Phil Pascoe
Established Member
It was commissioned by G.W.
Last edited:
Wild fires in BC Canada.
- Thread starter Lefley
- Start date
Help Support UKworkshop.co.uk:
- Status
Jacob
What goes around comes around.
No nothing springs to mind. Though the right wing media stirs up a lot of nonsense, if that's what you mean.
Diminishing rapidly, mainly because the evidence inconveniently keeps showing up on peoples' doorsteps.
https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/weather/climate-change/effects-of-climate-change
Jacob
What goes around comes around.
Catching up! Better late than never. Taking on governments & companies fuelling climate crisis and undermining human rights | Global Witness | Global Witness
"Everything we do now is targeted to tackling the climate crisis, from exposing the finance and supply chains that are destroying the world’s last tropical rainforests, putting a lie to the propaganda but out by the fossil fuel industry that they are part of the solution, working to ensure that the extraction of minerals central to the energy transition are not resulting in human rights and environmental abuses, and focusing attention on the terrible violence perpetrated on indigenous peoples and local communities, the very people who’re defending the rest of us on the frontline of the climate war."
"When founded in 1993, we were pioneers in seeing the link between natural resources, conflict and corruption. For over 25 years, we have investigated and exposed environmental and human rights abuses in the oil, gas, mining, and timber sectors, and tracked ill-gotten money and influence through the global financial and political system.
Today, we continue to focus on abusive actors, misuse of power and financial flows, but have turned our focus on some of the most urgent issues facing humanity: the climate emergency and attacks on civic space."
NickDReed
Established Member
Cigarettes are not harmful?
Gulf of Tonkin?
WMDs?
Efficacy of recent vaccines?
Right or left, they are all stirring it up. You seem blinkered by you tribal affiliation to anything considered 'left' and opposition to anything 'right' . Apologies if that is received as supercilious in tone, it is merely observation.
I believe you're referring to weather events.
Having that perspective is very laudable. Now, as I say to anyone with that view, live by your belief system. Switch off your IT equipment, dispose and do not buy anything oil based or produced using oil or transported using oil. Grow your own food using the rotation system, learn to spin and weave. No more trips to the doctors or hospital.
Only then in my humble opinion can you state that you are opposed to oil. The reality is that unless you want to live pre industrialisation you have to have oil. The preposition that you don’t want any more oil fields will result in my summary becoming a reality. So you might as well live by the standard it will create and see if you and your family see the works the same way. It will be a bit tough if you live in an urban environment!
Green power is insignificant compared to the countries needs and will remain so for decades.
Jacob
What goes around comes around.
You seem to have missed the point. These were people telling lies, subsequently uncovered.
The climate change science is exactly the opposite - people attempting to tell the truth but facing a campaign of scepticism and lies
Correct. But unexpected and severe weather events, as forecast by the science in general, but without the precision of a local weather forecast.
More fires are now forecast too.
NickDReed
Established Member
You seem to have missed the point.
The climate science is extensive research done by people far brighter than you or I with far more expertise. If I know one thing about science and scientists it is that they believe nothing to be certain and everything should be challenged. Hence Newton's theory of gravity being elaborated on by Einstein's. You will notice that Pluto is no longer listed as a planet etc. What you are declaring as inescapable fact is cherry picked information that supports an ideological narrative. You believe that narrative to be unchangeable and it not be possible that it may be uncovered to be false. Which in my opinion is an unscientific position to take whichever side of this argument you're on.
Severe unexpected weather events have been par for the course for centuries. Local weather forecasts for tomorrow are not accurate enough for me to know if I'll be able to dry my laundry outside. If that is the marker for your future predictions I personally, like many many others, do not feel comfortable basing any future national or global policy on that level of scientific (un)certainty.
Jacob
What goes around comes around.
Nonsense. Seem to be inescapable facts true but what is this ideological narrative?
Nonsense. Not true.
The science seems to be trimmed and adjusted constantly, as it should be, as research proceeds. They get things wrong and then correct them.
The detail may be difficult to predict; exactly, what, where, when; but the general trend is clear with a high degree of certainty.
Agent_zed
Established Member
You keep saying things like this but it is not true.
https://www.nationalgrid.com/stories/energy-explained/how-much-uks-energy-renewable
In 2020 renewables accounted for more than 43.1% of the UK's total of 312 terawatt hours (TWh) of electricity generated. This outstripped fossil fuels over the course of a year, for the first time in the nation’s history.
Whilst we need to further increase this, 43.1% is not insignificant!
John Brown
Freeloading Social media influenza
I'm confused here. We all know of the scientific method. Scrutinise, research, peer review the heck out of everything, and be prepared to modify the current thinking as and when new evidence is uncovered. I don't think that translates as "we all know scientists change their mind, so probably best to believe the opposite of whatever they say today".
NickDReed
Established Member
That all societies regardless of prosperity or need are required to forgo development via any other means that the ones mandated to them by the developed world. For this specific example, cease the use of fosil fuels. An ideology that has been adopted by the 'left' in this case.
Phil Pascoe
Established Member
Two thirds of the way through the book and climate change hasn't been mentioned once. Their priorities obviously changed.
NickDReed
Established Member
The IPCC report is over 2400 pages of scientific research and data. This is condensed down to 31 pages in the summary for policymakers, that is less that 1.5% of the information provided in the initial study. This summary, which is not the direct product of the scientists, is where policymakers, who do have ideological agendas get their information.
My point, and position, is that when very smart people challenge the general consensus which is guided by people with an agenda, I listen.
John Brown
Freeloading Social media influenza
You and all the consensual scientists listen, and if the challenge is examined and found to have validity, the consensus shifts.
Do you really want to get into this? I'm not sure I've said anywhere that I think we can do without oil - what I do believe is that we should stop opening more wells to provide power directly. I accept that we need a certain amount of petrochemicals to make "stuff", but I also believe that need will diminish rapidly as we look for alternatives and our ability to recycle improves as we head for a circular use system.
The practicalities of living without oil based things are really hard, I grant you, but your persistent opinion seems to be that we shouldn't bother to do what we can. In our own personal case we have made changes and continue to do so: We get almost all our electricity through the solar panels installed on our roof, which power up a battery to supply our overnight energy needs as well as charging our electric car. We grow in excess of 90% of our own fruit and veg , which we either eat fresh or from store throughout the year. We have hens for eggs, which also provide the odd male bird for the pot. A cow gives us milk, yogurt, butter and cheese, and any male offspring eventually make their way to the freezers, where they join the pigs and sheep. The sheep also provide wool and yes, my other half spins and knits with it (largely using kit that I've made for her!). Of course there are some inputs that we can't do without, a certain amount of hay and feed for the animals, but they are paid for by the excess we grow, as well as the honey we sell.
I fully realise how lucky I am to be in this position and also that very, very few people would be able to do the same, but I make the point, we live as close as we practically can to what we believe. I also think that if there was political will, a lot more people could get a lot closer to this ideal - imagine if it was mandated that wherever possible all new houses should have a south facing roof with solar panels, or that ground source heat pumps be sorted out as part of the build process. Industrial estates should be clothed in solar panels so the power is produced where and when it's needed most. If there had been the massive subsidies given to the green agenda that is given year in, year out to the oil companies we would be a lot further along the path we need to follow. These are all things that are fully do-able and I for one can see no argument against them.
I could go on...
I am aware of that number which is the percentage of the existing electrical load. It also assumes the existing loading is correct. We have insufficient generating capacity at present, in the good old days when it was state owned we used to run at a loading maxed out at circa 80%. I can’t remember the exact number, it’s a long number of years ago I was involved in the industry. Anyway, today are generating capacity means we run at much higher loading ratios and pay large user to shut down demand at peak times to prevent the entire grid tripping out. It’s a shambles.
The present grid loading does not take into account the additional power requirement should all cars Etc be electrically powered, gas / oil no longer be used for heating. Take that into account and your down to less than 15%
Tris
What am I doing here?
This argument can go back and forth for eternity and doesn't really matter.
The problem is human nature. Like a bunch of addicts hiding our addiction we will all say we want action, then go right back to the behaviour that is going to kill us.
In times of war societies are able to achieve incredible leaps in technology and infrastructure but this doesn't feel enough like a war to most. Perhaps I'm being unfair to the OP who has experienced wildfires and their potential to wipe you from existence, but for most of us here in the UK it is unlikely to hurt us other than financially.
I'll go back to my shed now
The problem is human nature. Like a bunch of addicts hiding our addiction we will all say we want action, then go right back to the behaviour that is going to kill us.
In times of war societies are able to achieve incredible leaps in technology and infrastructure but this doesn't feel enough like a war to most. Perhaps I'm being unfair to the OP who has experienced wildfires and their potential to wipe you from existence, but for most of us here in the UK it is unlikely to hurt us other than financially.
I'll go back to my shed now
Agent_zed
Established Member
You've just entirely changed the parameters of what you originally said though. You can't just say green energy is insignificant now because at some point in the future we will need more than we currently have and then make up a random number. Yes we can assume that in the coming years we will need more electricity if we move to EVs but there will also be an increase in wind/solar/hydro.
Future EVs will most likely incorporate solar cells, such as the Aptera which currently even in UK climate gives about 20miles per day, which would drastically reduce the demand on the grid.
You said (I'm paraphasing) in a previous post we'd have to give up on X and Y if we don't want oil. Well no, we don't need to just live in a cave, we can use freely available renewable energy to achieve things in a much less damaging way than just burning oil and gas. I don't see why anyone other than oil barons/companies would be against that?!
A 31 page summary is too much for most policy makers. They work from the two or three sentence sound bites their ‘researchers’ give them. I use ‘researchers’ here to mean sycophantic yes men who spin things the way their overlord wants to hear.
- Status
