Climate Change is here and man made

[KS55]

The Right are delusional. Ready to believe in any anti-science proposition, so long as it's personally convenient. And no amount of argument will convince them otherwise.

They'll be on their deathbed due to COVID - and still be anti-vax.

In the USA - no amount of evidence - from Democrats or Republicans - will sway the Right from the belief that the US Presidential election was subject to massive voter fraud on such a scale that such supposed fraud was the sole reason that Biden won the election.

And on topic - their homes will be destroyed by floods or tornadoes or hurricanes or fire - caused by man made climate change - and they'll still be opposed to action to combat warmer global temperatures for a variety of nonsense reasons.

More politics intruding, l see.

 

[BlueMoonAcrossThePond]

More politics intruding, l see.

My post isn't political - it's, sadly, a reflection of reality.

You - KS55 - on the Right - are typical. You don't get it. There is *NO* credible, scientific debate about climate change. Climate change is real, it's man-made, and man has the ability to counteract the worst effects of climate change if we act now.

But no - the Right - has a set of unscientific alternative facts. Climate change isn't real. Or if it's real, it's not caused by man. Or if it's real and caused by man, it's more expensive to take action than to let it occur. Or if it's real, caused by man, and (vastly) more economical to take action than not, then we still shouldn't take action because other nations won't follow suit (whereas other nations are in fact taking action) and we'll be at an economic disadvantage by going green (whereas green technology is improving by leaps and bounds and might well prove to be a more economical means of energy production than coal/oil/fossil fuels in the near future).

The Right has a seemingly endless supply of excuses against taking rational action - on climate change, on vaccination, on pollution, and so on.
===
And just so we're clear - I've no dog in the climate change hunt. Nor do scientists. I'm simply interested in facts.

I'm a lay-person - I haven't dedicated my life to understanding climate change - nor have you.

Instead, I rely on science to inform my beliefs. And so should you.

The beauty of science - is that it's purely (well mostly) about the search for truth. However popular an idea, if wrong, science will act to disprove it.

Science and scientists - are topical experts - we as a society do well to follow their guidance. To the extent that scientific opinion is massively one-sided (as in the case of climate change), following scientific opinion is even more clear cut.

 

[KS55]

My post isn't political - it's, sadly, a reflection of reality.

You - KS55 - on the Right - are typical. You don't get it. There is *NO* credible debate about climate change. Climate change is real, it's man-made, and man has the ability to counteract the worst effects of climate change if we act now.

But no - the Right - has a set of unscientific alternative facts. Climate change isn't real. Or if it's real, it's not caused by man. Or if it's real and caused by man, it's more expensive to take action than to let it occur. Or if it's real, caused by man, and (vastly) more economical to take action than not, then we still shouldn't take action because other nations won't follow suit (whereas other nations are in fact taking action) and we'll be at an economic disadvantage by going green (whereas green technology is improving by leaps and bounds and might well prove to be a more economical means of energy production than coal/oil/fossil fuels in the near future).

The Right has a seemingly endless supply of excuses against taking rational action - on climate change, on vaccination, on pollution, and so on.
===
And just so we're clear - I've no dog in the climate change hunt. Nor do scientists. I'm simply interested in facts.

I'm a lay-person - I haven't dedicated my life to understanding climate change - nor have you.

Instead, I rely on science to inform my beliefs. And so should you.

Well, it is political. You first sentence says I am on the right and therefore don't understand.
Three things:
I am emphatically NOT in the right.
I am not a climate change denier (which I mentioned above, but perhaps you can't read so well.) and l understand the issues very well.
I have raised the question that many scientists have been talking about, namely whether the accepted analysis and proffered solutions stand up to scrutiny, not whether climate change is occurring.
You cannot judge anything objectively if you see everything thru a political prism as you have clearly demonstrated.
For someone who says they rely on facts, you can't even be bothered to read my posts correctly.
Do me a favour and quote me where I have said climate change is not happening...or shut up.
PS. I have voted for the left since, l guess, before you were born.

 

[mancity1]

My post isn't political - it's, sadly, a reflection of reality.

You - KS55 - on the Right - are typical. You don't get it. There is *NO* credible debate about climate change. Climate change is real, it's man-made, and man has the ability to counteract the worst effects of climate change if we act now.

But no - the Right - has a set of unscientific alternative facts. Climate change isn't real. Or if it's real, it's not caused by man. Or if it's real and caused by man, it's more expensive to take action than to let it occur. Or if it's real, caused by man, and (vastly) more economical to take action than not, then we still shouldn't take action because other nations won't follow suit (whereas other nations are in fact taking action) and we'll be at an economic disadvantage by going green (whereas green technology is improving by leaps and bounds and might well prove to be a more economical means of energy production than coal/oil/fossil fuels in the near future).

The Right has a seemingly endless supply of excuses against taking rational action - on climate change, on vaccination, on pollution, and so on.
===
And just so we're clear - I've no dog in the climate change hunt. Nor do scientists. I'm simply interested in facts.

I'm a lay-person - I haven't dedicated my life to understanding climate change - nor have you.

Instead, I rely on science to inform my beliefs. And so should you.

Do you actually believe blue or can you demonstrate that renewable energy to generate electricity for example will stop the climate from warming to the levels predicted by the likes of Kerry who said recently that if the US went 100 per cent renewable tomorrow which of course it can never get to anyway ever it would make little difference to the climate in the decades to come.

We all rely on information and expert detail to inform us on what is occurring and perhaps why.

the how and when is often the difficult part to implement though.

is Kerry from the left and isn't he the current representative from the Biden Administration on climate change on th world stage?

Now don't get me wrong I am all for co2 reduction from man made emissions as they are phrased for a variety of reasons not all specifically related to a warming climate but he is from the left.

How do you propose we convince China , India , Japan , South Korea , Indonesia , Russia and I could go on to reduce their reliance on iron ore , coal , gas , oil, petro - chemicals to the levels needed to get to a target of net zero by 2050 for example and even then what impact will that actually have on global warming.

China are a law unto themselves and they produce 30 per cent of the CO2 that reaches the troposphere and beyond at present.

their polit bureau refuses to acknowedlge the pandemic originated from their country at present and you cannot alter what you don't acknowledge as they say.

 

[mancity1]

Well, it is political. You first sentence says I am on the right and therefore don't understand.
Three things:
I am emphatically NOT in the right.
I am not a climate change denier (which I mentioned above) and l understand the issues very well.
I have raised the question that many scientists have been talking about, namely whether the accepted analysis and proffered solutions stand up to scrutiny.
You cannot judge anything objectively if you see everything thru a political prism as you have clearly demonstrated. Very poor judgement.
PS. I have voted for the left since, l guess, before you were born.

It's often the zeitgeists no matter where they are for that get things wrong when they pidgeon hole others.

I would have guessed you were from the left in fact from reading the way you have very succinctly argued your position and posed pertinent questions that deserve scrutiny and analysis but unfortunately BMATP is on another tram.

Like many he would think I was from the right because I can relate positively to much of your sentiment.

In truth I was left , then became centrist and now am apolitical and will likely remain so.

I am interested in policy not politics and care none what tram you ride in.

I wonder if BMATP will ditch his car and encourage everyone he knows that is physical able to and ride a bike for the rest of his days for starters and ditch his iphone and do likewise as these items are riddled with co2 that ends upstairs and traps heat from the earth and the sun.

 

[stonerblue]

If it wasn't for the ''woke'' media , it wouldn't be in the Media at all

Right wing press would rather not discuss

It's often the zeitgeists no matter where they are for that get things wrong when they pidgeon hole others.

I would have guessed you were from the left in fact from reading the way you have very succinctly argued your position and posed pertinent questions that deserve scrutiny and analysis but unfortunately BMATP is on another tram.

Like many he would think I was from the right because I can relate positively to much of your sentiment.

In truth I was left , then became centrist and now am apolitical and will likely remain so.

I am interested in policy not politics and care none what tram you ride in.

I wonder if BMATP will ditch his car and encourage everyone he knows that is physical able to and ride a bike for the rest of his days for starters and ditch his iphone and do likewise as these items are riddled with co2 that ends upstairs and traps heat from the earth and the sun.

Don't mention the 'wokes' again and you might get away with it..

 

[BlueMoonAcrossThePond]

Do you actually believe blue or can you demonstrate that renewable energy to generate electricity for example will stop the climate from warming to the levels predicted by the likes of Kerry who said recently that if the US went 100 per cent renewable tomorrow which of course it can never get to anyway ever it would make little difference to the climate in the decades to come.

We all rely on information and expert detail to inform us on what is occurring and perhaps why.

the how and when is often the difficult part to implement though.

is Kerry from the left and isn't he the current representative from the Biden Administration on climate change on th world stage?

Now don't get me wrong I am all for co2 reduction from man made emissions as they are phrased for a variety of reasons not all specifically related to a warming climate but he is from the left.

How do you propose we convince China , India , Japan , South Korea , Indonesia , Russia and I could go on to reduce their reliance on iron ore , coal , gas , oil, petro - chemicals to the levels needed to get to a target of net zero by 2050 for example and even then what impact will that actually have on global warming.

China are a law unto themselves and they produce 30 per cent of the CO2 that reaches the troposphere and beyond at present.

their polit bureau refuses to acknowedlge the pandemic originated from their country at present and you cannot alter what you don't acknowledge as they say.

Thanks for the post Mancity1.

For the record I don't believe that so-called renewable energy is going to be singularly sufficient as a replacement for fossil fuel-based energy generation - I do, however, believe that renewable energy will play a major role.

Nuclear fission - in the short term - will need to come into prominence. Green energy usually suffers from temporal unavailability (the sun isn't shining or it's cloudy, the wind isn't blowing, the tides aren't conducive to power generation, we've dammed all that we can) and so on.

Numerous massively more safe nuclear fission technologies now exist.

I, however, favor the retirement of unsafe nuclear fission sites/technologies. Many 30+ year-old nuclear fission sites are situated on unsafe grounds - next to oceans unable to withstand tidal waves foreseeable due to climate change; or are situated on earthquake fault lines; and so on. I do not particular trust as safe, any nuclear plant built 10 years or more ago.

The temporal unavailability of specific green power generation technologies wouldn't be a problem if we had an efficient battery technology - to store excess power efficiently and then to release this energy when green power is unavailable - unfortunately, such battery technology is presently unavailable on a global scale (in spite of some really ingenious local techniques such as pumping water uphill during excess power periods and then letting the uphill water power generators at times when green power is offline).

And nuclear fusion isn't a near future energy alternative. See:


China is the world leader in green technology. And China is going to eat our lunch unless we catch up.

With respect to the origin of COVID - yes it seems to have originated in China - and possibly it originated from an accidental leak from a Chinese research facility. I'm not sure what that has to do with climate change though.

 

[KS55]

It's often the zeitgeists no matter where they are for that get things wrong when they pidgeon hole others.

I would have guessed you were from the left in fact from reading the way you have very succinctly argued your position and posed pertinent questions that deserve scrutiny and analysis but unfortunately BMATP is on another tram.

Like many he would think I was from the right because I can relate positively to much of your sentiment.

In truth I was left , then became centrist and now am apolitical and will likely remain so.

I am interested in policy not politics and care none what tram you ride in.

I wonder if BMATP will ditch his car and encourage everyone he knows that is physical able to and ride a bike for the rest of his days for starters and ditch his iphone and do likewise as these items are riddled with co2 that ends upstairs and traps heat from the earth and the sun.

BMATP is a sad case, l think, or perhaps one too young to have developed discerning judgement yet.
Your political journey is similar to mine. I started on the far left, even voting Communist(!), and gravitated slowly to a centrist position. My natural sympathies are still leftward but I no longer support many left positions in politics. I still vote (haven't missed any election at any level for over 50 years) but I hold my nose while doing so.

 

[mancity1]

Don't mention the 'wokes' again and you might get away with it..

Not in a competition stoner , the left don't own the term woke.

Its a term I use to describe a comment that comes from what i perceive to be a morally superior perspective..

I think or would like to think we are equals on that score.

Hope it doesn't offend but if it is does don't worry be happy.

 

[KS55]

Here's an interesting guy. I notice he has been denounced by some fools. Argue against him, if you wish, but don't diss him.

Richard Lindzen - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

PS Still waiting for you to quote me denying climate change, @BlueMoonAcrossThePond