Forum menu
…Most of which are down to poor land use practices… and round and round we go ♻️♻️♻️♻️♻️
(Or reported as “the worst XYZ since the last time it happened” 🤣🤣)
I think this why people are “fed up with experts” only, it misses the critical part off of the end- ….’not being held accountable for grossly inaccurate modelling’.
Most of which are down to poor land use practices
Land use in Alaska - you'll have to elaborate
Land use in Canada - again you'll have to elaborate, it's been forest for thousands of years
Land use in China leading to 52.2°C - again please elaborate
Record temperatures in Spain down to land use, nah
Fires in Portugal and Extramaduara, there you have a point, the lack of land use is a factor as traditional subsistence agriculture isn't viable in the modern world. A contributory factor but drought and extremem temperatures are are the main contributors.
Canada’s capacity to prevent wildfires has been shrinking for decades because of budget cuts, a loss of some of the country’s forest service staff, and onerous rules for fire prevention, turning some of its forests into a tinderbox.
Trudeau has been playing with fire! Which handily supports his agenda I guess 🎉 Neglect forest management budgets then act surprised when they catch fire.
If he thought 🌲 🔥 thanks to climate change was an existential threat, shouldn’t he have INCREASED spending?
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/06/09/world/canada/canada-firefighting-capacity.html
How many holidays do I need to skip to save the carbon caused by Canadas neglect?
Once again
the plural of anecdote is not data
Weather is not the same as climate
Whataboutery is nonsense to deflect from the issues
Here however is real data on persecution of one type raptor. Not anecdote but real data
“A recently published study of satellite-tagged hen harriers by Natural England revealed that 72% of these birds were either confirmed or considered very likely to have been illegally killed. Furthermore, it found that hen harriers were 10 times more likely to be illegally killed on a grouse moor than anywhere else.”
Peer reviewed and published in a top journal. proven persecution. "You can hide the bodies, you can hide the tags, you cannot hide the data"
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-019-09044-w
similar data exists for other raptors. Its proven. Grouse shoots kill raptors routinely
Lovely buzz words TJ- none of which deflect from the fact that neglect of our woodland habitats is being conflated with climate change effects.
What were the very specific list of consequences for a ‘start of Ind Rev +1.5’ temp increase?
If we have hit +1.5 and those things haven’t happened then the entire narrative is flawed right?
(Random ‘scary’ events are most certainly ‘anecdotes not data’ too btw, no natter how hard folk try and link them- As I’ve said many times, climate is only weather when it suits team Armageddon right!)
🥱 Natural Hen Harrier mortality is 70% +/-.
They are most likely to die on a grouse Moor as they’re the only place with any food….
Not that we know how many birds RSPB reserves have on them since they decided to stop publishing that data 🤣🤣
(“Sorry Drac” before veering wildly off topic again 🤥)
The firefighting means Canada currently has for fighting wilfires are far to superieur to what it had in historically recorded fire seasons, or indeed pre-historically recorded fire seasons. Yet this one has been the worst recorded. And it's not just Canada. The common factor in the increase in wildfires around the world is drought and increased temperatures. Sure there are other factors but heat and drought trump them.
It seems you can't see the wood for the trees, crosshair. The common factors, heat and drought, they're increasing.
The Guardian is just peddling double-speak gobbledegook to keep the fear piled on to the people suffering in their winter fleeces under an umbrella during the UK 'summer'. It's worse than quoting the Daily Mail 🤣
The point I was making remains the same- the temperature figure becomes irrelevant if the predicted EFFECTS don't materialise. That's my main beef with this whole racket- just like Ferguson and his dodgy data, they seemingly pluck figures out of thin air.
Can you tell me explicitly what the 2018 predicted effects were should the earth hit "+1.5"?
Then we can judge whether "Global mean temperature (of those taken from a super heated piece of corrugated tin next to a city 😉)" is even relevant. As above- if the predicted effects haven't materialised then we know they were being a bit heavy on the propaganda.
If you look at the rhetoric from Canada this past Spring, they were talking about 'extreme' temperatures that weren't even above their usual summer peak. That's important because it shows the National forest had changed. Lack of controlled burning had made it susceptible to wildfires at temperatures that used to be coped with in peak summer just fine.
It's like when conservation charities buy a grouse moor and let it 'rewild' and 3 years later the whole hillside goes up in dead-bracken filled smoke. Man has used fire for thousands of years to manipulate habitat and in effect 'trickle out' the carbon emissions that nature would release en-masse in these huge uncontrolled mega-burns.
That's what we are largely seeing around the world- the deranged implications of letting disconnected liberal Townies look after our wild spaces.
I'd far rather have Dr Grant Woods telling governments how to manage their forests 😉
Please could the mods shut this thread, as it's now got a persistant troll.
Good video touching on the UK dichotomy of Wildfire prevention and how shooting is doing a hugely important (and privately funded) job of managing our upload fuel load whilst maximising biodiversity.
Why are we allowing a spokes person for the CLA to post this amount of crap. It's worse than psoting links to the Daily Mail.
One of the things about weather and climate is that it’s a non-linear system. You can make reasonable predictions at certain levels based on observations with some level of confidence, however, weather systems are complex and difficult to model.
I remember first reading about Lorenz working on the original weather modelling. It was all going swimmingly but one day he had to restart the computer and he input the last results from the pre-restart model. But he rounded up slightly from 6 decimal places to 3. And then a whole load of variation started to creep in. A tiny variation created very different outcomes. Whilst this can be seized on by both the ‘it’ll be fine’ and ‘agh disaster’ people, if the inputs keep trending in one direction the non-linear systems which are our weather and climate will also trend. They just won’t be too predictable.
Non-linearity is something we should respect, it is among the most interesting mathematical phenomena and it describes curious and complex systems. Whilst our weather is behaving in a non-linear manner we can hope that the climate we have will remain recognisable. The problem with non-linear systems is that as inputs change, gradual change can suddenly stop being gradual and quickly become chaotic.
Being complacent is not an option.
Crosshair, you’re just constantly posting unfounded opinions from YouTube or links to discredited sources. That and using confirmation bias and apparently confusing weather, climate and global warming as a platform for why everything is okay. Do you even realise that you’re doing this? If you do then you’re trolling and the thread should be shut down. if you don’t then I respectively suggest you read more and look at what is happening on a global scale as opposed to whichever field you’re currently working in.
No I’m not doing what you describe. I’m pointing out that climate change effects are not as clear cut as people are so confidently suggesting. Many/most/all? Of the examples listed as being ‘evidence’ are down to unrelated factors such as poor land management- which is the topic of the videos. The guy in the American ones is wildlife biologist Dr Grant Woods PhD!!! An expert in prescribed fire and soil restoration- both topics pertinent to the subject of this thread.
Whilst the climate is changing thanks to extra co2 in the atmosphere- a point I’ve never denied- it’s also less than clear what the effects of this are.
If for example, the Paris accord suggested that +1.5 degrees above pre Industrial Revolution temperatures would lead to 0.7m of sea level increase and now we’ve hit +1.5 degrees but the sea level hasn’t increased as predicted- then I think we have a right to question the validity of the original modelling.
I firmly believe anyone calling me a troll is so offended by the notion of their echo chamber being violated that they actually aren’t properly reading what I’m posting.
Its not a differing position. Its outright denial of proven science using discredited propaganda sources to make his point.
If for example, the Paris accord suggested that +1.5 degrees above pre Industrial Revolution temperatures would lead to 0.7m of sea level increase and now we’ve hit +1.5 degrees but the sea level hasn’t increased as predicted- then I think we have a right to question the validity of the original modelling.
except that's in 2100, only 77 years out. easy mistake to make a generation here a generation there and one for good measure.
How convenient 🤔
So that bottom graph suggests an 'above 1986-2005 average' sea level increase tied to a temp, not a time.
The 2100 was the prediction for hitting that temp no?
Edukator is saying we may have hit it now. So the sea level rise (if coupled to temp) should have arrived also no?
no
I firmly believe anyone calling me a troll is so offended by the notion of their echo chamber being violated that they actually aren’t properly reading what I’m posting.
We’re reading it and you’re just ignoring factual evidence posted by some folk who actually have a working or sound understanding of what is happening. I’m not offended in the slightest, I just find your arguments to be weak and unfounded or fringe cases of people disagreeing with widely accepted scientific consensus. It is kind of fun seeing how big this thread can get though.
We haven't reached 1.5 degrees of warming, that threshold (which is a political target) is for the long term average increase, not a single month.
On the modelling, it has proven to be very accurate and if anything conservative.
If we’ve got to 1.5º more quickly than anticipated, then the questions are more about the how and whether there is more latency than expected between temperature rise and sea level rise or other feedback loops at play.
It’s definitely not a reason to be complacent.
Non-linear systems are complicated. Interaction between non-linear systems (for instance weather patterns and ocean currents) is even more complicated. Distribution of effects is uneven and there can be unexpected feedback loops. I just hope it’s only as bad as currently modelled, some of the ‘this isn’t what we expected at this point’ papers make me a bit queasy.
@crosshair - sea level rise is not linear, nor is it the same across the globe or even within a country. But you know that as you're an expert
What are your thoughts on the methodology used for the UKCP18 marine projections with respect to sea level rise?
I firmly believe anyone calling me a troll is so offended by the notion of their echo chamber being violated that they actually aren’t properly reading what I’m posting.
There's a big difference between an echo chamber and and scientific consensus. You need some.pretry big evidence and deep knowledge to overturn the weight of evidence for one of the most well studied topics currently. It's not just about your opinion or gut feel, and your rhetorical questions do have real answers that could be answered if you took the time. Just because you pose a question to which you don't think there's an answer doesn't mean there isn't an answer..it just means you don't know it.
I don't think troll is the right word. I just think it is someone who cannot accept fact/science based arguments which don't fit with their small world view and clearly has a lot of time on their hands to make that clear to all.
It's not a small world view to see chronic mis-management of our natural resources across the globe as a bigger threat to our existence than climate-change and to acknowledge that many of those incidences are being mis-attributed.
Imagine if Trudeau had implemented a sweeping forestry management program to restore fire breaks and remove fuel load instead of shutting them down and flying round the world telling us we're the reason the earth is BOILING.
When the people responsible for HUGE carbon impacts (such as whether or not a 25,000,000!!!!!!! acre forest fire happens or not) are also telling me I'm evil for picking up a slightly green piece of Ash on my morning dog walk and throwing it in the Wood Burner to heat one room in my house- then you can probably take their demands with a pinch of salt.
It's actually far more quaint and parochial to think the Earth cares whether virtuous you gets on that flight to go on holiday to Greece or whether Easy Jet flies the plane 1/4 full instead to keep their time slot 🤣
Please don't feed the troll.
What are your thoughts on the methodology used for the UKCP18 marine projections with respect to sea level rise?
I believe that while the UKCP18 marine projections provide valuable insights into potential future scenarios, we need to exercise caution when making radical, life-altering decisions solely based on these projections. My skepticism arises from a few key considerations:
Complexity and Uncertainty: Climate science is incredibly complex, and projections are based on models that attempt to simulate a wide range of variables. While the UKCP18 projections are a significant advancement, they still involve inherent uncertainties and assumptions. Relying solely on these projections for drastic decisions might overlook the limitations of our current understanding.
Societal and Economic Impact: Swift and radical actions can have significant societal and economic consequences, particularly for vulnerable communities. Before implementing major policy changes, we should carefully assess the potential social, economic, and cultural impacts. It's crucial that we consider a holistic view of the situation and not rush into decisions that could disproportionately affect certain groups.
Adaptation vs. Mitigation: Rather than focusing solely on mitigation measures that involve drastic changes, we should also consider adaptation strategies that allow communities to better cope with changing conditions. These strategies could include building resilient infrastructure, implementing sustainable land-use practices, and preparing for potential sea level rise in a phased manner.
Innovation and Technological Advancements: Our ability to address climate change continues to evolve through technological advancements and innovative solutions. Relying on current projections might prevent us from taking advantage of breakthroughs that could lead to more effective and less disruptive strategies for addressing sea level rise.
In essence, I'm advocating for a balanced approach that considers both the urgency of climate action and the potential consequences of radical decisions. It's important to engage in a transparent and informed dialogue that includes experts from various fields, community stakeholders, and policymakers. By carefully weighing the evidence and considering a range of options, we can make more prudent decisions that safeguard our planet while minimizing unintended disruptions to people's lives
Sounds like a chatgpt answer.. 😉
here’s a big difference between an echo chamber and and scientific consensus. You need some.pretry big evidence and deep knowledge to overturn the weight of evidence for one of the most well studied topics currently. It’s not just about your opinion or gut feel, and your rhetorical questions do have real answers that could be answered if you took the time. Just because you pose a question to which you don’t think there’s an answer doesn’t mean there isn’t an answer..it just means you don’t know it.
I don't disagree with that. Hence repeatedly saying I don't deny the science. I don't because I can't.
What I do disagree with is the impact of projected effects both of climate change and of our tiny individual actions (which is after all the original theme of the thread). From a political perspective- just like Covid, governments around the world (not just Wiltshire County Council 😉 ) seem to be drawing the conclusion that implementing huge societal change in the form of authoritarianism is far more urgent than taking the 'easy' wins of Nuclear power, managing their natural resources PROPERLY to minimise natural disasters and not sending billions of ££ of weaponry to explode in Ukraine.
Even if the science is untouchable- the Political response seems well up for grabs still (for now).
Sounds like a chatgpt answer.. 😉
I'm just a simple farm folk, is Chat GP a dating site for F1 drivers? 🤔
I’m just a simple farm folk
Who according to you isn't a farmer.
What do you do down on the farm? I've forgotten.
Authoritarianism and net zero? Interesting discussion.
For instance, building infrastructure for people to ride bikes and to mitigate the impact of cars on our health (mental and physical) and the environment. I would say that’s government balancing the needs of people against the car industry rather than the implementation of a Stasi style regime (which I actually have experience of).
Capitalism kind of works in limited ways but where resources are constrained, there has to be some kind of division of resources so that the system as a whole works. Road space is one interesting case in point.
Making decisions on who gets what can be done in many ways - for instance in the Netherlands the current cycle infrastructure was built because of mass protests about road deaths (particularly of children). The cycle infrastructure was a solution and it’s one that works both to reduce road deaths and people are generally better off because of it. Authoritarian?
Or the Mods could ban them for vexatious shit-stirring?
Authoritarianism and net zero? Interesting discussion.
it like the 15 min city conspiracy. take the urban planning concept that everything someone needs should be within 15 min walk/ride of their home, and extrapolate wildly to locking people into districts.
grifters gotta grift.
its not global warming. it's poor land management. shoot more grouse.
.
that's not grouse poo its frozen socialist globalist tears.
Molgrips
There’s a big difference between an echo chamber and and scientific consensus. You need some.pretry big evidence and deep knowledge to overturn the weight of evidence for one of the most well studied topics currently.
I think Crosshair summed that up .. there is a difference between scientific consensus and political bollox by people who either don't believe or maybe do believe but don't care what happens to humans.
There is also a lot of perhaps well meaning non scientific consensus by people who don't know any better..
Just the last example ...
Woke up 7 years ago today to a frost covered car. It had been minus 3C overnight.
Today it’s 23C outside.Tell me that’s not global warming!!
Mostly they are just repeating the lies of the environmental groups who I struggle to see accept anthropomorphic climate change as real or the effects to be as devastating for humanity as real scientists predict or just don't care.
or by people who do know better deliberately spreading mis information.... e.g.
I guess those massive forest fires in Canada didn’t happen in your world, nor the cancellation of the Scout Jamboree in South Korea, or parts of China having more than a year’s average rainfall in a single day just recently.
Just to mention a few things off the top of my head that happened recently.
There is NO SCIENTIFIC consensus that these specific recent items are a direct result and solely due to anthropomorphic climate change ... there is a scientific consensus that this is the sort of thing we expect to happen but not THESE SPECIFIC events.
I don't know about the canadian foresty specifically but I do know our local green party were saying the same about a fire on the heath.. and of course heath fires have been going on since heaths were artificially created so everyone remembers them so almost everyone KNOWS they are LIARS (including those who still vote for them they just like to pretend and lie to themselves) ... just as the archaeological and geological record has boreal/tiaga forests burning down before and after man.
Serotinous cone species and some species of eucalyptus REQUIRE forest fires to reproduce, they have evolved specifically because fires in the Tiaga and Australian temperate forests are part and parcel of the forest.
THIS IS SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS
seem to be drawing the conclusion that implementing huge societal change in the form of authoritarianism is far more urgent than taking the ‘easy’ wins of Nuclear power, managing their natural resources PROPERLY to minimise natural disasters
We are in this mess BECAUSE of the lying organisations like Greenpeace and FOTE. They are STILL prioritising their anti-nuclear stance over millions to tens of millions dying.
This leaves 3 main non exclusive options ??
1) They don't believe in anthropomorphic climate change or how serious this is to mankind?
2) They don't care about humans
3) They don't want to take responsibility for the lies and mis-information they have been spreading that got us into this mess. FFS the German Green Party is now reopening coal mines and coal fired power generation
Makes you think...
crosshair doesn't understand physics well enough to know that if you leave a freezer door open the air will reach room temperature before the ice melts
People really need to stop arguing with him
legometeorology
crosshair doesn’t understand physics well enough to know that if you leave a freezer door open the air will reach room temperature before the ice melts
crosshair isn't abnormal in not understanding physics... quite the opposite.
According to the IOP "There were 3,675 graduates from undergraduate physics courses in UK universities in the 2015–16 academic year" (I realise that's nearly a decade ago)
According to HESA for the same academic year there were 2,317,880 students in HE or another way to look at it is 3,675 per year of 66.06 million people. Whichever way you look at that its a very very small fraction of people.
You could expand.. say people who build models using FEM, FDM and FVM but that's still a vanishingly small number of people. Just choosing that as one example as the ability to solve Navier Stokes PDE is somewhat dependent on that and something you should be included on.
People really need to stop arguing with him
Erm... people need to start actually READING what he writes and answer the actual questions he asks (if they can without repeating lies) or repeating things outside off THEIR area of expertise.
Take this example ...
Despite having a doctorate in theoretical physics Hossenfelder doesn't pretend to understand climate modelling, she asks an actual expert.
Erm… people need to start actually READING what he writes and answer the actual questions he asks (if they can without repeating lies) or repeating things outside off THEIR area of expertise.
But it's pointless, as he isn't arguing in good faith
When someone points him to scientific evidence, he says it's all flawed because that's it's from the climate mafia, vested interests etc etc
When someone presents data to him directly, he pretends to be engaging in the science sceptically by picking holes in it. When it's pointed out that he's wrong, he reverts back to the conspiracy line
Look at the response to klunk on the last page
It also looks like he posted a big chunk of text from chatgpt -- it reads nothing like any of his other posts
Better land use will save the world 'cos it's a science fact by some randomer on the internet!!
So if land use isn't relevant, we can deforest the entire Amazon rainforest for cattle grazing then can we? 😉
Likewise, Team Armageddon zealots (randomers on the internet one and all) use that exact statement about Grouse Moors etc all the time in relation to carbon storage and flooding in the uplands.
Land Use is the biggest climate related lever at our disposal. To preside over its neglect to the extent of a 25,000,000 acre wildfire should be enough to put Trudeau in Jail.
"Faith" (Good or otherwise) is an appropriate word for some of the ludicrous statements made in this thread. Someone deciding (for example) to make a decision as vast as that of not having children off the back of "The Science Inc." is putting an awful lot of sway into the hands of a scientist whose motives you may not like were you to question them or one whose study may be retracted at a later date (like the '000's of others each year quietly removed without the fanfare that accompanied their original 'findings').
Matt Ridley hit the nail on the head several times today in relation to this thread
As this example shows, the real scandal in science is not the criminal frauds, of which there are always a small number, nor the data dredging and fire-hose publishing, but the gate-keeping, groupthink and bias that politicises some fields of science, turning it into the dogma known as ‘the science’. The pandemic provided a glimpse of just how far senior scientists will go to bend conclusions to a preferred narrative and suppress debate.
Last month 47 scientists wrote a letter to the editor of Nature Medicine requesting retraction of the Proximal Origin paper, and arguing that ‘the authors’ statements show that the paper was, and is, a product of scientific misconduct’. So far the editor, Joao Monteiro, has refused to consider retraction, arguing that it was just an opinion piece, despite the fact that it was peer-reviewed and hailed as a case-closing study.
The pandemic showed how science could be reformed. Many results were posted online as ‘pre-prints’ before being peer-reviewed. This allowed all of us, expert or otherwise, to analyse the evidence and if necessary tear the conclusions to shreds – without hiding behind anonymity. Some of the best ‘peer reviewers’ in this public sense were people outside the conflicted priesthood of virology or epidemiology. Such radical transparency will be vital to the reform of science, just as it was to the Church in Martin Luther’s day. ‘If we are not able to ask sceptical questions, to interrogate those who tell us that something is true, to be sceptical of those in authority, then we’re up for grabs for the next charlatan, political or religious, who comes ambling along,’ said Carl Sagan.
Some of you are not just up for grabs, you've been caught hook line and sinker.
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/science-fiction-the-crisis-in-research/
Kudos to SteveXTC, Crosshair and Edukator for speaking from experience and with intelligence. Interesting reading from all of you. Whether you agree with their words is not here nor there, we would all learn more if we opened our ears to different opinions. The media is pushing bullshit fear mongering, it’s what they do! Having grown up in the countryside much of what Crosshair speaks of rings true.
If you were even a remotely serious bot you wouldn't quote The Spectator.
Also why does a bot have such a boner for Trudeau?
The media is pushing bullshit fear mongering, it’s what they do! Having grown up in the countryside much of what Crosshair speaks of rings true.
Extra point for mentioning media pushing bullshit and backing up Crosshair just one hour after they put in a link from the Spectator, the ****ing Spectator for gods sake.
😂
Extra point for mentioning media pushing bullshit and backing up Crosshair just one hour after they put in a link from the Spectator, the **** Spectator for gods sake.
Yep, we can all trust Matt Ridley, who broke the ministerial code by not disclosing financial interests in fracking, to highlight the untrustworthiness of climate science
Can I call "HOUSE!" please as I've just got a full card on my 'Conspiracy Theory (Climate Change edition 3.4)' card?
BTW the Land Use argument is valid in a way as it is part of the solution but Crosshair is doing a LOT of heavy lifting with it and dismissing every other argument because of this.
BTW the Land Use argument is valid in a way as it is part of the solution but Crosshair is doing a LOT of heavy lifting with it and dismissing every other argument because of this.
Spot on
Also why does a bot have such a boner for Trudeau?
i’m interested in the firebreaks that are said to have divided up canada’s forests. i’ve flown over canada a few times, but i’ve never noticed them, or signs that they existed
i also want to know what the objective of his climate agenda is, assuming it’s not to curb global warming
We are in this mess BECAUSE of the lying organisations like Greenpeace and FOTE. They are STILL prioritising their anti-nuclear stance over millions to tens of millions dying.
Not sure it's as simple as you suggest.
France nuclear power generation 68%
UK nuclear power generation 14%
France CO2 emissions per capita per annum - 4.46t
UK CO2 emissions per capital per annum - 5.2t
France CO2 per kWh in 2022 - 75g
UK CO2 per kWh in 2022 - 18g..???
We are in this mess because of massive over-consumption all across society, nuclear vs gas/renewable is a not a major factor.
Nuttidave 🤔 name checks out.
Whether for grouse shooting or not, can someone please tell me, definitively, if we're doomed or not?
We iz proppa feccin fecc'd
legometeorology
But it’s pointless, as he isn’t arguing in good faith
When someone points him to scientific evidence, he says it’s all flawed because that’s it’s from the climate mafia, vested interests etc etc
When someone presents data to him directly, he pretends to be engaging in the science sceptically by picking holes in it. When it’s pointed out that he’s wrong, he reverts back to the conspiracy line
Look at the response to klunk on the last page
It also looks like he posted a big chunk of text from chatgpt — it reads nothing like any of his other posts
They are just being human... (whether it was chat GPT or not)
Noone is presenting primary data to him they are presenting interpretations... unless you happen to have access to scientific periodicals you don't get data. [This is perhaps a seperate issue not specific to this but that's the way it is and it doesn't carry well into t'interweb and "information age"]
climate mafia, vested interests etc etc
Sure, but there is plenty of "evidence" of vested interests. Indeed for a non scientist there is far more publicly available evidence for "vested interests" than there is for the EFFECTS of climate change.
The thing is just because some people have vested interests doesn't make it "fake"... but you can see why it might look that way?
I'd encourage you to read some of the criticisms and predictions for post normal science... because crosshairs response is entirely expected and predicted.
Essentially from my POV post normal science isn't science, its about policy. The issue is the way it is presented as "following the science" (to coin a term) and how that undermines the general public's faith/belief in science.
It doesn't help that there are all sorts of interests conflating climate change (something with an overwhelming scientific consensus) with special interests be that anti-hunting or anti-nuclear etc.
Look at the response to klunk on the last page
That doesn't answer the question though...
Firstly someone (can't be bothered to go back and look because it doesn't change anything) said we had already hit 1.5C above - secondly the graph doesn't say what +1.5 is relative to and thirdly it's not actual data or referenced to the data.
So crosshair now has two people telling him
a) we already hit 1.5C above pre-industrial
b) we didn't
Being human and not a scientist they are going to take the one fits what they believe.
Again I'd refer to the video of Hossenfelder in a role of "science communicator" (not as a theoretical physicist) with a real climate scientist.
So, what, 20 years later people are still not able to understand that science isn't able to prove anything much and certainly nothing as complex as climate change. Luckily it provides such rich ground for argumentiers.
molgrips
Not sure it’s as simple as you suggest.
Of course it isn't simple but it hasn't stopped greenpeace and fote continuing to spread lies and FUD
https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/EN.ATM.CO2E.PC?contextual=region&end=2020&locations=FR-JP-DE-SE-GB&start=2010&view=chart
Percentage nuclear is less important than base load if there are significant renewables so its not "simple" but removing the option altogether (as germany has done in law) and replacing it with coal can't get much worse.
Compare Germany and Sweden... 7.3 and 3.2 metric tons per capita (or Ukraine though I'm not suggesting we copy soviet tech)
Sorry this is just to 2020 .. Japan has now reversed to new gen nuclear with a 3yr lead... Germany just reopened mines and coal powered generation.
Mind you blaming Greenpeace for climate change is a fairly awesome but of argumenitering
anagallis_arvensis
Mind you blaming Greenpeace for climate change is a fairly awesome but of argumenitering
Without the environmental groups being rabidly anti-nuclear for the last 1/2 century we wouldn't be using so much CO2 emitting power generation.
Even today....
Nuclear power is incredibly expensive, hazardous and slow to build. It is often referred to as ‘clean’ energy because it doesn’t produce carbon dioxide or other greenhouse gases when electricity is generated but the reality is that it isn’t a plausible alternative to renewable energy sources.
Noone (barely) is suggesting it's an alternative... ideally you need baseload and renewables
Building nuclear reactors is costly, running into billions of pounds. The UK’s new Hinkley Point C reactor could cost over £25 billion by the time it’s finished, leading it to be called “the most expensive object on Earth”. Such huge sums of money would be better invested in truly clean energy, such as wind power which produces energy more cheaply.
Noone (barely) is suggesting it's an alternative... ideally you need baseload and renewables but they won't accept anything nuclear.
Reactors are also complicated things to build. A new reactor in Finland was delivered 14 years behind schedule, thanks to problems with the reactor design. Hinkley C was supposed to be producing energy by 2017, but it now isn’t due until 2027. The nuclear industry’s track record suggests it will be delayed even further. Climate change is already happening and we simply can’t wait that long when wind and solar power are so much quicker to install.
More misleading... look at Japan and South Korea. Trying to use Hinkley C as an example when they were the ones campaigning against it being built and responsible for many of the delays is total hypocrisy.
Without the environmental groups being rabidly anti-nuclear for the last 1/2 century we wouldn’t be using so much CO2 emitting power generation.
Can you prove that?
For baseload we need tidal flow. If all the money wasted on nuclear over the last 50years had been spent on tidal flow instead we would have plentiful clean power
anagallis_arvensis
Without the environmental groups being rabidly anti-nuclear for the last 1/2 century we wouldn’t be using so much CO2 emitting power generation.
Can you prove that?
In what way ... can I prove they were partially funded by the fossil fuel industry? Of course its a matter of record. (you can find this yourself very easily)
Have they campaigned against any and all nuclear? its a matter of record
Has their stated intent to be to prevent nuclear energy ?
Would the fossil fuel industry be paying them if it was ineffective? Hard to prove that, but they aren't exactly known for their purely generous and selfless nature.
Are they continuing to do so today ? It's on THEIR WEBSITE - along with disinformation.
Even faced with climate change they simply change their narrative...
You can put nuclear in a plan but it's really expenisve over the lifespan of a power station, disproportionately so. Away from that the history of waste storage and accidents isn't pretty.
Arguing with Crosshair is pretty hard work on a forum as he's got such a background of misinformation and opinion to battle. It's not just tweaking a few numbers up or down.
If all the money wasted on nuclear over the last 50years had been spent on tidal flow instead we would have plentiful clean power
Maybe but we would of most likely created huge damage to the marine environment and destroyed internationally important tidal habitats
In what way … can I prove they were partially funded by the fossil fuel industry? Of course its a matter of record. (you can find this yourself very easily)
Have they campaigned against any and all nuclear? its a matter of record
Has their stated intent to be to prevent nuclear energy ?Would the fossil fuel industry be paying them if it was ineffective? Hard to prove that, but they aren’t exactly known for their purely generous and selfless nature.
Are they continuing to do so today ? It’s on THEIR WEBSITE – along with disinformation.
Even faced with climate change they simply change their narrative…
So that's a no then eh? Makes you think doesn't it!
Didn’t greenpeace publicly say that they were directly responsible for a massive amount of CO2 pollution due to their anti nuclear stance ??
i’m sure I remember seeing a tv program which said exactly that.
and it was greenpeace that were saying it, not someone else claiming ‘greenpeace did this that or whatever’
Didn’t greenpeace publicly say that they were directly responsible for a massive amount of CO2 pollution due to their anti nuclear stance ??
I don't know, did they? Unless they set fire to a load of coal oil or gas it doesn't make it true.
Greentricky. tidal FLOW is much less damaging than barrages
anagallis_arvensis
So that’s a no then eh? Makes you think doesn’t it!
Either way they are LIARS... either they have been lying about their stated aims to prevent nuclear energy or they are lying about the disinformation.
Which one do YOU believe..?