Not to mention hail, mildew, fungus, crops flatened and unharvestable by high winds, fire. The drummer in my band is a farmer, he took out insurance for the first time last year, climatic events are now so common he can no longer cope with a bad series and needs the risk spreading of insurance for his business model to work.
"But I don’t doubt climate change is real- I’m just sick of the lies about its effects."
Not just the lies about the effects. Its the lies supporting the theories and computer models that are the most insidious. Now every bit of weather is touted as evidence of man-made climate change. Absolute codswallop is swallowed as fact, like 9x.x% (insert your own fantasy numbers) of 'scientists' "agree". Its become a cult, with anyone sceptical or questioning labelled, with familiar religious fervour, a "denier". Every day the propaganda from the BBC becomes more ludicrous, every single weather event is caused by man made climate change. Monsoon and floods in ****stan during Monsoon season? Man made climate change. Wildfires which have happened for millennia, or simply the fact that southern Europeans have something called a 'siesta' because it gets too hot to do anything in summer... these are now automatically supporting evidence for the CO2 theory.
Looking back over the last couple of hundred years, there were famines where millions died, years where the coastal sea and Thames froze over, dust bowls. 1925, 1936 and 1953 were stand-out years for tornado damage in the USA. And its the same story with other types of extreme weather. So the assertion that the recent uptick in CO2 causes every single extreme weather event is obviously completely false.
You'd think the work of government nudge departments during covid to scare the bejesus out of everyone might give pause for thought at the propaganda being generated. And if you want to know why, follow the money.
Climate change evidence is incontrovertible - its happening and its visible and obvious if you have your eyes open
You can argue the cause ( tho the evidence its anthopogenic is very strong). You can argue about how to mitigate the effects. To argue its not happening just makes you look silly
And if you want to know why, follow the money.
Follow your own advice then and have a look at the billions/trillions that oil companies and countries will lose if we stop using fossil fuels, and then ask yourself where the money comes from to fund the anti-climate change propaganda which you've fallen for.
I can't believe anyone still has the energy to argue with crosshair; seriously, they're unreachable and will just be taking every interaction here as validation of their own intellect
I think my position is clear so I’ll leave this here and get on with enjoying the real world.
Is the climate changing? Yes.
Are vested interests hyping the effects to push an agenda? Yes.
Is skipping a steak or missing a holiday going to do anything useful at all? Nope.
(Email James Common ref the Moors. (He still has his blog) He’s as anti as they come but his missing article was unequivocal)
Nope, your position isn't remotely that coherent
Your position is that you don't want to change, and you'll cherry pick whatever argument you can to justify this
"Follow your own advice then and have a look at the billions/trillions that oil companies and countries will lose if we stop using fossil fuels"
Its odd that people can see the self-interest of the fossil fuel industry while remaining oblivious to the vast sums invested by the world's biggest wealth funds in barely-fit-for-purpose, not-actually-green alternative energy projects, which rely completely on governments enforcing ruinous cliff-edge fuel policies to generate the big returns on that vast investment.
"which you’ve fallen for..." - well there we go, that's the level of debate I was expecting. But then, this is a random bicycle forum.
. 1925, 1936 and 1953 were stand-out years for tornado damage in the USA.
Only if you don't consider any year after 1954. Tornados are no doubt better recorded now but:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tornado_events_by_year
The years you quote only stand out because of the death toll, the 1925 deaths were mainly form one twister. The death toll depends on where the twister occurs as much as anything. Many homes have shelters in affected areas now and warning systems.
It's a classic denier misrepresentation of facts, exactly what you claim 98% of scientists are doing. Anyhow you conveniently left out 2011.
The UK produces 1% of global CO2 and our emission levels are already back to 1890s levels. if we accept the extra 100ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere is man-released, then 1% of 100 parts per million is a tiny amount. Does anyone seriously believe that Britain bankrupting itself to get that to zero will make any difference to the planet's climate?
Meanwhile China approves 2 new coal fired stations per week. So far this year they've initiated 86GW of new coal power projects.
Are vested interests hyping the effects to push an agenda? Yes.
I can't think of a more idiotic comment as this one. The 'vested interests' on the climate issue are the oil companies and their friends who are spending billions to defend their commercial interests by fooling useful idiots such as yourself to defend their profits.
Democratic governments, scientists and international bodies such as the UN are engaged in a battle with fossil fuel executives and oil and gas producing autocratic regimes, and you've chosen the side of the people who are happy to destroy the lives of you and your family in order to protect their profits.
Meanwhile China approves 2 new coal fired stations per week.
China again! I can't think of a better example to follow.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/jun/29/china-wind-solar-power-global-renewable-energy-leader
I find the arguments odd that we shouldn't bankrupt ourselves to deliver net zero because of China. The OBR have come out this month saying it will now cost more to carry on with the existing energy system to 2050 than it will cost to transition to low carbon alternatives. Why would you want to maintain a more expensive energy system and be less well off as a result and less competitive in the global market place?
Come on Steve, you’re a geologist, you know that in eroding areas there’s a limit to how much biomass will accumulate if man does nothing.
my experience trail-building tells me that you can build up a cover of 1/2 meter or so but my experience as a geologist tells me that it also compacts so 1cm of peat bog represents about a year during which time most of that carbon is being locked into the soil/peat. We have a good 50cm of decayed wood and vegetation in the corners of our garden and thats just the bigger stuff as we have a huge compost heap where the stuff can be shredded goes and ends up in the vegetables we eat.
Managed woodland produces a carbon neutral fuel, timber that will act as a carbon store for far longer than if left to rot when incorporated into buildings or whatever.
It depends on what you mean by "left to rot" and the exact fungal mix involved but rotting in buildings is certainly not the best BUT it also delays the whole thing 25 yrs or so at least giving us more time to get the rest of the shit in order. The best by far is leaving it to become fungus food that then becomes more generally bio-available.
In terms of my wood supply my neighbours won’t leave the wood from trimming trees to rot to fungi, they just want shot. At best it’ll be composted but more probably chipped for pellets with all the asociated transport.
That's a completely different case to saying we should be encouraging the developing world to burn wood and dung because it's carbon neutral. I'm complete with this being better than chipped pellets ... but that is separate to saying leaving it to be buried is better than burning some gas.
Managed woodland for fuel and timber is better in CO2 terms than doing nothing.
I'm totally with you... but equally moving from coal to gas or nuclear isn't "doing nothing" and moving developing nations from wood that would otherwise be used instead of fuel to gas isn't doing nothing... they are both very meaningful steps in the right direction.
My neighbours don’t want dangerous trees untrimmed trees falling on their houses and a load of rotting wood for a garden.
Again, totally get this .. sadly the best thing would be them having a load of rotting wood in their garden with an active myco-culture but if they won't do this then sure its better than chipping.
investment in renewables could and should lead to us being exporters of stuff and power.
I find the arguments odd that we shouldn’t bankrupt ourselves to deliver net zero because of China.
The argument that we will bankrupt ourselves is idiotic in any case whether the money is spent on renewable energy or something else. All it does is demonstrate a complete ignorance of how government finances and the money system works. I can only assume that fossil fuel defenders think we dig money out of the ground along with their planet killing fuels.
Does anyone seriously believe that Britain bankrupting itself to get that to zero will make any difference to the planet’s climate?
"yes climate change is an issue, but what possible effect can my tiny changes have in isolation ?".. said a billion people.
For once the UK is part of a bigger picture here.
The best way for an economy to bankrupt itself in the medium term is to maintain a fossil fuel based economy.
to make the world a better place start within yourself and work outwards from there
Old Chinese proverb?
dazh
Follow your own advice then and have a look at the billions/trillions that oil companies and countries will lose if we stop using fossil fuels, and then ask yourself where the money comes from to fund the anti-climate change propaganda which you’ve fallen for.
Or take a look at 'just stop oil' which would be better renamed as "just stop the cleanest production and instead give it to dirty producers"
Take the top 21 producers (just to include the UK with 1%) and of those that JSO can even have a presence 74% of production is China, Russia and OPEC. It's not rocket science to see who will benefit from the USA, Canada, Norway and the UK ceasing new developments.
I think so Ernie - couldn't find an attribution but sounds like it.
Meanwhile on another thread someone with 2 kids is convinced a normal car is too small for them whilst being encouraged by many other van owners that vans are the only option with no downsides........
A fool is someone who knows the price of everything and the value of nothing.
it going to cost an awful lot more in the future if we sit on our hands now.
So stop buying chinese stuff. The bottom line is something they appear to understand.
A bit tricky, given that so much is made there, but not impossible.
The general consensus on here seem s to be " There's no point in me doing anything while governments do nothing"...
Show them that is what is wanted!
Exactly! As consumers we have more power than we think. For starters, look at who you bank with, where your savings and pensions are invested (if you’re lucky enough to have them) and don’t purchase goods from companies or countries that aren’t doing their part. These actions alone are a fantastic start. Money talks and it takes a couple of minutes to move most pensions and change your bank accounts.
So stop buying chinese stuff.
China!
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/jun/29/china-wind-solar-power-global-renewable-energy-leader
I love the “but China” argument. Always the first thing to be spouted by deniers or those that don’t want to make a change. Our lifestyles fuelled where China is today. Their emissions are partly our fault for being lazy and greedy. We helped turn them in to the worlds factory and then cry foul when it backfires.
Predicted terrestrial cooling over next 30 years:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7575229/
I guess this must be the 0.01% scientist that doesn't agree with the other 99.98%
"stop buying chinese stuff"
this is quite hilarious on a cycling magazine website, have you got any more like that?
perhaps we should all ride around on hand crafted oak framed bicycles with no metal parts because you can't make metal in a net zero world
Predicted terrestrial cooling over next 30 years:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7575229/
I guess this must be the 0.01% scientist that doesn’t agree with the other 99.98%
"perhaps we should all ride around on hand crafted oak framed bicycles with no metal parts because you can’t make metal in a net zero world"
But one can stop buying new stuff every year, and remove the need to keep making stuff...
My bike was made in 2009, how about yours?
"My bike was made in 2009, how about yours?"
2002
Grimp. I have no chinese or Japanese parts on my bikes bar peraps the raw metal the frames are made of.
I check the miles travelled of everything i can tbat i buy and buy Scottish first. British second. European 3rd
My road bike was made in the 60s with some parts on it from tbe 30s. What do i win? A hair shirt?
I think the grimep might be sleeping TJ…
I see Rishi is taking the whole climate change thing seriously then!
I see Rishi is taking the whole climate change thing seriously then!
There isn't much mention of climate change in the article that you linked.
It talks of safety benefits of 20mph limits to pedestrians and cyclists though.
And it emphasizes the success of the Tories in the Uxbridge by-election due to the apparent unpopularity of Sadiq Khan's ulez expansion during a cost of living crisis, which has nothing to do with climate change.
The Tories are on the ropes, there is a general election looming, and Labour's huge lead is currently growing. They are obviously desperate. Sadiq Khan has provided them with a gift which they clearly intend to exploit as fully as possible.
My road bike was made in the 60s with some parts on it from tbe 30s. What do i win?
You win the prize of helping me make the point that we don't need to make bikes out of wood, just buy old ones. Clearly not a win with consumer society.
Also make stuff that lasts and is repairable
Once again its the dark green / light green divide. Dark green being a lived philosophy, light green being an add on to your existing lifestyle
Everything in my life is viewed thru this lens - from buying bike bits to holidays to the food I eat. It doesn't mean never doing or buying anything. It means considering the environmental impact of all aspects of your life
perhaps we should all ride around on hand crafted oak framed bicycles with no metal parts because you can’t make metal in a net zero world
@grimep, do you have a link to a net zero scenario that assumes the world no longer uses metal?
The International Energy Agency certainly doesn't
https://www.iea.org/reports/net-zero-by-2050
Global steel production actually goes up 12% by 2050 (see page 123)
ernielynch
There isn’t much mention of climate change in the article that you linked.
It talks of safety benefits of 20mph limits to pedestrians and cyclists though.
And it emphasizes the success of the Tories in the Uxbridge by-election due to the apparent unpopularity of Sadiq Khan’s ulez expansion during a cost of living crisis, which has nothing to do with climate change.
and yet a CH4 or CH5 news segment led by saying ULEZ is for climate change (or words to that effect) .. it was the first thing they mentioned.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not AGAINST cleaner air but ...
1) What will be the greenhouse gas impact of people driving 1/2 way round the M25 instead of through?
If this has been assessed I've missed it ... but I find it hard to believe it has a positive impact on greenhouse gas - and if it is negative then not only does that need to be assessed BUT we need to be HONEST.
2) Related to the above but why is anything "eco" continually lied about and lied directly or implied to be climate change and who really expects people to believe it?
Don't look at this as an isolated thing... there will be a bunch of people from Uxbridge who travel and they are going to realise they are using more fuel one way or another. Probably a percentage of them got told to get rid of their diesel cars they were encouraged to buy and probably another load have been victim to other green scams in the past.
There seems to be an assumption people are so dumb they can be continually lied to and they are never going to twig... and sure some people STILL don't believe Boris lied but its a vanishingly small number. (Perhaps just him and Nadine at this point)
This is where support for fighting (now mitigating is all we can do) climate change is being lost.
On one hand we have people who finally twig .. "but that's not climate change" and on the other we have the blissfully unaware buying their Dolphin friendly eco palm oil to save Panda's doing their bit when they put the "recyclable but not in your borough" in their car to drive to the recycling centre.
TJagain
Everything in my life is viewed thru this lens – from buying bike bits to holidays to the food I eat. It doesn’t mean never doing or buying anything. It means considering the environmental impact of all aspects of your life
But this thread is about climate change... seriously sod the environment and deal with a real existential threat.
Environmental impact is what is driving climate change
The existential threat is the damage were doing to the environment which includes climate change though greenhouse gases which is destroying habitat including our own. Other environmental impacts shouldn't be ignored.
I see the ULEZ as part of an on-going effort to improve the habitat of Londoners which started with clean air acts and sanitation decades/centuries ago. I would welcome such measures in my own town and adapt my lifestyle to suit.
