwood (28 Aug 2021)

Rorschach said:


> The virus had zero effect on carbon emissions.


I don’t follow your logic there Rorschach

It doesn’t really matter but I would have thought the virus was the proximate cause of emissions being reduced significantly last year. In other words if there had been no virus there would have been no lockdown which curtailed the burning of fossil fuels for a period last year? I guess you are saying it was the decisions taken by governments to lockdown that caused it (and let’s not rerun the pros and cons of that ) but they wouldn’t have had a decision to make if there had been no virus.

Cheers


----------



## Jacob (28 Aug 2021)

RobinBHM said:


> .
> 
> a simple virus managed to reduce carbon emissions back to 1950s levels.


Simple peat bogs are doing more to reduce CO2 than any other agency. Maybe we should have a peat bog as PM?


----------



## Rorschach (28 Aug 2021)

Blackswanwood said:


> I guess you are saying it was the decisions taken by governments to lockdown that caused it (and let’s not rerun the pros and cons of that ) but they wouldn’t have had a decision to make if there had been no virus.
> 
> Cheers



Correct, it was a decision to close borders etc, we didn't have to do that, no one forced us to and indeed not all countries did the same thing as lockdowns were something only rich countries could "afford" to do.


----------



## Rorschach (28 Aug 2021)

Jacob said:


> Simple peat bogs are doing more to reduce CO2 than any other agency. Maybe we should have a peat bog as PM?



It would be a step up on our current situation


----------



## Jacob (28 Aug 2021)

Rorschach said:


> Correct, it was a decision to close borders etc, we didn't have to do that, no one forced us to and indeed not all countries did the same thing as lockdowns were something only rich countries could "afford" to do.


The virus forced us to do it.


----------



## Rorschach (28 Aug 2021)

Jacob said:


> The virus forced us to do it.



Nope.


----------



## Blackswanwood (28 Aug 2021)

@Rorschach @Jacob 

Surely that’s been debated to death and opinions differ. Why risk getting the thread closed by opening it up again?


----------



## Rorschach (28 Aug 2021)

Blackswanwood said:


> @Rorschach @Jacob
> 
> Surely that’s been debated to death and opinions differ. Why risk getting the thread closed by opening it up again?



I didn't want to get into it but the usual under bridge dweller (not J) started it 
Happy for the posts to be deleted if the mods feel it necessary, don't want to cause trouble


----------



## Stevekane (28 Aug 2021)

Overpopulation,,,Im no economist but is the problem with a negative birthrate that it would only work if we all worked and provided for ourselves untill we died, if you want retirement, care etc you have to have more people working to provide it,,,,or put another way, someone has to go out and hunt for food and as well as feeding themselves and their children, be happy to give some to you as well?,,
I personally think the big problem (threat!) is China, our reliance on them and our willingness to invest in their economy rather than our own to the detriment of jobs, skills training and whole communities,,and ultimately
I fear, perhaps our security. Trump was a buffoon but I did like his attitude to china and I wish Europe was a bit more like him.


----------



## Droogs (28 Aug 2021)

John Brown said:


> At the end of the day, it's largely irrelevant.
> Firstly, the countries with the highest birth rates are not necessarily the ones having the greatest per capita effect on the climate.
> Secondly, and to my mind more crucially, it would not be possible to reduce the earth's population in the necessary time scale.


Oh it is entirely possible just not morally digestable


----------



## Droogs (28 Aug 2021)

Stevekane said:


> Overpopulation,,,Im no economist but is the problem with a negative birthrate that it would only work if we all worked and provided for ourselves untill we died, if you want retirement, care etc you have to have more people working to provide it,,,,or put another way, someone has to go out and hunt for food and as well as feeding themselves and their children, be happy to give some to you as well?,,
> I personally think the big problem (threat!) is China, our reliance on them and our willingness to invest in their economy rather than our own to the detriment of jobs, skills training and whole communities,,and ultimately
> I fear, perhaps our security. Trump was a buffoon but I did like his attitude to china and I wish Europe was a bit more like him.


China has a massive problem based around this, they are heading to an economically and socially massive period of under-population. Just as the West is; ours caused in the main by better living conditions and better levels of education amongst the "proles". Comfortable and educated people on the whole tend to have far less children, preferring to concentrate on a direct replacement for each parent and providing that replacement with a much improved standard of living than the parents had. The Chinese are heading this way now and have been for the last decade but it is exacerbated by the 1 child policy that was in place until recently. The current working age population of China is far larger than it progeny and is headed for the same problems the West is starting to experience now in regard to workforce size and monetary provision (tax levels) for the provision of social welfare causes. The biggest headache for the Chinese is the fact that they are not yet a post industrial society or economy and therefore will have a much harder time coping with the resulting massive OAP population visa vie the much reduced taxable working population over the next 30 years.

Regarding security, China does not need to invade or attack anyone. They already own the USA financially. The hold over half of it's debt and are also the largest non domestic landowner in the US. Apart from the Federal government the only bigger landowner is Bill Gates. Like him most of what China owns is farmland. China has the US by the dogs danglies the yanks just haven't realised this yet. They have no need for military take overs this fact and the Belt and Road policy is ensuring that in the background China is _the _only real global superpower. The bang bang side will swing their way as US economic viability continues to shrink and fall by the wayside over the next 30 years. The important areas (power generation and supply along with logistics transportation) are already saturated by Chinese companies such as BYD who are becoming the biggest bus maker in the US and globally. Their blade batteries show the old adage the oriental can only copy and not innovate to be what it has always been - a lie.


----------



## Stevekane (28 Aug 2021)

Droogs said:


> China has a massive problem based around this, they are heading to an economically and socially massive period of under-population. Just as the West is; ours caused in the main by better living conditions and better levels of education amongst the "proles". Comfortable and educated people on the whole tend to have far less children, preferring to concentrate on a direct replacement for each parent and providing that replacement with a much improved standard of living than the parents had. The Chinese are heading this way now and have been for the last decade but it is exacerbated by the 1 child policy that was in place until recently. The current working age population of China is far larger than it progeny and is headed for the same problems the West is starting to experience now in regard to workforce size and monetary provision (tax levels) for the provision of social welfare causes. The biggest headache for the Chinese is the fact that they are not yet a post industrial society or economy and therefore will have a much harder time coping with the resulting massive OAP population visa vie the much reduced taxable working population over the next 30 years.
> 
> Regarding security, China does not need to invade or attack anyone. They already own the USA financially. The hold over half of it's debt and are also the largest non domestic landowner in the US. Apart from the Federal government the only bigger landowner is Bill Gates. Like him most of what China owns is farmland. China has the US by the dogs danglies the yanks just haven't realised this yet. They have no need for military take overs this fact and the Belt and Road policy is ensuring that in the background China is _the _only real global superpower. The bang bang side will swing their way as US economic viability continues to shrink and fall by the wayside over the next 30 years. The important areas (power generation and supply along with logistics transportation) are already saturated by Chinese companies such as BYD who are becoming the biggest bus maker in the US and globally. Their blade batteries show the old adage the oriental can only copy and not innovate to be what it has always been - a lie.


My worry is that when faced with a restless population when things are not going so well for them, the chinese will create an enemy to bring the country back together,,,but perhaps Im just being paranoid,,,I hope so anyway!


----------



## Rorschach (28 Aug 2021)

Droogs said:


> China has a massive problem based around this, they are heading to an economically and socially massive period of under-population. Just as the West is; ours caused in the main by better living conditions and better levels of education amongst the "proles". Comfortable and educated people on the whole tend to have far less children, preferring to concentrate on a direct replacement for each parent and providing that replacement with a much improved standard of living than the parents had. The Chinese are heading this way now and have been for the last decade but it is exacerbated by the 1 child policy that was in place until recently. The current working age population of China is far larger than it progeny and is headed for the same problems the West is starting to experience now in regard to workforce size and monetary provision (tax levels) for the provision of social welfare causes. The biggest headache for the Chinese is the fact that they are not yet a post industrial society or economy and therefore will have a much harder time coping with the resulting massive OAP population visa vie the much reduced taxable working population over the next 30 years.
> 
> Regarding security, China does not need to invade or attack anyone. They already own the USA financially. The hold over half of it's debt and are also the largest non domestic landowner in the US. Apart from the Federal government the only bigger landowner is Bill Gates. Like him most of what China owns is farmland. China has the US by the dogs danglies the yanks just haven't realised this yet. They have no need for military take overs this fact and the Belt and Road policy is ensuring that in the background China is _the _only real global superpower. The bang bang side will swing their way as US economic viability continues to shrink and fall by the wayside over the next 30 years. The important areas (power generation and supply along with logistics transportation) are already saturated by Chinese companies such as BYD who are becoming the biggest bus maker in the US and globally. Their blade batteries show the old adage the oriental can only copy and not innovate to be what it has always been - a lie.



The thing with owning land and debt etc is that is really only a gentlemans agreement, we all agree to abide by the laws. If the USA decided that China no longer owned it's debt or it's parcels of land, only invasion can change that. There is only one thing that is important to own in this world, it's not land, it's not money, it's not property, it's weapons, or rather the means to impose your will on your fellow man.


----------



## RobinBHM (28 Aug 2021)

Stevekane said:


> Overpopulation,,,Im no economist but is the problem with a negative birthrate that it would only work if we all worked and provided for ourselves untill we died, if you want retirement, care etc you have to have more people working to provide



and there’s pensions….which are a bit of a pyramid scheme.

young working age people are needed to fund retired people…..and as life expectancy has generally gone up over many decades….it needs more workers to fund it. 

Thats one benefit of net migration.


----------



## J-G (28 Aug 2021)

Droogs said:


> The Chinese are heading this way now and have been for the last decade but it is exacerbated by the 1 child policy that was in place until recently.


Hardly 'recently' -- the one child policy ended in 2013 - 8 years ago - being replaced with a 2 child policy 'if one parent was an only child' but in May this year they went to an 'up to 3 child' policy with no caveat.


----------



## Terry - Somerset (28 Aug 2021)

Maintaining the proportion of younger people in a society to provide the energy to deliver that which the retired and elderly require is completely unsustainable without population growth.

The reason - increasing number of elderly people arising from improvements in life expectancy due to healthcare, diet, etc. To some extent the additional demands have been offset by increasing the retirement age - but by no means sufficiently.

The modern UK state pension was started by the Old-Age Pensions Act 1908, which provided 5 shillings (£0.25) a week for those over 70.

In 1908, if you reached 65 (most didn't) after 50 years of work you may expect to live another 12 years. Life expectancy (average) was ~50 due to child mortality and other incurable illnesses.

In 2020 you can expect to live ~20 years at 65, average life expectancy at birth is ~80 years.

If overpopulation is seen as a problem (I think it is) - both environmentally and socially - there are only a few options:

make people work longer whilst remaining in adequate health
reduce care for the elderly
reduce pensions for the retired
reduce living standards for the young, apply resources to economically inactive elderly
services increasingly provided by automation and robots (??)
As explicit policies many/all seem fairly unattractive - for some morally repugnant. 

This may be why governments worldwide are reluctant to implement birth control policies as they will be aware that it would accelerate the need to make these difficult choices.

But the reality is that even without explicit policies this is what is actually happening!


----------



## Jacob (28 Aug 2021)

Terry - Somerset said:


> Maintaining the proportion of younger people in a society to provide the energy to deliver that which the retired and elderly require is completely unsustainable without population growth.
> 
> The reason - increasing number of elderly people arising from improvements in life expectancy due to healthcare, diet, etc. To some extent the additional demands have been offset by increasing the retirement age - but by no means sufficiently.
> 
> ...


You've missed out the big obvious option which is well known and well documented, which is to share out the wealth of the world a bit more equally. World’s billionaires have more wealth than 4.6 billion people | Oxfam International
In other words there could be no population problem if we resolved the wealth distribution problem.
In principle this could lead to reducing populations as people would have more control over their lives, particularly if women were more liberated.
It won't happen of course - the world is quietly resigning itself to let nature take its course and bump a lot of us off randomly. Likely to be the poorest first, who also happen to have the lowest carbon footprint, so it won't be very fair!


----------



## whereistheceilidh (28 Aug 2021)

Little did I think when joining this forum recently for wood lathe reasons that I would be drawn into a discussion on population control & climate change. Funny old world innit...... tho unfortunately probably not that much longer as far as humans are concerned.


----------



## Rorschach (29 Aug 2021)

whereistheceilidh said:


> Little did I think when joining this forum recently for wood lathe reasons that I would be drawn into a discussion on population control & climate change. Funny old world innit...... tho unfortunately probably not that much longer as far as humans are concerned.



Not another doom monger


----------



## Sandyn (29 Aug 2021)

Rorschach said:


> Not another doom monger


We're Doomed!


----------



## Trainee neophyte (30 Aug 2021)

I've been horribly busy, so unable to keep up with this fabulously enthusiastic, edifying thread. Apologies for that.







Another similar one here:






See if you can spot anything in your life in the following list:








10 Creepy Reasons Climate Change Is Starting To Look Like A Religion - Listverse


Since the beginning of Earth's existence, the climate has changed. It has been influenced by the sun, geological factors, ecological factors, and perhaps




listverse.com


----------



## Jacob (30 Aug 2021)

Trainee neophyte said:


> I've been horribly busy, so unable to keep up with this fabulously enthusiastic, edifying thread. Apologies for that.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


There's a lot of this about. If you look hard enough you can find "imitation" science to prove anything you like. Alien invasion is a popular one.


----------



## Trainee neophyte (30 Aug 2021)

Jacob said:


> There's a lot of this about. If you look hard enough you can find "imitation" science to prove anything you like. Alien invasion  Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Emergency is a popular one.


FIFY ;-)


----------



## Jacob (30 Aug 2021)

Trainee neophyte said:


> FIFY ;-)


I guess you missed out on basic science at school?


----------



## Thingybob (2 Sep 2021)

whereistheceilidh said:


> Little did I think when joining this forum recently for wood lathe reasons that I would be drawn into a discussion on population control & climate change. Funny old world innit...... tho unfortunately probably not that much longer as far as humans are concerned.


Ah well if you get rattled by any one or topic you can take a piece of wood and a hammer and chisle and knock 7 bells of dung out of it now thats woodworking at its best ( although with the price of wood lately might be a dear form of stress relief ) lol


----------



## Sachakins (2 Sep 2021)

Thingybob said:


> Ah well if you get rattled by any one or topic you can take a piece of wood and a hammer and chisle and knock 7 bells of dung out of it now thats woodworking at its best ( although with the price of wood lately might be a dear form of stress relief ) lol


I've resorted to bashing a gold bar ingot, far cheaper at the moment...?..


----------



## whereistheceilidh (3 Sep 2021)

Thingybob said:


> Ah well if you get rattled by any one or topic you can take a piece of wood and a hammer and chisle and knock 7 bells of dung out of it now thats woodworking at its best ( although with the price of wood lately might be a dear form of stress relief ) lol


Thank you for the advice Thingybob....have been trying that for many years & it works...& even got paid for it. You are right about the wood prices ..... luckily have some in stack that will last a few years or until I drop off the perch.......& fastenings...but that is covered in another thread.


----------



## Thingybob (5 Sep 2021)

Just to upset all you youngsters out there this is a price list from early 80s and i never bought there as they were too dear mostly DIY ers used them 


Eh them wert days ps thats price per foot


----------



## Thingybob (6 Sep 2021)

whereistheceilidh said:


> Thank you for the advice Thingybob....have been trying that for many years & it works...& even got paid for it. You are right about the wood prices ..... luckily have some in stack that will last a few years or until I drop off the perch.......& fastenings...but that is covered in another thread.


Is that a pun (another thread) Whitworth or Metric


----------



## Rorschach (9 Sep 2021)




----------



## John Brown (9 Sep 2021)

100 versus 77.


----------



## Rorschach (10 Sep 2021)

John Brown said:


> 100 versus 77.



The trend line is the same, we are getting older as a population and deaths are increasing comparatively.


----------



## John Brown (10 Sep 2021)

The y axes are different. You could make the "trend line" match with any increase in death rate.
You're being tricked.


----------



## Rorschach (10 Sep 2021)

John Brown said:


> The y axes are different. You could make the "trend line" match with any increase in death rate.
> You're being tricked.


----------



## John Brown (10 Sep 2021)

Rorschach said:


> I guess it has been a very long time since you went to school, oh well.


Why would you say that?
It's true, of course, but I have used elementary arithmetic since I left school.
All I'm saying is that the one graph shows an increase of 100%, the other shows an increase of 77%. The y axes have been chosen to make the trend look identical.
This is simple stuff. 
Kindly refrain from rolling eyes and ageist insults.


----------



## Rorschach (10 Sep 2021)

John Brown said:


> Why would you say that?
> It's true, of course, but I have used elementary arithmetic since I left school.
> All I'm saying is that the one graph shows an increase of 100%, the other shows an increase of 77%. The y axes have been chosen to make the trend look identical.
> This is simple stuff.
> Kindly refrain from rolling eyes and ageist insults.



The graph on the left doesn't show a 100% increase, you are looking at one years data, as you can see it goes up and down, so the trend line is lower. The graphic also doesn't say they are equal, it say that they are almost the same, the population is ageing considerably so the effect is going to be greater. The point of the graphic is to show that looking at graph 1 does not give you the whole picture and you need to dig a little deeper. I thought you might have been able to understand that. I have deleted the school comment, it was unfair, I apologise, but the point still stands, you are seeing what you want to see, not the whole picture hence the rolling eyes.


----------



## Spectric (10 Sep 2021)

John Brown said:


> Sorry, are you saying humans aren't animals?


Humans are most definately animals, and come under the sub species of mammals. It is a diverse group like all the others and we are only different in that our intelligence and ability to think is above the rest. Within the "human genre" all that makes one different from another is DNA on the physical/visual aspect and programming on our personalities and attitude. A prime example of this is how nature designed the female, not from a clean sheet of paper but a modified male, yes don't re-invent the wheel. So you have this new female, how do you get the male to accept it as being female and not just another male that is different, nature just re-programed the male to ensure reproduction and continuation of the species, really an amazing con rather like painting stripes on your horse and calling it a zebra. Unfortunately nature did not put any restrictions on the breeding aspect so the species took off and we are now straining under the mass of people, perhaps rather than coming into season every month once every say four would have been adequate.



Jacob said:


> You've missed out the big obvious option which is well known and well documented, which is to share out the wealth of the world a bit more equally.


Yes a very contentious subject, in a decent society where everyone respected life and other people then it should not happen because we should all share an equal quality of life within reason, no one should earn more in a year than others take ten or more to earn. Comes down to a bad aspect of humanity, greed which then fuels so many others all in the race to get wealthier at the expense of others.


----------



## John Brown (10 Sep 2021)

Rorschach said:


> The graph on the left doesn't show a 100% increase, you are looking at one years data, as you can see it goes up and down, so the trend line is lower. The graphic also doesn't say they are equal, it say that they are almost the same, the population is ageing considerably so the effect is going to be greater. The point of the graphic is to show that looking at graph 1 does not give you the whole picture and you need to dig a little deeper. I thought you might have been able to understand that. I have deleted the school comment, it was unfair, I apologise, but the point still stands, you are seeing what you want to see, not the whole picture hence the rolling eyes.


If you take the endpoints of both graphs, which is what the person who drew this is attempting to compare, they show a percentage increase of around 30% in heat related deaths in the over 65s. 
Yes, I agree that the first graph doesn't show the whole picture, but even allowing for the increase in the number of over 65s, 30% still seems like a lot. Especially to us 68 year olds.


----------



## J-G (10 Sep 2021)

Spectric said:


> ...A prime example of this is how nature designed the female, not from a clean sheet of paper but a modified male...


I believe that you have that the wrong way round.

Last week I heard a very believable answer to the question " why do men have nipples?" -- it seems that all Zygotes are female and by the time the Y chromosome takes control the nipples have already been created.


----------



## clogs (10 Sep 2021)

of course there is always this God Bxxlocks to contend with in the design.....lol...
but the younger males seem to be getting onto their female side....
make up n hair do's....
we need to bring back National Service back....
or is that going to far....
cos I think that will sort out the woke brigade, muggers and drug dealers.....


----------



## whereistheceilidh (10 Sep 2021)

Thingybob said:


> Is that a pun (another thread) Whitworth or Metric


BA Thingybob........


----------



## Jameshow (10 Sep 2021)

clogs said:


> of course there is always this God Bxxlocks to contend with in the design.....lol...
> but the younger males seem to be getting onto their female side....
> make up n hair do's....
> we need to bring back National Service back....
> ...


Takes alot to believe in evolution tbh! 

Cheers James


----------



## Rorschach (10 Sep 2021)

Jameshow said:


> Takes alot to believe in evolution tbh!
> 
> Cheers James



Not really, pretty obvious when you think about, certainly a lot more obvious than the alternatives.


----------



## Terry - Somerset (10 Sep 2021)

Evolution seems to be a rational explanation, but part of the story escapes me. 

A change to a single element is plausible - eg: a leg bone lengthens to allow access to higher fruits, and reproduction favours those who have this variation. 

A simple joint (knee, finger etc etc) is very different. To make it work requires a genetic variation to two bones, blood vessels, tendons, muscles, nerve pathways etc. If any one variation is missing the joint will not function. A single change has no purpose.

Therefore evolution is improbable - a number of complementary variations, occuring at the same time, producing something so functionally useful it is reproduced in future generations.

So I am left with the conclusion that evolution, whilst improbable, is actually feasible - perhaps we don't yet know fully how it happens. The alternative (for me) is the product of a fantasy to explain something real by reference to that for which there is no evidence, just faith.


----------



## Rorschach (10 Sep 2021)

Terry - Somerset said:


> Evolution seems to be a rational explanation, but part of the story escapes me.
> 
> A change to a single element is plausible - eg: a leg bone lengthens to allow access to higher fruits, and reproduction favours those who have this variation.
> 
> ...



You are overcomplicating matters. any flexibility between two bones is better than no flexibility, over time that evolves into a joint. Once you have a joint, it can then evolve many different ways.
Eyes seem super complex and seem to go against evolution until you realise a tiny part of an eye is better than no eye at all and from there the tree grows. Eyes have evolved in many different ways in many different animals, some animals have evolved eyes, stopped using them and lost them, and then evolved different eyes later on.


----------



## Terry - Somerset (10 Sep 2021)

A joint without muscle, tendon and blood vessels is simply a floppy appendage that probably gets in the way!


----------



## Rorschach (10 Sep 2021)

Terry - Somerset said:


> A joint without muscle, tendon and blood vessels is simply a floppy appendage that probably gets in the way!



Again, you are overcomplicating matters.


----------



## planesleuth (11 Sep 2021)

God is a concept
By which we measure our pain
I'll say it again
God is a concept
By which we measure our pain
Yeah, pain, yeah


----------



## Garden Shed Projects (11 Sep 2021)

Evolution isn’t really about things changing it is more about advantages being compounded or more accurately weakness being punished. 

If you have a long neck you can reach the higher fruit better than others so your choice of foods has increased over your neighbour meaning your chance of survival has increased. Your chances of mating have increased and the likelihood of you mating with a long necked female is more likely as you are both considered top stock. This happens over a number of generations and the short necks either die away or diverge into an alternate short necked species.

Darwin’s “Survival of the fittest”, at least in my opinion, could have easily been called the “punishment of the weakest. “. Evolution has no plan it is just a consequence of the genes of creatures who are no longer competitive not continuing in the gene pool.


----------



## Flynnwood (11 Sep 2021)

(576) Carl Sagan's Pale Blue Dot OFFICIAL - YouTube 
That's it in 3.5 minutes.


----------

