Heatwave

[Jacob]

Funny how everything you disagree with is written by a nutter, isn't it?

Not just me it's something close to 100% of the world of science.
The idea that they are all involved in some sort of global money-making conspiracy is insane!
There's masses of evidence increasing every year that what was forecast is coming about, generally sooner than forecast. Yes and I do know that there were plenty of outlying forecasts which did not come true - an impending ice age being most often quoted.
Look at the evidence Climate change: evidence and causes | Royal Society

 

[Spectric]

Climate change is real, global warming is fact because we have the evidence that it us that has increased carbon emisions and industrialisation is the root cause, the problem is that it is also a major source of wealth and too many wealthy people have the attitude of I am all right jack and sod the future generations.

I believe we are past the point of preventing the results of this problem because we are happy to just talk about it but not willing to take the action needed that will at least start to put the brakes on. If and when the UK becomes carbon neutral it will have little impact because we are such a minor contributor, it needs the biggest contributors to act and effect the biggest change to make any difference but and this is the big but, we will all need to make massive lifestyle changes to achieve this. People will then bleat on about their rights and resist any change, but change is what is needed and no one is going to like these changes because it could well feel like we are going back in time. The throwaway attitude needs to go, many of the big money spiners like fashion will have to go and the days of being materialistic will be over so life will become very different but the other option will be far worse.

 

[Jacob]

..... If and when the UK becomes carbon neutral it will have little impact because we are such a minor contributor, it needs the biggest contributors to act and effect the biggest change to make any difference .....

It needs all and everybody to make the changes and that includes unilateral action by UK - to set an example at least but also to be developing strategies and even profiting by them.
It looks like China will eventually be leading the way in renewable technology and the rest of the world left behind and dependent.

 

[John Brown]

The Heartland institute.


Founded in 1984, it worked with tobacco company Philip Morris throughout the 1990s to attempt to discredit the health risks of secondhand smoke and lobby against smoking bans.[4][5]: 233–234 [6] Since the 2000s, the Heartland Institute has been a leading promoter of climate change denial.[7][8]

Draw your own conclusions.

 

[Spectric]

It looks like China will eventually be leading the way in renewable technology and the rest of the world left behind and dependent.

But America is already showing it's not happy with the growth and power of China even though they cannot change what will be inevitable, everyone including the Uk must accept and have a re-shuffle at that top table which will mean embracing China rather than trying to alienate them. Another spaner in the works will be if we get a female Pm, she will throw her weight around and cause diplomatic chaos unless someone can reign her in, Maggie had the falklands and so what will Truss want.

 

[johna.clements]

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2022/07...ns-report-released-its-worse-than-we-thought/

from wiki

""The Heartland Institute is an American conservative and libertarian public policy think tank known for its rejection of both the scientific consensus on climate change and the negative health impacts of smoking.[3]

Founded in 1984, it worked with tobacco company Philip Morris throughout the 1990s to attempt to discredit the health risks of secondhand smoke and lobby against smoking bans.[4][5]: 233–234 [6] Since the 2000s, the Heartland Institute has been a leading promoter of climate change denial.[7][8]""

 

[Phil Pascoe]

They follow the money. As do many of the scientists who depend on an income. No one in their right mind is going to go out of their way to find figures that go against their paymasters wishes and beliefs.

 

[Jacob]

They follow the money. As do many of the scientists who depend on an income.

Most scientists pursue science and are paid to do just that, however improbable or unpopular the outcome.

No one in their right mind is going to go out of their way to find figures that go against their paymasters wishes and beliefs.

Very bizarre. Do you really believe that nearly 100% of the worlds scientists are being paid to tell lies? Not just lies but huge elaborate global hoax on a scale never seen before?
In any case most self respecting "scientists" would not work for such a paymaster - though there's always a tiny minority who would sell themselves; defending the tobacco or asbestos lobby, selling quack remedies, etc.
Stark account from OZ: Impacts of Climate Change. Do you think these things are not happening and they are all lying?
The greenhouse effect of CO2 was discovered 120 years ago and has been tested many times in laboratories. Is this a 120 year long confidence trick and they were all lying and being paid for it, from the beginning?

 

[shed9]

They follow the money. As do many of the scientists who depend on an income. No one in their right mind is going to go out of their way to find figures that go against their paymasters wishes and beliefs.

I see this argument a lot, however it is (as with most counter arguments to reality) rarely thought through beyond the soundbite itself.

Less than 4.7% of global research funding is climate related. Taking the US as one example as they are generally pointed to as the climate cash cow, you will find data that suggests the US government allocates billions to climate related funding within their respective federal departments. However, that's deeply misleading as nuclear power development can be (and is) classed as climate research. Only around 6% of that US government climate funding actually has a connection to climate change research. From an academic perspective, if you were to take the collective US academic funding research for climate change over the last 30 years, you would still be looking at a bigger number if you looked at the turnover for M&M's in the US alone in any given year in the last five.

This isn't a cabal of funding dependent lying professionals suckling on the teat of their paymasters. It's just science.

 

[Jacob]

What about this lot then? Is "being fictional" just a cover?
Mad scientist - Wikipedia

They are all the same you know.

 

[Jacob]

Funny how everything you disagree with is written by a nutter, isn't it?

Not as funny as the way you keep digging out nut-case websites!
I hope you don't really take them seriously.

 

[Scruples]

There's still a lot of sceptical nutter misinformation going around. Some things never change!

There is a lot of disbelief around. I put it down to fear. The science has gone from suspicions to fact but there are some who still deny the truth. Luckily, most of the world is taking more notice.

 

[Jacob]

https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2108146119

 

[johna.clements]

There is a lot of disbelief around. I put it down to fear. The science has gone from suspicions to fact but there are some who still deny the truth. Luckily, most of the world is taking more notice.

I think there are many reasons other than fear.

The people who were warning about climate change were often also supporters of CND etc. People who disagreed with CND etc assumed that they were also wrong about climate change.

If people have come out publicly and said something is rubbish it can be difficult to change stance. They have to accept that they were wrong. Then they have to be willing to say so.

Then there is greed. Many people do not care what will happen after they are dead if it will cost them money now.

 

[Terry - Somerset]

James Lovelock developed the Gaia hypothesis - that Earth and its biological systems behave as a huge single entity. This entity has closely controlled self-regulatory negative feedback loops that keep the conditions on the planet within boundaries that are favourable to life.

He also postulated that the earth could support ~0.5bn people at an acceptable standard (6% of current levels). Alternative estimates suggest that 5 earths would be needed to support the global population at US levels of consumption.

A working proposition may be that the planet is overpopulated by a factor of (say) 10.

Climate change is just one element of environmental degradation, caused largely by human consumption. A return to a simpler less damaging lifestyle embraced by (or forced on) all, may not mean a full return to (say) 19th century living standards as technology has evolved.

Whilst for the UK and many developed countries a simpler, greener existence may be attractive, for much of the world it would still be aspirational. The global overpopulation factor of 10 may reduce to 3-5. Can anything else can be done:

• "green" initiatives (energy, recycling, insulation, food production etc) will prolong the window for action but not avoid impending population stresses.
• the urge to reproduce is a fundamental characteristic of all animals. Global populations are projected to continue increasing to 11.2bn by 2100.
• third world and developing countries understandably aspire to developed country standards including housing, food, clean water, lighting, refrigerators, education, choice etc.

Limiting populations is the only realistic solution to long term sustainable existence, but is not even on the agenda. Instead some religions still believe contraception intrinsically evil, and pro-life who think abortion a punishable act. The "one child" policy in China has been dismantled because even they could not make it work.

The probability of the next 100 years passing without events materially reducing human populations is low. It may be conflict over increasingly scarce resources (water, food, materials), pandemic, war (lebensraum!), climate change making some parts of the world uninhabitable.

It will not be the end of humanity - many millions (possibly a billion or two) will survive. They will be those with education, skills, contingency plans etc - the weak as always will perish. An uncomfortable, but probably objective, outcome.

 

[Jacob]

.......
Limiting populations is the only realistic solution to long term sustainable existence, .....

as long as you start by limiting the per person high consumers first?
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/datablog/2009/sep/02/carbon-emissions-per-person-capitaUSA, Australia, Europe, UAE, Quatar, Japan, etc, all should be decimated immediately!

 

[kwigly]

Low intensity carbon emissions are not a severe problem as surrounding nature can readily tolerate/absorb it.
If Jacob would look at carbon emissions "per hectare" instead of per person, he would see that the UK needs to clean up well before some of the other places he mentions.

 

[Jacob]

Low intensity carbon emissions are not a severe problem as surrounding nature can readily tolerate/absorb it.

Could be true if it wasn't for the wind. We share the same atmosphere. We get dominant SW winds here and could be breathing your Ontario air from last week!

If Jacob would look at carbon emissions "per hectare" instead of per person, he would see that the UK needs to clean up well before some of the other places he mentions.

It's one measure - others are per capita, per nation etc. Per capita makes most sense, as we share the same atmosphere however far apart we are.

 

[Droogs]

per acre would be better as we have a finite amount of land on which to produce it and the population is about to half anyway

 

[kwigly]

Carbon emission per hectare (or per acre) is a better gauge, as it considers the consumption/sequestration of carbon by surrounding vegetation etc, and is closer to measuring the net carbon input to the atmosphere.