Climate change, real or no deal.

[Edward Teach]

One thing is for sure,
None of us are going to make any difference.

Give it 20 years, opinions would have changed,
Oh,
New data tells us we were wrong,
A new agenda will be top of the list.

The human race will fade away eventually,
Planet Earth will carry on !

 

[eLuSiVeMiTe]

Climate change: Ban new gas boilers from 2025 to reach net-zero

A ban on new gas boilers from 2025 is one step to reach net-zero emissions by 2050, say energy experts.

www.bbc.co.uk

 

[Burdekin]

The NASA website has some good clear data on climate change and a interesting read: https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/sea-level/

 

[James1979]

There’s a thing on radio 4 at the moment about geo engineering. Putting rock in the oceans to reduce alkalinity and therefore global warming.

Quite interesting.....

 

[eLuSiVeMiTe]

Climate change: Ban new gas boilers from 2025 to reach net-zero

A ban on new gas boilers from 2025 is one step to reach net-zero emissions by 2050, say energy experts.

www.bbc.co.uk

Had to put up with the radio at work today

Apparently the idea is to replace gas boilers with hydrogen ?

Seems bonkers to me

 

[slim_boy_fat]

But nobody has any idea what needs to be done on a global scale - to curb the problem...

I gave the answer back in this thread (seems ages ago now )....WW3 (but conventional) and said then that nobody would like it.

'Climate' change was going on before mankind was ever sufficiently evolved to walk upright on the face of the Earth, and will be, after our collective demise. Assuredly, we have speeded up this cycle by virtue of sheer numbers but it was going to happen with or without our help.

It's clear the holders of the differing opinions will never reach anything like consensus, so perhaps it's time this thread was locked before it becomes even more personal and acrimonious.... Mods?

 

[mike os]

i have deliberately limited my posts on this subject.....

 

[Happy_welder22]

The data is there, the science is there, I’m not sure everything being expressed as an answer really is, but we need to get on with fixing it.

 

[Gritineye]

Scroll down for description and reviews, I haven't read this book as it just seems to agree with my long held theory, that most environmentalists are in it for the money, and if we keep buying more than we need for basic survival we're doomed.

Scroll all the way down for reviews..

Bright Green Lies: How the Environmental Movement Lost Its Way and What We Can Do About It (Politics of the Living): Amazon.co.uk: Jensen, Derrick, Keith, Lierre, Wilbert, Max: 9781948626392: Books

Buy Bright Green Lies: How the Environmental Movement Lost Its Way and What We Can Do About It (Politics of the Living) by Jensen, Derrick, Keith, Lierre, Wilbert, Max (ISBN: 9781948626392) from Amazon's Book Store. Everyday low prices and free delivery on eligible orders.

www.amazon.co.uk

 

[Wedg1e]

Had to put up with the radio at work today

Apparently the idea is to replace gas boilers with hydrogen ?

Seems bonkers to me

Especially as hydrogen is a gas?

 

[DAPPH]

Manipulation at its finest. The charitys here are a disgrace. One recently used the proceeds, or a sizeable lump of them, from a christmas appeal to pay staff christmas bonuses. Very little of the money you actually give them would get to the donkeys or starving or whatever. Much better off giving to a local animal refuge of something like that.

Even then you don't know how much is going on high wages , trips abroad or personal office equipment etc. put down as a business purchase .
I've sat on a lot of committees , I'd like to see legally binding declarations that 96...98 pence in the pound of funding is used to be doing what they say they are doing not funding jolly's & jaunts etc.

 

[mike os]

The data is there, the science is there, I’m not sure everything being expressed as an answer really is, but we need to get on with fixing it.

The data is not there,.... thats half the problem.. they are happy to indoctrinate you on the analysis/theo but as soon as you ask to see the data you are denigrated

And the science is often deeply flawed

 

[DAPPH]

The data is not there,.... thats half the problem.. they are happy to indoctrinate you on the analysis/theo but as soon as you ask to see the data you are denigrated

And the science is often deeply flawed

True Mike , unfortunately you get the " expert believers " to spout & blather ... " BBBbbut it's peer reviewed & proven " to which I've usually said " Yeah Yeah ! " " You go sit on your butt in the corner & be quiet" .

If you build your theory on false information the whole theory is suspect , especially if you pick and choose from what those disciples / peers believe in , because , they are too stupid to look at things from different angles with a different mind set . I seem to recall a wiseman & globally leading modern thinker ( Danny Kaneman sp? { ? } ) saying everything is just a theory till you can't disprove any of it any more . Even then it's still a theory till it's actually proven beyond doubt .

 

[mike os]

When I peer review your paper and you review mine it all get a bit alabama

 

[Burdekin]

The data is not there,.... thats half the problem.. they are happy to indoctrinate you on the analysis/theo but as soon as you ask to see the data you are denigrated

And the science is often deeply flawed

Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree*: Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities. In addition, most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position.

In its Fifth Assessment Report, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a group of 1,300 independent scientific experts from countries all over the world under the auspices of the United Nations, concluded there's a more than 95 percent probability that human activities over the past 50 years have warmed our planet.

The industrial activities that our modern civilization depends upon have raised atmospheric carbon dioxide levels from 280 parts per million to 414 parts per million in the last 150 years. The panel also concluded there's a better than 95 percent probability that human-produced greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide have caused much of the observed increase in Earth's temperatures over the past 50 years.

Humans have increased atmospheric CO2 concentration by 47% since the Industrial Revolution began. This is the most important long-lived "forcing" of climate change.

The planet's average surface temperature has risen about 1.18 degrees Celsius since the late 19th century, a change driven largely by increased carbon dioxide emissions into the atmosphere and other human activities.4 Most of the warming occurred in the past 40 years, with the seven most recent years being the warmest. The years 2016 and 2020 are tied for the warmest year on record.

The Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets have decreased in mass. Data from NASA's Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment show Greenland lost an average of 279 billion tons of ice per year between 1993 and 2019, while Antarctica lost about 148 billion tons of ice per year.

Glaciers are retreating almost everywhere around the world — including in the Alps, Himalayas, Andes, Rockies, Alaska, and Africa

Global sea level rose about 8 inches (20 centimeters) in the last century. The rate in the last two decades, however, is nearly double that of the last century and accelerating slightly every year.

Since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, the acidity of surface ocean waters has increased by about 30%. This increase is the result of humans emitting more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere and hence more being absorbed into the ocean. The ocean has absorbed between 20% and 30% of total anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions in recent decades (7.2 to 10.8 billion metric tons per year).

 

[mike os]

I shant respond specifically...basically because I can no longer be arsed .... how many of the papers have you read? I would say specifically the ipcc... but generally? How much time have you spent attempting to see the raw data.. ? Or even asking if it is actually a fare representation.... ? Or do you just accept what you are told? There is more than sufficient data to question the findings... but thats not allowed at any level.... IN 2001 I postulated that AGW was the 21st centuries newest religion. So far I have seen nothing to change that

 

[Parm]

Dunno why they want to come here anyway, China, Injia and the rest of Asia is where the opportunity is now (imho). Moving to China is like we used to head to the states, work and money.

You really want to move to India or China?

 

[Screwdriver]

The data are available and typically published (publicly) alongside a paper.

We are not “told” to believe anything, if you read the published paper on which the IPCC derive their predictions and are then subsequently translated by mainstream media, you discover these scientific papers are documenting what a particular person has ”found”. Empirical evidence which they may have gathered to support or promote a “theory” but is nonetheless data acquired under some excruciatingly rigorous accepted process.

So if some bloke toddles off to the North Pole and measures the depth of snowfall at various points, there is no fakery or chicanery. It’s just a bloke with a tape measure and a long stick. The politics and interpretation of those data comes later.

 

[Parm]

But the earth will be around for a few billion more years

By then this thread may have reached eleven teen million pages

 

[Parm]

Assuming that's a Photoshop.

I’ve seen that for real. The sandwiches were a bit spicy though