Climate Change is here and man made

Interesting thread to read, a few decent debates in the last few weeks.

Probably worth acknowledging some things here. As much as people like to believe, your own personal effect on climate change is fairly minimal and while it certainly doesn't hurt to make some life changes, we're not going to solve the problem by a few million more people becoming vegan. I have respect for this personal sacrifice but it is very minimal in the scheme of things.

It's also worth acknowledging that climate science has become a minefield in terms of the general public. Many of the people who do talk about climate change on TV or social media also talk about broad ranging issues such as biodiversity, species extinction, meat factory production, food supplies, developing nations, etc and indeed there are a lot of anti-capitalists who try to legislate anti-capitalist legislation in the name of climate change. That's evidently true - the climate change debate has been politicised and is used in the same way that every other social issue is politicised; to get what the politicians and activists want to push through. While these may be semi-related issues to climate science, they are not climate science.

However just because the science is politicised does not mean that the science is wrong or skewed. Far from it. Yes some people are alarmist and want to use climate change to push through their own agenda but no, this doesn't make climate change false or any less of a real threat. It is a real threat - scientific research in lots of different industries across hundreds of thousands of researchers have all shown that it is a real and dangerous problem that solutions need to be engineered to prevent.

The solution to climate change in my opinion is always going to come from major technological advancement in renewable energy, in transport/logistical systems and in carbon dump technology. Our entire world is built on fossil fuels and that is what is changing on an industrial scale. People talk about the pollutants coming from China but they also fail to mention that China has more Green Energy billionaire entrepreneurs than any country in the world. They are the world leader in cutting edge green technology and they have been allowed to bring this competitive advantage because here climate change seems to be drawn across political rather than scientific lines. Usually when there's a problem in the world, the Governments in the West and elsewhere get together, start investing/subsidising those industries and those problems are solved or negated. That didn't happen to the fullest degree with climate change because the right in the US turned this into a tax conspiracy and the left turned it into an anti-capitalism march.

https://theconversation.com/china-wants-to-dominate-the-worlds-green-energy-markets-heres-why-89708

Today, five of the world’s six top solar-module manufacturers, five of the largest wind turbine manufacturers, and six of the ten major car manufacturers committed to electrification are all Chinese-owned. Meanwhile, China is dominant in the lithium sector – think: batteries, electric vehicles and so on – and a global leader in smart grid investment and other renewable energy technologies.
Click to expand...

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-02464-5

In global energy rankings, one country stands out. China is the world’s hungriest consumer of energy worldwide — demanding the energetic equivalent of almost 3.3 billion tonnes of oil last year. Since 2011, it has burnt more coal than all other countries combined. And its reliance on this fossil fuel adds up: China emits around one-quarter of the world’s greenhouse gases, the largest share of any country.

But these figures are only part of the story: China is also the world’s most prolific producer of wind energy, with the capacity to make more than twice as much as the second-largest generator, the United States. And it has about one-third of the world’s solar-generation capacity, building more systems last year than any other country.

Rapid growth in its population and economy over decades, combined with a huge manufacturing industry and mass migration into street-lit, centrally heated cities, have turned China into a power-hungry nation. Recognizing this hunger and the damage that a long-term reliance on fossil fuels would have, the Chinese government has made plans to address the country’s energy needs. And science and technology — in fields such as battery technologies, photovoltaics and energy management — are at the heart of those plans.
Click to expand...

It's important to look at the Chinese strategy because I believe it is the correct one. We see many an activist talking about how we need to lower net energy demand in the West by making changes to our lives that facilitate this. The Chinese have gone the other way - they have publicly stated that they have no intention of using less energy and instead have dumped about 1% of their GDP into the investment in renewable energy technology which last I looked was the highest in the world of any major economy. Their solution is technological, in order to keep bringing the economic growth that energy usage brings. No veganism, no widespread legislative changes, just invest in a growing industry that has a bleeding edge of technology and subsidise them appropriately. It's ironic that to some degree, the Chinese are much more free market capitalists around climate change solutions than the West who have previously attempted top down solutions.

Climate change becoming an issue drawn across the left-right divide is one of the sadder issues in modern times and I believe comes from the influence of the neo-conservatives in the US and how the US culturally dominates the world. Their issues become our issues. In the UK, the Conservative Party have acknowledged and accepted climate science for decades and all of the Tory PMs over the past 30 years have attempted to invest in the sector.

It's worth noting that Margaret Thatcher had a degree in Analytical Chemistry. She worked in a lab. She understood science, scientific results and consensus. She was also the first world leader to speak out about the dangers of climate change in 1988





The point I'm trying to make here is that although in popular culture the science of climate change may well be politicised, and various lobbyist groups have attempted to use that in order to get their other goals, it doesn't mean that it should be labelled a conspiracy or a tax con or not really a problem. No matter if you're left or right, socialist or capitalist, monarchist or republican, Blue or Red, none of this matters. What matters is the science and everybody from all sides of the debate who can read and understand the science accepts the conclusions that we all hear about. We may sit and argue whether the Chinese policy of technological advance without lifestyle changes is the right one or whether it's the wrong one, that's fine, we've all got opinions on how to solve a problem. But to ignore or dismiss the problem because you don't agree with the intended solution that is set out or the agenda of the group that is pushing it is wrong.
 
Damocles said:
Interesting thread to read, a few decent debates in the last few weeks.

Probably worth acknowledging some things here. As much as people like to believe, your own personal effect on climate change is fairly minimal and while it certainly doesn't hurt to make some life changes, we're not going to solve the problem by a few million more people becoming vegan. I have respect for this personal sacrifice but it is very minimal in the scheme of things.

It's also worth acknowledging that climate science has become a minefield in terms of the general public. Many of the people who do talk about climate change on TV or social media also talk about broad ranging issues such as biodiversity, species extinction, meat factory production, food supplies, developing nations, etc and indeed there are a lot of anti-capitalists who try to legislate anti-capitalist legislation in the name of climate change. That's evidently true - the climate change debate has been politicised and is used in the same way that every other social issue is politicised; to get what the politicians and activists want to push through. While these may be semi-related issues to climate science, they are not climate science.

However just because the science is politicised does not mean that the science is wrong or skewed. Far from it. Yes some people are alarmist and want to use climate change to push through their own agenda but no, this doesn't make climate change false or any less of a real threat. It is a real threat - scientific research in lots of different industries across hundreds of thousands of researchers have all shown that it is a real and dangerous problem that solutions need to be engineered to prevent.

The solution to climate change in my opinion is always going to come from major technological advancement in renewable energy, in transport/logistical systems and in carbon dump technology. Our entire world is built on fossil fuels and that is what is changing on an industrial scale. People talk about the pollutants coming from China but they also fail to mention that China has more Green Energy billionaire entrepreneurs than any country in the world. They are the world leader in cutting edge green technology and they have been allowed to bring this competitive advantage because here climate change seems to be drawn across political rather than scientific lines. Usually when there's a problem in the world, the Governments in the West and elsewhere get together, start investing/subsidising those industries and those problems are solved or negated. That didn't happen to the fullest degree with climate change because the right in the US turned this into a tax conspiracy and the left turned it into an anti-capitalism march.

https://theconversation.com/china-wants-to-dominate-the-worlds-green-energy-markets-heres-why-89708



https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-02464-5



It's important to look at the Chinese strategy because I believe it is the correct one. We see many an activist talking about how we need to lower net energy demand in the West by making changes to our lives that facilitate this. The Chinese have gone the other way - they have publicly stated that they have no intention of using less energy and instead have dumped about 1% of their GDP into the investment in renewable energy technology which last I looked was the highest in the world of any major economy. Their solution is technological, in order to keep bringing the economic growth that energy usage brings. No veganism, no widespread legislative changes, just invest in a growing industry that has a bleeding edge of technology and subsidise them appropriately. It's ironic that to some degree, the Chinese are much more free market capitalists around climate change solutions than the West who have previously attempted top down solutions.

Climate change becoming an issue drawn across the left-right divide is one of the sadder issues in modern times and I believe comes from the influence of the neo-conservatives in the US and how the US culturally dominates the world. Their issues become our issues. In the UK, the Conservative Party have acknowledged and accepted climate science for decades and all of the Tory PMs over the past 30 years have attempted to invest in the sector.

It's worth noting that Margaret Thatcher had a degree in Analytical Chemistry. She worked in a lab. She understood science, scientific results and consensus. She was also the first world leader to speak out about the dangers of climate change in 1988





The point I'm trying to make here is that although in popular culture the science of climate change may well be politicised, and various lobbyist groups have attempted to use that in order to get their other goals, it doesn't mean that it should be labelled a conspiracy or a tax con or not really a problem. No matter if you're left or right, socialist or capitalist, monarchist or republican, Blue or Red, none of this matters. What matters is the science and everybody from all sides of the debate who can read and understand the science accepts the conclusions that we all hear about. We may sit and argue whether the Chinese policy of technological advance without lifestyle changes is the right one or whether it's the wrong one, that's fine, we've all got opinions on how to solve a problem. But to ignore or dismiss the problem because you don't agree with the intended solution that is set out or the agenda of the group that is pushing it is wrong.
Click to expand...

Always remember you being the best poster on here around this topic. Good to see you back on it!
 
We are really pissing in the wind with electric vehicles.
Whilst we all know how bad fossil fuel devouring cars are isn’t it about time the government and motor industry came clean about electric powered cars?

These vehicles are not clean and are potentially bloody dangerous if you happen to have a crash in one
 
www.bbc.co.uk

US lab stands on threshold of key nuclear fusion goal

A US science institute is on the verge of achieving a longstanding goal in nuclear fusion research.
www.bbc.co.uk www.bbc.co.uk

Fusion hopefully 1 step closer, slowly getting there.

saw a video the other day though that said tritium that is currently used is very very rare, as in at most maybe 24kg worth on the entire planet.

However Helium 3 could be used instead which while still quite rare on earth is massively abundant... on the moon. Moon base and mining ahoy.
 
inbetween said:
The crazy thing about it is we see XR and all the others marching day by day but they have the wrong answers to the wrong questions. They want us to do something now about changes to global temperature and let's say we did, great. What do we do though whilst we are still converting land to farms, fields to houses etc? The worlds population will hit 10 billion over the next 20 years, where are these people going to live and what are they going to eat?

There's a reason all of this is happening and it purely comes down to the fact that humans exist. We can't do anything about that and it's not exactly a mainstream argument to limit the number of children that people can have or to halt any growth in consumption by banning consumption.

Boris is going on about moving us towards electric cars for example but that just moves the goalposts to another form of consumer consumption which has different implications for the environment compared to petrol cars. Electric cars still necessitate roads, they still require factories and they still therefore contribute to the problem no differently. Increase the population by 10% in 15 years and the impact is absolutely the same as petrol cars.

Eventually in 100 years time this question won't be about banning cars, instead it will be about whether we should ban people from eating today because we don't have enough food... That sounds insane but that's where we are headed. The climate emergency thing is a bit of a joke compared to the real emergency that's happening and we don't even know about it.
Click to expand...
Obesity problem solved. Let them eat cake.
 
KS55 said:
I read an article recently that suggested that the Gulf Stream was failing and that northern climes would turn arctic.
Good luck.
Click to expand...

Yep, If the Atlantic currents stop ( they are about 15-20% slower than they used to be ) then we're looking at about 10-15'c temperature drop in the UK + Northern Europe.
 
Hi, I'm a masters student at the University of Salford and am writing a dissertation about sustainability and climate change in football. If you are over 18 and would like to help me with this dissertation, could you please answer this short questionnaire at https://salford.onlinesurveys.ac.uk/sustainability-in-football The questionnaire is anonymous and easy to complete, I am happy to answer any questions you have about it and this topic.
 
Are you worried about climate change? Do you think the world is warming at an unprecedented rate? Do you think CO2 is causing global warming?
Well before you opine on these matters, you should watch this podcast featuring Patrick Moore, one of the founders of Greenpiece. He challenges all the received wisdom on this subject.
Just to whet your appetite, he calls Extinction Rebellion an evil cult!
 
KS55 said:
Are you worried about climate change? Do you think the world is warming at an unprecedented rate? Do you think CO2 is causing global warming?
Well before you opine on these matters, you should watch this podcast featuring Patrick Moore, one of the founders of Greenpiece. He challenges all the received wisdom on this subject.
Just to whet your appetite, he calls Extinction Rebellion an evil cult!
Click to expand...

Groups like that ER and the other lot blocking the M25 last week are a poison!

They do the entire cause damage as they alienate the argument as people just look at them as a bunch of idiots who don’t understand how/when/where/who to protest (to), and take the whole limelight away from what should be talked about.

To look at me you’d never think I would be interested in Green issues, 6’4” skinhead… these badly knitted jumper, never wash, never done a day’s work brigades can fuck right off as far as I’m concerned. They give us normal folk who have genuine interests and concerns about this, and the whole cause itself, a bad name.

We need serious people getting behind this, not that bunch of weirdos.
 
With the 26th meeting grabbing thousands of leaders and their contingent along with the hangers on in Glasgow to discuss the weather and emit more Co2 into the atmosphere than the average person will in their entire life time ( hopefully not in the dark ) stating the same old same old ( note how those who stand to make the most money out of " transition " to " NET ZERO " state that every meeting is more important than the previous and that we already are past the point of no return one thing is certain for Australia and all those countries that currently rely on over 70 per cent of the power generated by burning fossil fuel.

If we don't start building and and operating small nuclear reactors then by 2050 our emissions will still be at todays levels given population growth and immigration levels if not higher the price per kilowatt will be much higher than it otherwise would be and we will have black outs on a regular basis as our standard of living for the average Australian drops.

Whole communities will have to relocate and many support businesses will have to close.

On top of that the only meaningful jobs in electricity generation will be on the punt that more off shore wind turbines won't kill too many birds each year for the conservationists that care about endangered species to stop further builds.
 
KS55 said:
Are you worried about climate change? Do you think the world is warming at an unprecedented rate? Do you think CO2 is causing global warming?
Well before you opine on these matters, you should watch this podcast featuring Patrick Moore, one of the founders of Greenpiece. He challenges all the received wisdom on this subject.
Just to whet your appetite, he calls Extinction Rebellion an evil cult!
Click to expand...

Many geo physicists , geologists , climatologists , chemists / alchemists etc agree with these sentiments.

the age old adage is causation the same as correlation.

Nobody can definitively say how much the climate will warm in the next 50 years if we shut down all our power generation , ceased all forms of transport , stopped all forms of mining, and destroyed all the cows in the world and stopped using fertilizer which is what the extinction mob want for anybody but themselves and that's just for starters or what that actually means for humanity.

The more c02 in the atmosphere the greener the planet gets and the better the soil for food production so its not all a tale of woe and destruction even if you are convinced of that otherwise its in the oceans and we don't talk much about C02 levels in the oceans when we talk about climate change do we.

Science . learning , challenge and a change of overwhelming evidence is all but time orientated.

Remember when we all thought the earth was flat ( maybe the off person still does (LOL)).

Remember when we thought the earth was round.

Remember when we thought the earth was an ellipse

it wasn't that long ago.

Today we know it as an irregular shaped ellipsoid.

What has changed nothing but time if you believe time is a dimension., non spatial and measurable.

I know the carnage that would be caused in Australia for example if we did these things over the next 50 years and I know if we shut down the coal and mining industries , there would be little manufacturing of all those products the extinction mob cannot live without , billions more will stay in poverty particularly in China and India and given we produce 1.2 per cent of man made co2 emitted into the atmosphere it would have zero impact on global temperatures.

Be advised I am all for reducing everyone's CO2 footprint including my own and I have reduced it significantly over the past 40 years not for the saviour of mankind but because its a noble thing to do way below the average decrease in Australia through efficiencies in agriculture , horticulture , energy production and transport that have reduced our C02 per capita since 2005 for example well below what New Zealand and the USA have for example but we have to much smarter than biting the hand off that feeds us to make the zeitgeists happy who no matter what we do will never be content with our transition from fossil fuels to energy production that involves less CO2 generation for example.
 
mancity1 said:
Many geo physicists , geologists , climatologists , chemists / alchemists etc agree with these sentiments.

the age old adage is causation the same as correlation.

Nobody can definitively say how much the climate will warm in the next 50 years if we shut down all our power generation , ceased all forms of transport , stopped all forms of mining, and destroyed all the cows in the world and stopped using fertilizer which is what the extinction mob want for anybody but themselves and that's just for starters or what that actually means for humanity.

The more c02 in the atmosphere the greener the planet gets and the better the soil for food production so its not all a tale of woe and destruction even if you are convinced of that otherwise its in the oceans and we don't talk much about C02 levels in the oceans when we talk about climate change do we.

Science . learning , challenge and a change of overwhelming evidence is all but time orientated.

Remember when we all thought the earth was flat ( maybe the off person still does (LOL)).

Remember when we thought the earth was round.

Remember when we thought the earth was an ellipse

it wasn't that long ago.

Today we know it as an irregular shaped ellipsoid.

What has changed nothing but time if you believe time is a dimension., non spatial and measurable.

I know the carnage that would be caused in Australia for example if we did these things over the next 50 years and I know if we shut down the coal and mining industries , there would be little manufacturing of all those products the extinction mob cannot live without , billions more will stay in poverty particularly in China and India and given we produce 1.2 per cent of man made co2 emitted into the atmosphere it would have zero impact on global temperatures.

Be advised I am all for reducing everyone's CO2 footprint including my own and I have reduced it significantly over the past 40 years not for the saviour of mankind but because its a noble thing to do way below the average decrease in Australia through efficiencies in agriculture , horticulture , energy production and transport that have reduced our C02 per capita since 2005 for example well below what New Zealand and the USA have for example but we have to much smarter than biting the hand off that feeds us to make the zeitgeists happy who no matter what we do will never be content with our transition from fossil fuels to energy production that involves less CO2 generation for example.
Click to expand...
An interesting light is shed by the BBCs policy on this. Those scientists who agree with Moore in principle are not welcome on the Beeb, because, in the words of the instruction they gave to news and current affairs depts, The majority view is "settled science" !!!
So no Moore, but plenty of Thurnberg.
 
Last edited:
KS55 said:
Are you worried about climate change? Do you think the world is warming at an unprecedented rate? Do you think CO2 is causing global warming?
Well before you opine on these matters, you should watch this podcast featuring Patrick Moore, one of the founders of Greenpiece. He challenges all the received wisdom on this subject.
Just to whet your appetite, he calls Extinction Rebellion an evil cult!
Click to expand...

Enlightening video KS55 , well done for digging this one out and sharing it with us.

No matter where you sit on the climate change debate and yes I believe its a debate worth having that is not closed and never will be this is must viewing on a number of levels that go well beyond the global warming conundrum albeit many don't think of it as a conundrum anymore.
 
KS55 said:
An interesting light is shed by the BBCs policy on this. Those scientists who agree with Moore in principle are not welcome on the Beeb, because, in the words of the instruction they gave to news and current affairs depts, The majority view is "settled science" !!!
Click to expand...
This is the case and yes there is a lot of evidence to suggest man has contributed to the current level of of CO2 in the atmosphere and contributed to an increase in ppm than otherwise would be which as mentioned is well below levels of yesteryear and the same science used to demonstrate the increase since 1600 for example is used to demonstrate how much more was in the atmosphere many bluemoons ago.

Sky UK has a daily 30 minute show on climate change and rarely talks about the benefits to the planet and mankind when the average temperature of the planet over a 30 year cycle for example increases.

News reporting as opposed to opinion pieces these days is very much politically motivated far more so than it was in my formative years.
 
mancity1 said:
Enlightening video KS55 , well done for digging this one out and sharing it with us.

No matter where you sit on the climate change debate and yes I believe its a debate worth having that is not closed and never will be this is must viewing on a number of levels that go well beyond the global warming conundrum albeit many don't think of it as a conundrum anymore.
Click to expand...
There are some other vids on utube featuring Moore.
When he split from Greenpeace he was the only director (of nine I think) who had a science degree and was fed up with the directors persuing an essentially political agenda as opposed to a scientific one.
Climate change is happening and man has undoubtedly contributed to it. But how much? If we get that analysis wrong, our solutions will be wrong. I suspect politics is playing a much bigger part in the response than it should.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top