Climate Change is here and man made

[BlueMoonAcrossThePond]

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.

And yet you're a climate change skeptic?

Climate change is the biggest threat to global human well being. Should we take no action, weather will become ever more extreme - flooding, fires, hurricanes and tornadoes. Far, far worse than 10 years ago.

And then there's sea level rise. Ice caps will melt, and as temperature rises, water will slightly expand as a mater of chemistry.

Sea level rise is going to have a major economic impact on most nations - as they struggle to either relocate coastal cities inland - or try to construct things aimed at countering rising waters.

 

[mancity1]

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.

Cheers blue and good sentiment on the current situation.

I think nuclear will play a role in the power mix especially for countries heavily reliant on fossil fuels but whether we like it or not fossil fuels will be around for many a decade to come.

China are building many coal fired power stations that will be around for a number of decades to come and India will be an ever increasing recipient of " clean coal " yes I use the word loosely but best thermal coal if you like for efficiency in generation most of which comes from Australia ( ours is much better than Brazils in that regard ).

As for the analogy I don't trust China not under their present regime and I am critical of their record in human rights and slave labour.

I don't trust them on reducing their emissions.

I actually wish we had other markets for our minerals and we are working on that but unfortunately for us they pay for the food we eat the standard of living we enjoy and our children's education etc.

the stuff we get from them in terms of turbines and solar panels are poor quality and we are not sure what to do with 90 per cent of the stuff we cannot recycle yet once they rot in the fields and the sea.

 

[BlueMoonAcrossThePond]

Cheers blue and good sentiment on the current situation.

I think nuclear will play a role in the power mix especially for countries heavily reliant on fossil fuels but whether we like it or not fossil fuels will be around for many a decade to come.

China are building many coal fired power stations that will be around for a number of decades to come and India will be an ever increasing recipient of " clean coal " yes I use the word loosely but best thermal coal if you like for efficiency in generation most of which comes from Australia ( ours is much better than Brazils in that regard ).

As for the analogy I don't trust China not under their present regime and I am critical of their record in human rights and slave labour.

I don't trust them on reducing their emissions.

I actually wish we had other markets for our minerals and we are working on that but unfortunately for us they pay for the food we eat the standard of living we enjoy and our children's education etc.

the stuff we get from them in terms of turbines and solar panels are poor quality and we are not sure what to do with 90 per cent of the stuff we cannot recycle yet once they rot in the fields and the sea.

Good post.

I don't trust the Chinese per-se either - but they will act in their own perceived best interest

So far, they're investing heavily in green technology - and for very good reason. I do trust them to continue to do so and to be a cooperative participant in climate change mitigation - simply because they have an overwhelming need to do so.

Although they're an aggressive super power - they're not stupid.

 

[stonerblue]

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.

Was thinking more about not pigeon holing you mentioned before, or after, you did just that by referring to people that you disagree with as 'woke. Not that added really though..

 

[mancity1]

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.

Again you are correct IMO about BMATP but I see hope for him especially if he is of a younger version than this old fart that I am and like you I have turned the full circle without veering to the conservative view , I was delusional in my younger days very far to the left but I realise now having been responsible for a family which changes your perspective on things at least it did in my case being apolitical is the pace to be.

I agree the left as I knew them stood for something and something that could benefit the majority of hard working individuals but they have been hijacked IMO and as for the right and particular the far right well enough said.

Funny enough I would have voted for Sanders in the US election if he were running against Trump but not voted at all given the candidates in 2020 if I was a US citizen.

I am still passionate on many a policy though but many voters in the country I have lived most of my life are very dismayed with both major parties at present and now wonder both have little policy differential or appropriate reform agenda to implement and independents and smaller parties are on the rise.

its compulsory to vote in Australia but I will continue to vote donkey as we call it having lost faith in our two party system some years ago.

 

[mancity1]

Good post.

I don't trust the Chinese per-se either - but they will act in their own perceived best interest

So far, they're investing heavily in green technology - and for very good reason. I do trust them to continue to do so and to be a cooperative participant in climate change mitigation - simply because they have an overwhelming need to do so.

Although they're an aggressive super power - they're not stupid.

I hope you are not far off the money blue , I sometimes get too cynical in my old age.

 

[KS55]

And yet you're a climate change skeptic?

Climate change is the biggest threat to global human well being. Should we take no action, weather will become ever more extreme - flooding, fires, hurricanes and tornadoes. Far, far worse than 10 years ago.

And then there's sea rise. Ice caps will melt, and as temperature rises, water will slightly expand as a mater of chemistry.

Sea level rise is going to have a major economic impact on most nations - as they struggle to either relocate coastal cities inland - or try to construct things aimed at countering rising waters.

You need to take off your morally superior specs and do a spot of listening.. I am interested in the idea, mooted by many now, that the analysis of the mechanisms of climate change and the proffered solutions are somewhat doubtful. See my ref at #1290.
Still waiting for You to quote me denying climate change.

 

[mancity1]

Was thinking more about not pigeon holing you mentioned before, or after, you did just that by referring to people that you disagree with as 'woke. Not that added really though..

I am guilty of wokeness myself stoner I am sure of that and have to take that on board.

Again though its not so much the position the person holds but the way they need to insult and sometimes bully.

IMO FWIW many of your posts are well constructed and well thought out.

Its my problem of course but I am just not into the left and right thing that some seem to harp on.

I prefer to debate on the issue rather than be critical of the poster but if I think its an artificial stance of moral superiority I will call it out and yes that will upset some or make some think I am a tool (LOL).

 

[BlueMoonAcrossThePond]

You need to take off your morally superior specs and do a spot of listening.. I am interested in the idea, mooted by many now, that the analysis of the mechanisms of climate change and the proffered solutions are somewhat doubtful. See my ref at #1290.
Still waiting for You to quote me denying climate change.

In other words, you somehow know more than scientific experts - and based on some sort of unscientific sentiment along these lines - feel confident that science is wrong.

"Still waiting for You to quote me denying climate change."
Here you go, quoting you:

"I am interested in the idea, mooted by many now, that the analysis of the mechanisms of climate change and the proffered solutions are somewhat doubtful."
===
You, like Joe Rogan and my brother position yourself as a neutral observer. Unsure of what's right. And you tune into many right leaning webcasts/podcasts/newscasts and so forth. And from these popular opinion posts/podcasts from the likes of Joe Rogan - you hear, time and again, pushback against uncontroverted science.

And thus you conclude "that the analysis of the mechanisms of climate change and the proffered solutions are somewhat doubtful."

Whereas in fact - no doubt whatsoever among credible scientists exists. This isn't moral superiority on my part - it's simply a deference towards those who are expert in these matters and who have no political agenda in their views.

Since you insist upon contradicting the best scientific evidence to date, here's a thought... collect your evidence, write a paper, and submit it to any leading scientific journal for peer review - if it passes it will be published. Or have someone do this on your behalf. Hell, if your ideas were the least bit credible, you'd need take no action - some scientist would have acted this way in line with your beliefs.
===
>> You need to take off your morally superior specs and do a spot of listening
Huh? I do not claim morality. At all. How on earth did morality enter this discussion?

I'm simply interested in truth.

And your ideas have no basis in truth given the current scientific consensus.
===
I'll go further - it's outright hubris that you somehow know more than scientists on any topic whatsoever that you are not personally an expert.

I have no clue at all - on this topic - I simply trust in and follow the science.

 

[KS55]

S

In other words, you somehow know more than scientific experts - and based on some sort of unscientific sentiment along these lines - feel confident that science is wrong.

"Still waiting for You to quote me denying climate change."
Here you go, quoting you:

"I am interested in the idea, mooted by many now, that the analysis of the mechanisms of climate change and the proffered solutions are somewhat doubtful."
===
You, like Joe Rogan and my brother position yourself as a neutral observer. Unsure of what's right. And you tune into many right leaning webcasts/podcasts/newscasts and so forth. And in these popular opinion takes - from the likes of Joe Rogan - you hear, time and again, pushback against uncontroverted science.

And thus you conclude that "that the analysis of the mechanisms of climate change and the proffered solutions are somewhat doubtful."

So here's a thought... collect your best evidence, write a paper, and submit it to any leading scientific journal...

No...? I thought as much. You're simply entertaining "alternative facts" - which are, actually, fact-free.

Sorry, there's no hope for you. I have not represented myself or my views on the facts so can hardly have held myself out as superior to anyone. Since you continuously fail to meet your own statements by quoting me. I am out, as far as you are concerned. And the one thing of mine that you do quote is not about climate change but about the debate thereon.
You are stuck because your original post was spectacularly wrong and, rather than admit your mistake, you continue in a very childish manner to misrepresent me.