Krome10
Established Member
I vote this as the best post over the nine pages...
But the question remains... Is the planet toast?
Last edited:
COP26 progress or same old
- Thread starter Spectric
- Start date
Help Support UKworkshop.co.uk:
- Status
I vote this as the best post over the nine pages...
But the question remains... Is the planet toast?
Terry - Somerset
Established Member
It isn't even that complicated.
If I get ill I go to a doctor. If I want confirmation of his/her opinion I can go and get a second. I don't ask the plumber however good he may be at fixing the central heating.
If I need to have someone deal with my tax affairs I go to a qualified accountant. I don't go to the local bookmaker because he knows how to do "sums"
If I have tooth-ache I go to a dentist who has completed several years training in the subject. My builder, despite proficiency with cordless tools, is not high up in the list of consultees.
If the brakes on my car need fixing I go to the dealer or brand specialist. Despite their mechanical skills, I do not go to the tree surgeon because he knows how to fix chainsaws.
If I want to know about climate change I listen to time served scientists with relevant experience and qualifications. Opinions of those who studied something slightly connected a few decades ago have more limited credibility.
This does not mean that professionals always get it right. But unless you have both time and intellectual capacity to become fully competent in a subject, relying on professional judgement tends to beat gut feel, amateur operatives or second/third rate advice.
If I get ill I go to a doctor. If I want confirmation of his/her opinion I can go and get a second. I don't ask the plumber however good he may be at fixing the central heating.
If I need to have someone deal with my tax affairs I go to a qualified accountant. I don't go to the local bookmaker because he knows how to do "sums"
If I have tooth-ache I go to a dentist who has completed several years training in the subject. My builder, despite proficiency with cordless tools, is not high up in the list of consultees.
If the brakes on my car need fixing I go to the dealer or brand specialist. Despite their mechanical skills, I do not go to the tree surgeon because he knows how to fix chainsaws.
If I want to know about climate change I listen to time served scientists with relevant experience and qualifications. Opinions of those who studied something slightly connected a few decades ago have more limited credibility.
This does not mean that professionals always get it right. But unless you have both time and intellectual capacity to become fully competent in a subject, relying on professional judgement tends to beat gut feel, amateur operatives or second/third rate advice.
I found this summary of what COP achieved/ failed to achieve and the dfferent positions on it helpful:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-59277788Positives and negatives. Seems to me that the reasons for objections to 'phasing out' of coal by India and others won't be changing any time soon, so in the absence of viable alternative sources of energy at scale and reasonable cost, presumably their objections to that goal won't be stopping, either.
I can't imagine trying to resolve the conflicts of interest, completely overwhelming. I'll go and plane some wood.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-59277788Positives and negatives. Seems to me that the reasons for objections to 'phasing out' of coal by India and others won't be changing any time soon, so in the absence of viable alternative sources of energy at scale and reasonable cost, presumably their objections to that goal won't be stopping, either.
I can't imagine trying to resolve the conflicts of interest, completely overwhelming. I'll go and plane some wood.
Trainee neophyte
Established Member
For the purposes of this discussion "belief" in Catastrophic Climate Change is irrelevant. Governments got together because they do "believe" in climate change, or rather more importantly their voters seem to, so they need to at least give it lip service. The real question for me is what will be the consequences of any agreement? How much poorer will I be, personally, after the next batch of arbitrary, draconian measures that will come down from on high. By the looks of it, not much will change but I will probably have to pay even more tax.
Yes, maybe increased taxation of those of us in the developed world who can afford it could be one part of a solution. We'd have less money to buy the excess carp we don't actually need, making its manufacture and thus draw on energy redundant, and at the same time accruing capital to facilitate support for and movement of those people most adversely affected by climate change. Obviously the voters won't go for it, such is our system of values.
John Brown
Freeloading Social media influenza
I'm not going to bother to argue with any of the climate deniers, as it's a waste of time. Those who do think there's something in it, however, might find the attached link interesting. I just listened to all bar the last episode, ironically while sitting in a tailback on the M4. Intriguing how the same names crop up in both the tobacco funded misinformation campaign and that funded by fossil fuel firms.
These people are very clever manipulators, up against scientists who are generally not so slick when presenting to the media.
It's BBC, a lot of you will immediately dismiss it as biased. Fair enough. Don't listen to it. Thankfully you won't be the ones making important decisions in these matters.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m000l7q1
These people are very clever manipulators, up against scientists who are generally not so slick when presenting to the media.
It's BBC, a lot of you will immediately dismiss it as biased. Fair enough. Don't listen to it. Thankfully you won't be the ones making important decisions in these matters.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m000l7q1
Jacob
What goes around comes around.
Ask the question loaded the the way "is climate change not entirely man made" and you get much the same answers
https://www.google.com/search?q=is+...&ved=0ahUKEwiLv7OJwZf0AhVTkFwKHYe_BDcQ4dUDCA4
Scroll down a bit and you get, guess what, Piers Corbyn! Well qualified, but still 100% fruitcake.
He makes interesting reading Piers Corbyn - Wikipedia
Also evidence that CC sceptic scientists are not very common, as we have seen - only David Bellamy getting a mention in this thread so far. They seem to be the leaders in this field!
Last edited:
As John's post above suggests, best not be derailed by engaging them at all - it's a clear, well documented strategy to create doubt and buy time and thus continued profits.
eta - just look at how successful the strategy's been in derailing this thread, repeatedly turning it into an 'it's not real/ yes it is' thread. same strategy in the pandemic threads: lockdowns etc are bad for the economy, so cast doubt on the whole thing as far as possible, get people back producing and consuming.
Last edited:
Jacob
What goes around comes around.
Thanks for that hadn't noticed it. Will listen.
Climate change being 100% man made or not is a red herring! What is clear from the measured data is that average global temperature is increasing and this corresponds with increasing levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. It doesn't matter a jot whether that is 100% our fault, or 98% or 50% or whatever. What is clear is that mankind is making a significant contribution to the increase in global temperature increase and that we could reduce this.
The physics of climate change doesn't care who or what releases the greenhouse gases. If mankind wants to avoid the (for us) unpleasant affects of global warming then we need to act to reduce our contribution to the increase.
It was sad to see this morning that COP26 has indeed become COPOUT26, with the watering down of the already insufficient response to the global warming problem.
Countries like India and China need to bite the bullet and accept that they are currently the worst polluters and significantly reduce their greenhouse gas emissions. At the same time, the richer developed countries, UK included, need to bite the bullet and accept that aside from their current rate of pollution, the current high levels of greenhouse gases are in no small part due to them. So in addition to reducing their own greenhouse gas emissions they need to contribute much more financially than they currently do to the conversion of developing countries to greener energy systems.
Personally, I think a carrot and stick approach should be taken. The carrot would be financial backing of greener energy systems and the stick would be a "carbon tariff" on all goods produced by a country which produced more than an agreed level of pollution. The money taken in tariffs could then be used to partially offset to cost of the carrots, of course! Whilst some of this may already be in place, the scale needs to dramatically increased if mankind wants to avoid the looming climate catastrophe.
Countries like India and China need to accept that in the coming decades, they will face massive problems and humanitarian disasters if they do not act more decisively now.
I can only hope that the people who are children now and have no vote will, in the coming decade, vote out those politicians who are so dilatory in their response to the current climate crisis. Good luck to you kids, you're going to need it!
The physics of climate change doesn't care who or what releases the greenhouse gases. If mankind wants to avoid the (for us) unpleasant affects of global warming then we need to act to reduce our contribution to the increase.
It was sad to see this morning that COP26 has indeed become COPOUT26, with the watering down of the already insufficient response to the global warming problem.
Countries like India and China need to bite the bullet and accept that they are currently the worst polluters and significantly reduce their greenhouse gas emissions. At the same time, the richer developed countries, UK included, need to bite the bullet and accept that aside from their current rate of pollution, the current high levels of greenhouse gases are in no small part due to them. So in addition to reducing their own greenhouse gas emissions they need to contribute much more financially than they currently do to the conversion of developing countries to greener energy systems.
Personally, I think a carrot and stick approach should be taken. The carrot would be financial backing of greener energy systems and the stick would be a "carbon tariff" on all goods produced by a country which produced more than an agreed level of pollution. The money taken in tariffs could then be used to partially offset to cost of the carrots, of course! Whilst some of this may already be in place, the scale needs to dramatically increased if mankind wants to avoid the looming climate catastrophe.
Countries like India and China need to accept that in the coming decades, they will face massive problems and humanitarian disasters if they do not act more decisively now.
I can only hope that the people who are children now and have no vote will, in the coming decade, vote out those politicians who are so dilatory in their response to the current climate crisis. Good luck to you kids, you're going to need it!
Krome10
Established Member
As an aside, and to satisfy my curiosity, when it comes to China being the worst culprit... Has anyone come across data which shows - or articles that discuss - how much of their carbon footprint is attributable to making the endless of amounts of goods we import into "the West"?
ey_tony
Established Member
I am NOT bigging myself up, I'm merely pointed out that I have some actual knowledge of the subject at academic level rather than simply regurgitating what I'd been told without question or fully understanding what I'm regurgitating.
l have also learned that it's actually pointless arguing with people of that ilk as they wouldn't be able to hold a valid discussion regarding the nuances of the claims from both sides. Most people wouldn't have a clue whether what they were told was actually fact or fiction.
The people who big themselves up are those who are clueless and have to resort to wikipedia for their shallow understanding but still ridicule those who are intelligent enough to actually question the data. Questioning data isn't bigging oneself up.
Quoting from Wikipedia et al are not substitutes for understanding and highlights how little they know. Wikipedia is the last place to look for facts.
It's not a case that I'm a so called denier. Climatic changes have been going on for billions of years so it's not a new phenomenon and it would be difficult not to accept that the effects on our climate are contributed to by anthropogenic patterns of behaviour but, it is valid to question by how much which appears to go over the heads of the hard of thinking.
I simply choose not to accept all of the data put out as truth, some of which is clearly questionable to anyone with a modicum of understanding of the principles behind the subject.
It's got to the stage where questioning the data is seen as heresy much akin to questioning religious beliefs. Only fools and the indoctrinated believe in such rubbish without question.
Just looking through scientific discoveries, the history of science is littered with so called 'consensus'. One only has to look at Darwin or Wegener to see who was correct, the consensus or them, so consensus means absolutely nothing. It's fact which does.
They were ridiculed and treated as insane by many of their peers so to use the word consensus as if it is correct is quite amusing. It's a red flag when anyone brandishes the consensus argument.
Wegener for instance first proposed the theory behind continental drift around 1915 for which he was ridiculed by his peers. It was only in the 1960s that it was accepted as being correct. Up to that point the firm consensus was that he was wrong and it was only after others who weren't part of the consensus actually proved his theory.
With regard to anyone who describes me as a denier/sceptic or whatever, it doesn't bother me in the slightest as I don't value their opinions.
I don't hope to change anyone's mind, as most people I find have already made up their mind. All I ask is that people at least critically question some of the claims rather than just accept one side's views.
Anyway, that's me done on the subject as it's pointless discussing it further.
Jacob
What goes around comes around.
That is what is known as "bigging yourself up", not to mention "complacent", "patronising" and "insulting"
We are not all idiots.
Re. Wegener and slow acceptance of what is now the consensus.
Wegener only had to wait 40 years or so for his theory to become accepted and become "the consensus", following various discoveries, mainly sea bed magnetic anomalies.
The theory that increases in greenhouse gases would lead to an increase in temperature was first proposed by Svante Arrhenius in 1896.
https://www.lenntech.com/greenhouse-effect/global-warming-history.htm#The mechanism of greenhouse gases was first proposed by Eugene Foot in 1856
Meet the woman who first identified the greenhouse effect
It's taken 150 years for anthropogenic climate change theory to become the consensus - after massive research, still ongoing, accumulating mountains of evidence, with effects now experienced and plainly visible around us in various parts of the globe
It's not a shiny new theory which has popped up from nowhere - you are about 100 years behind the curve!
Your comments about Wikipedia are just silly.
Last edited:
Well the conclusion has to be a cop out, China and India cannot agree to no more coal at this point in time as they have no alternatives to keep industry going and the lights on, so if you live on a small island then maybe time to move before the big rush and it becomes a stampede. As time moves on then the people who have questioned global warming will now be able to get hands on and experience it first hand providing they are not to old.
Jacob
What goes around comes around.
Just one more step! No point in being pessimistic and it's not too late to keep up the pressure.
Trainee neophyte
Established Member
And that's you being reasonable, friendly, open minded and accepting. Not. You seem to have set yourself up as the Spanish Inquisition -perhaps you might recognise yourself in the following:
https://listverse.com/2019/09/26/climate-change-religion/
The idea that India could swap all of its coal generation to something else at the drop of a hat is insane. 70% of their electricity comes from coal, which they dig up themselves so it is cheap. What should they replace it with, and with how much of Jacob's pocket money?
Jacob
What goes around comes around.
Yes, definitely not! Well spotted!
Laughable the way these confused people brag about their education, jeer at anything they don't agree with and then top it all by getting it completely wrong themselves!
Last edited:
From here. Might be a bit out of date, but it gives an idea, China's total CO2 is 9.8 Billion Tonnes, so over a fifth is consumed outside China.
John Brown
Freeloading Social media influenza
So every so often, a rank outsider wins the race. Nobody would deny that.
The relevant point to take away is that most of the time, they don't.
John Brown
Freeloading Social media influenza
Solar power. I understand that India has massive potential for this. Obviously the transition wouldn't be instantaneous, and maybe they could use a little help.
I doubt that Jacob's pocket money would accomplish much, apart from trivialising the issue.
- Status
